# Global Warming then and now



## Rusty O'Toole

September 14 2006 - we have no more than 10 years left to act 


msnbc.com news services
updated 9/14/2006 6:17:24 PM ET

Print
Font:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A leading U.S. climate researcher says the world has a 10-year window of opportunity to take decisive action on global warming and avert catastrophe.

NASA scientist James Hansen, widely considered the doyen of American climate researchers, said governments must adopt an alternative scenario to keep carbon dioxide emission growth in check and limit the increase in global temperatures to 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit).

“I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change ... no longer than a decade, at the most,” Hansen said Wednesday at the Climate Change Research Conference in California’s state capital.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14834318/...t/t/warming-expert-only-decade-left-act-time/

November 8 2019

Another Arctic Surge to Deliver Record Mid-November Cold Next Week to the Plains, Midwest, South and East
https://weather.com/forecast/region...tbreak-mid-november-record-midwest-south-east

This is why they had to rebrand "Global Warming" as "Climate Change"

Further comment would be superfluous.


----------



## Prairie Guy

"The debate is over" :excitement:


----------



## m3s

Ok, boomer


----------



## Synergy

I could use a little bit of warming. I'm already sick and tired of the cold weather and snow and it's not even December yet.

Perhaps the planet has changed it's mind and decided to freeze us to death. One way or the other, the planet will win.


----------



## Eder

Oahu has been 30 C everyday last few weeks...I think its because there's an oil fired power planet near here supplying 90% of our power. Shitty sledding though.


----------



## AltaRed

Eder said:


> Oahu has been 30 C everyday last few weeks...I think its because there's an oil fired power planet near here supplying 90% of our power. Shitty sledding though.


In July 2019 for the state of Hawaii, 609,000 Mwh of electricity was petroleum generated, 120,000 Mwh was coal generated, and 131,000 was non-hydro renewables. Hydro is close to zero due to limited opportunities.


----------



## andrewf

Hawaii seems like a prime candidate for solar, if their alternative is petroleum.


----------



## AltaRed

I agree. Have been asking that question for years. Every time I go there. What is holding it back?


----------



## like_to_retire

andrewf said:


> Hawaii seems like a prime candidate for solar, if their alternative is petroleum.


What would suggest they do at night?

ltr


----------



## AltaRed

like_to_retire said:


> What would suggest they do at night?
> 
> ltr


Individual homes and commercial establishments would have battery storage. More difficult for municipal and industrial applications but Hawaii does have a goal of 100% renewable by 2045. Overly optimistic given military and industrial needs but maybe doable given strategically located Hawaii in both the sun belt and trade winds. I have no doubt a surge (and momentum) will develop at some point in time. The real question is when. The public has to be on board for such enormous investment.


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> What would suggest they do at night?
> 
> ltr


Battery storage. You could keep the oil plants for night-time use, but the cost per kWh has to be appalling. So every drop you don't have to burn is money in the bank. Apparently, the average rate in Hawaii is $0.37/kWh, or $0.50 CAD. Yikes. Makes me feel better about the 95% of my energy consumption that happens at Ontario's offpeak rate at CAD$0.065 (a bit more when you include the variable part of distribution). But my bill has a higher fixed component than variable. This is why I laugh at all the people in Ontario who have been freaking out about our hydro rates, including claims that we have the highest rates in NA. I have no idea how anyone reaches that conclusion, as you can just about name any state and they have higher rates than we do.

At any rate, for what Hawaiians pay, I can't see that solar + battery storage is not a compelling option.


----------



## doctrine

It is not hard to find a typical all-in Ontario power rate at $0.23-0.25 kwh (total power bill divided by kwh consumed), which is what myself and many others were paying when I was living there a few years ago in a variety of different locations, housing types, etc. 

Ontario Hydro is on a program of dramatically increasing distribution costs and decreasing the variable cost, because they still have to maintain the infrastructure regardless of when or how much you consume power. Spending a little money is fine, but if you spend a lot of money trying to get a 10-15 year positive ROI without a contracted fixed rate over that term, you may find the ground shifting underneath.


----------



## m3s

andrewf said:


> Battery storage. You could keep the oil plants for night-time use, but the cost per kWh has to be appalling. So every drop you don't have to burn is money in the bank. Apparently, the average rate in Hawaii is $0.37/kWh, or $0.50 CAD. Yikes. Makes me feel better about the 95% of my energy consumption that happens at Ontario's offpeak rate at CAD$0.065 (a bit more when you include the variable part of distribution). But my bill has a higher fixed component than variable. This is why I laugh at all the people in Ontario who have been freaking out about our hydro rates, including claims that we have the highest rates in NA. I have no idea how anyone reaches that conclusion, as you can just about name any state and they have higher rates than we do.
> 
> At any rate, for what Hawaiians pay, I can't see that solar + battery storage is not a compelling option.


In QC I was last paying 0.06 CAD/kWh which in the summer months cost less than the distribution fee of 0.4 CAD/day. States now we're talking 0.11 USD/kWh (nearly triple) and delivery charge of 0.12 USD/kWh ($5 USD/day in my case or 15x) We have it pretty good in Canada thanks to CFLCo's very generous contract with HQ

Here's a recent example of boomer rationale against solar in the states. The same people also freak out about cell towers


----------



## Retired Peasant

andrewf said:


> Hawaii seems like a prime candidate for solar, if their alternative is petroleum.


or geothermal


----------



## andrewf

^ Same people are of course perfectly content with gasoline stations on every corner, venting fumes contributing to air pollution, with toxic run-off and obvious risk of explosion. They are fear mongering about lithium ion battery fires, hilarious! Of course, they also sleep with their iPhone on their nightstand.


----------



## andrewf

For context, my hydro bill is usually around $45/month, maybe $60 with the AC chugging all night. I think the fixed component is around $27 (for the privilege of a grid connection). It all seems remarkably cheap to me, especially when I hear of people in California with $300 electric bills.


----------



## m3s

My hydro bill in QC was like $50/month in the summer. So far my first bills in the States have been over $350 CAD/month. That doesn't include nat gas that costs about $25/month distribution for the stove. I have since added a smart thermostat and LED lights that the State sold heavily discounted. I imagine however the nat gas heat will do better in the winter compared to using baseboard heat in QC


----------



## like_to_retire

m3s said:


> Here's a recent example of boomer rationale against solar in the states. The same people also freak out about cell towers


These are just people who don't want a power plant being built next door. They'll throw any argument against the wall to see what sticks. I can't fault them for that. I don't see why you need to insult older people or how you know they're all of that age.

ltr


----------



## m3s

If you have a problem with generalizing boomers then you can't generalize millennials either

First the boomers were climate change deniers, then they were skeptics, and now they are just delaying progressive adaptation

They will all be dead or senile before they have to admit to their ignorance


----------



## AltaRed

I recently read an article (either NYT or ?) where a developing fashionable trend is for millenials to now use the term 'boomer' in a derogatory manner. Most Gen-Xers know better than that because they are wise to what the boomer generation provided in terms of technological change and standard of living increases, notwithstanding some environmental issues, but at least some millenials don't yet have the maturity to understand that, or their own hypocrisy. Maturity will come as they raise their families and recognize utopia does not come free, and hypocrisy does nothing for credibility. M3s, you really are not doing yourself a favour by denigrating everyone and anyone that was born between 1945 and 1964. It is not even playing well with Gen-Xers. They know hypocrisy when they see it too.


----------



## peterk

m3s said:


> Ok, boomer





m3s said:


> If you have a problem with generalizing boomers then you can't generalize millennials either
> 
> First the boomers were climate change deniers, then they were skeptics, and now they are just delaying progressive adaptation
> 
> They will all be dead or senile before they have to admit to their ignorance


Funny, isn't it, how practically nobody youthful has ever said "OK Boomer", and yet the Main Stream Media is picking this up as some sort of excessively popular meme and cultural statement by Gen Z?

Almost as if they were worried that Boomers were getting too sympathetic to the economic problems facing their heirs.

Almost as if they were worried that some of the Gen Z youths weren't fully swallowing the climate change religion.

Almost as if they were worried that Millennials, with their infant children, were starting to get along with their Boomer parents and worrying about regular things instead of Climate change or Inequality anymore...

Uh oh. We can't have a cohort of inter-generational families getting along so well....



AltaRed said:


> I recently read an article (either NYT or ?) where a developing fashionable trend is for millenials to now use the term 'boomer' in a derogatory manner. Most Gen-Xers know better than that because they are wise to what the boomer generation provided in terms of technological change and standard of living increases, notwithstanding some environmental issues, but at least some millenials don't yet have the maturity to understand that, or their own hypocrisy. Maturity will come as they raise their families and recognize utopia does not come free, and hypocrisy does nothing for credibility. M3s, you really are not doing yourself a favour by denigrating everyone and anyone that was born between 1945 and 1964. It is not even playing well with Gen-Xers. They know hypocrisy when they see it too.


Don't give in so easily AltaRed. This is a "media manufactured outrage opinion" if there ever was one.


----------



## sags

Without going into a long list of advantages we enjoyed as boomers, suffice to say we had a lot given to us starting out but we did and still work diligently to keep it.


----------



## cainvest

m3s said:


> If you have a problem with generalizing boomers then you can't generalize millennials either
> 
> First the boomers were climate change deniers, then they were skeptics, and now they are just delaying progressive adaptation
> 
> They will all be dead or senile before they have to admit to their ignorance


Nah, it's just us boomers understand the media hype and don't automatically become a blind "Gretatarian".


----------



## AltaRed

peterk said:


> Don't give in so easily AltaRed. This is a "media manufactured outrage opinion" if there ever was one.


I've not heard the term used in a derogatory manner except from what does appear to be labels from the media and occasionally those on the protest lines, apparently those who have nothing better to do during work days themselves, and have no problems using all that technology and methods of transportation provided by boomers and Gen-Xers. FWIW, all generations have their thing.... boomers did too in the '60s. So I understand it's just another generation or two (Gen-Yers and Gen-Zers) with ideals.


----------



## Eder

not worth commenting.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

Boomer is being sold as an insult, to make it easier to throw Granny under the bus. The same people who already ruined the economy for young people, are now coming after Granny's retirement money and whatever she has to leave her grandchildren. And they will get it. And everyone will cheer, because she deserved it. After all she's a Boomer.

It may be hard to believe anyone could be that dumb but look at all the shady deals they have sold already. Some people take the trouble to look behind the Wizard's curtain but most just accept everything they are told.

This video was made by George Carlin in 2005. He turned out to be a true prophet.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXhZyAOuyhE


----------



## humble_pie

m3s said:


> Here's a recent example of boomer rationale against solar in the states. The same people also freak out about cell towers



m3 u are usually so good at synching w the locals & understanding their history from their pov ... but you've omitted crucial history here.

for years this zone of cape cod was heavily polluted by the big US military base that's still in operation today. I don't know what-all toxic waste the military dumped out raw not that long ago; but the end result was that groundwater was completely destroyed. For years thousands of residents had to use bottled water. The community was traumatized. It's possible some residents are still on bottled water today.

of course the residents remember this severe pollution vividly. It's in that context that the same people are saying NIMBY to the proposed solar plant. Evidently their residential zoned district includes valuable wetlands.

as LTR points out just upthread, all the cape codders are saying is Locate that Solar Plant on Industrial Zoned Land, Don't Expropriate our Wetlands & Farmlands, Don't Back Into our Homes.


----------



## Pluto

m3s said:


> In QC I was last paying 0.06 CAD/kWh which in the summer months cost less than the distribution fee of 0.4 CAD/day. States now we're talking 0.11 USD/kWh (nearly triple) and delivery charge of 0.12 USD/kWh ($5 USD/day in my case or 15x) We have it pretty good in Canada thanks to CFLCo's very generous contract with HQ
> 
> Here's a recent example of boomer rationale against solar in the states. The same people also freak out about cell towers


I think the boomers could be correct on this one. Why destroy wetland just for solar? I'm not against solar especially if it is decentralized - meaning one one's own house. The pro centralized solar guys don't seem to know about Germany's commitment to green power. They ended up with a commitment to new coal fired plants because solar just doesn't produce enough. so I back the boomers on protecting the wetlands from solar. God know the wind farms kill enough birds and many species need the wetlands as well as other animals to survive.


----------



## like_to_retire

humble_pie said:


> m3 u are usually so good at synching w the locals & understanding their history from their pov ... but you've omitted crucial history here.
> 
> for years this zone of cape cod was heavily polluted by the big US military base that's still in operation today. I don't know what-all toxic waste the military dumped out raw not that long ago; but the end result was that groundwater was completely destroyed. For years thousands of residents had to use bottled water. The community was traumatized. It's possible some residents are still on bottled water today.
> 
> of course the residents remember this severe pollution vividly. It's in that context that the same people are saying NIMBY to the proposed solar plant. Evidently their residential zoned district includes valuable wetlands.
> 
> as LTR points out just upthread, all the cape codders are saying is Locate that Solar Plant on Industrial Zoned Land, Don't Expropriate our Wetlands & Farmlands, Don't Back Into our Homes.


humble_pie, you've got to stop doing proper research into these situations. 

You have to realize that m3s was simply looking for any avenue to put down 'boomers' and use the new meme 'OK, Boomer' in a post.

Now you've ruined everything............

ltr


----------



## humble_pie

like_to_retire said:


> humble_pie, you've got to stop doing proper research into these situations.
> 
> You have to realize that m3s was simply looking for any avenue to put down 'boomers' and use the new meme 'OK, Boomer' in a post.
> 
> Now you've ruined everything............
> 
> ltr




ltr i don't believe m3 was addressing yourself as a boomer upthread. I believe he was addressing PG aka tygrus aka bass player, who in reality is not any kind of boomer, although he pretends so every time he pops up in cmf forum w a brand new username ...


----------



## Pluto

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Boomer is being sold as an insult, to make it easier to throw Granny under the bus. The same people who already ruined the economy for young people, are now coming after Granny's retirement money and whatever she has to leave her grandchildren. And they will get it. And everyone will cheer, because she deserved it. After all she's a Boomer.
> 
> It may be hard to believe anyone could be that dumb but look at all the shady deals they have sold already. Some people take the trouble to look behind the Wizard's curtain but most just accept everything they are told.
> 
> This video was made by George Carlin in 2005. He turned out to be a true prophet.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXhZyAOuyhE


I like that. "they call it the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."


----------



## sags

Someone should tell the big German companies that solar power is a dud. They built a bunch of solar farms in Ontario.

Dumb Germans........they must not know anything about technology.


----------



## sags

I have to laugh when I hear people talking about environmental damage from windmills and solar farms, while advocating for ripping up ancient boreal forests, digging up the earth, processing it and pouring the sludge into massive toxic storage ponds. Then they ship it out on crumbling and leaking pipelines to customers who burn it and pollute the air. 

That is some kind of technology to behold right there.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Someone should tell the big German companies that solar power is a dud. They built a bunch of solar farms in Ontario.
> 
> Dumb Germans........they must not know anything about technology.


Yeah, unfortunately they don't have thousands of lakes in Germany like we do in Ontario. These solar farms are being placed right up against our lakes. Normally, the natural vegetation near lakes absorbs the phosphorous that would leach into the lakes, but with the solar farms they strip the land right up to the lake's edge. The phosphorous now drains into the lakes and causes massive problems with algae bloom. It can release a number of toxins which can endanger not only the health of the lake, but those who live around it. It can harm people and pets, causing health problems ranging from skin irritation to neurological symptoms. When algae blooms decompose in the lake, the process can lead to oxygen depletion in the lake, creating “dead zones” that kill fish and other aquatic animals.

My best friend has a cottage on a lake that is now a mass of weeds and algae bloom due to the stripping of acres of fields in the area to place useless solar farms. But, no problem, who cares about that as long as we can say we promote green energy. So I guess sags is doing as he says and he "laughs when I hear people talking about environmental damage from windmills and solar farms"............ Good for you.

ltr


----------



## andrewf

I have never seen a solar farm on lakeside property. Tends to be rather valuable real estate.


----------



## andrewf

Ltr, I'm sure you're similarly opposed to every other land use that removes vegetation as well, such as your friend's cottage.


----------



## accord1999

sags said:


> Someone should tell the big German companies that solar power is a dud. They built a bunch of solar farms in Ontario.


It is a dud... if you care about reliable electricity, especially in German (or even more so Canadian) winter.












> Dumb Germans........they must not know anything about technology.


Well, they're not very good at solar manufacturing, that's why they got wiped out by China. But what they do know is subsidy farming.

Oh, and also how to make electricity expensive:


----------



## Eder

Rusty O'Toole said:


> September 14 2006 - we have no more than 10 years left to act
> 
> 
> msnbc.com news services
> updated 9/14/2006 6:17:24 PM ET
> 
> Print
> Font:
> 
> SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A leading U.S. climate researcher says the world has a 10-year window of opportunity to take decisive action on global warming and avert catastrophe.
> 
> NASA scientist James Hansen, widely considered the doyen of American climate researchers, said governments must adopt an alternative scenario to keep carbon dioxide emission growth in check and limit the increase in global temperatures to 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit).
> 
> “I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change ... no longer than a decade, at the most,” Hansen said Wednesday at the Climate Change Research Conference in California’s state capital.





Rusty O'Toole said:


> http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14834318/...t/t/warming-expert-only-decade-left-act-time/
> 
> November 8 2019
> 
> Another Arctic Surge to Deliver Record Mid-November Cold Next Week to the Plains, Midwest, South and East
> https://weather.com/forecast/region...tbreak-mid-november-record-midwest-south-east
> 
> This is why they had to rebrand "Global Warming" as "Climate Change"
> 
> Further comment would be superfluous.



Cataclysmic storms,droughts,sea level destruction is the result of climate change!!!!....


or not









This is not based on a model...insurance companies use hard numbers. The trend is their friend.


----------



## AltaRed

There are a lot of good energy charts here https://yearbook.enerdata.net/total-energy/world-consumption-statistics.html to look at by region and fuel type. Canada stands out pretty favourably in use of renwable power (mostly hydro I assume) and low in coal consumption. Should quit beating ourselves up so much.


----------



## sags

2017 was the worst year in history for insured catastrophic losses at $104 billion and rising. Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria were the main cost factors.

It should also be noted these are "insured" losses. Much of the US coast is not covered by insurance companies and are insured by the US government.

https://www.iii.org/fact-statistic/facts-statistics-us-catastrophes

In Canada, the insurance industry has formed a research group to identify "high risk" areas for catastrophic climate change damage. 

They will either raise premiums or avoid issuing policies in those areas. Insurance companies aren't going to continue to suffer yearly losses due to climate change damage.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Someone should tell the big German companies that solar power is a dud. They built a bunch of solar farms in Ontario.
> 
> Dumb Germans........they must not know anything about technology.


Building Solar farms in Ontario isn't about technology, it's about artificially high rates the government pays..


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> 2017 was the worst year in history for insured catastrophic losses at $104 billion and rising. Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria were the main cost factors.


Had those hurricanes happened in the 1930's instead of today the loss would have been a small percentage of that due to far lower population and far lower property values.

The good news is that hurricanes are down.


----------



## sags

That is the point. It is going to continue to be more expensive to pay the damage.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> That is the point. It is going to continue to be more expensive to pay the damage.


Which is why we should plan appropriate strategies to deal with it.

Design resistant buildings and infrastructure.
Plan for the damage.


----------



## AltaRed

MrMatt said:


> Which is why we should plan appropriate strategies to deal with it.
> 
> Design resistant buildings and infrastructure.
> Plan for the damage.


Good grief! Sags still doesn't get it. Same old skipping disc. Time to spend money adapting to and protecting against the changes that will come no matter what.


----------



## accord1999

sags said:


> That is the point. It is going to continue to be more expensive to pay the damage.


Which happens because we keep on getting richer so that we can afford to lavishly build in areas that get obliterated every so often.


----------



## AltaRed

accord1999 said:


> Which happens because we keep on getting richer so that we can afford to lavishly build in areas that get obliterated every so often.


For example, New Orleans has no business being where it is, nor all those houses on stilts on the barrier islands all along the Gulf (and parts of the Atlantic) Coast, nor those mobile home parks in Tornado Alley, nor all those houses backing on to benign rivers and streams, like downtown Calgary and High River, etc. At least TO had the smarts to prevent re-building on flood plains after Hurricane Hazel.


----------



## lonewolf :)

In the 70s global cooling was the concern then @ a latter date global warming. Recently climate change when they realized they were on the wrong side of the trend of the natural cycles. The climate has never been static & those that have a habit of blaming others for their problems now blame others when the climate is not the precise temp for their liking.

The government loves to blame others in their hunt for taxes to get cheers as they carbon tax us to death.

The global warming BS has destroyed the auto industry in Europe. Has us burning our food @ a time the natural cycle is most likely that of global cooling witch results in famine.

If we switch to electric there is not a lot of multiple power grids for competition & for back up when the grid goes down.

Co2 levels have been multiple times higher in the past man is no match against volcanoes


----------



## sags

Climate change is creating more extreme weather that could break 300 historic records.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/11/us/record-arctic-blast-weather-trnd/index.html


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

What is the point of this thread? I posted the first message for a reason.

2006 - Global Warming, we're all gonna die in ten years unless we hand over all our money and power

2019 - Every prediction of Global Warming, or Climate Change, has turned out to be wildly exaggerated. Any change in the last 30 or 40 years is well within normal range

Me: I prefer to live in reality land. It may not be as much fun as fantasy land but in the long run, it's safer.

Others: LOL HA HA Oh you silly boomers, nobody believes in reality anymore.


----------



## sags

Yes......predictions were wrong. The negative effects of climate change have arrived earlier than projected.


----------



## cainvest

sags said:


> Yes......predictions were wrong. The negative effects of climate change have arrived earlier than projected.


Yes, this global cooling is really having an effect here.


----------



## like_to_retire

cainvest said:


> Yes, this global cooling is really having an effect here.


Yeah man, I just finished shoveling 15 cm of snow and it's only Nov 12th. Global cooling for sure. It's a crisis - run for your lives.









ltr


----------



## like_to_retire

_"The record-breaking early November__ snow has moved on, but the record-breaking cold is just taking hold over southern Ontario. A blast of Arctic air will see temperatures plunge into the minus teens for some with wind chill values hitting -20 before dawn on Wednesday"._

It sure has gone quiet from all the climate alarmists lately. That darn weather just won't co-operate. We never hear from them when it's record cold, but they sure come out of the woodwork when there's a wildfire.

It's a crisis - run for your lives.

ltr


----------



## Prairie Guy

And it continues to get colder:

"Western Hudson Bay freeze-up earlier than average for 1980s for the third year in a row"

https://polarbearscience.com/2019/1...verage-for-1980s-for-the-third-year-in-a-row/


----------



## sags

Yes, the extreme changes in weather is evidence of climate change. Extreme heat...cold, dry.....wet, all related to climate change.

Warming oceans have huge climate change effects. They affect local weather patterns and severity around the world.

In southwestern Ontario, we get the Great Lakes snow effect. The warmer the water in the lakes become, the more rain and snow it produces.

In Florida they are dealing with the "red tide" again. Immense algae blooms are killing all the marine life over vast areas. The algae survives in the warmer seas depleting the oxygen.

There is no denying it. Climate change is revealing it's dark side.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Yes, the extreme changes in weather is evidence of climate change. Extreme heat...cold, dry.....wet, all related to climate change.
> 
> Warming oceans have huge climate change effects. They affect local weather patterns and severity around the world.
> 
> In southwestern Ontario, we get the Great Lakes snow effect. The warmer the water in the lakes become, the more rain and snow it produces.
> 
> In Florida they are dealing with the "red tide" again. Immense algae blooms are killing all the marine life over vast areas. The algae survives in the warmer seas depleting the oxygen.
> 
> There is no denying it. Climate change is revealing it's dark side.


So basically you've described weather, and that it changes. Yeah, that's a definite emergency crisis. I'm gonna get my sandwich board out and warn the world.

ltr


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> _"The record-breaking early November__ snow has moved on, but the record-breaking cold is just taking hold over southern Ontario. A blast of Arctic air will see temperatures plunge into the minus teens for some with wind chill values hitting -20 before dawn on Wednesday"._
> 
> It sure has gone quiet from all the climate alarmists lately. That darn weather just won't co-operate. We never hear from them when it's record cold, but they sure come out of the woodwork when there's a wildfire.
> 
> It's a crisis - run for your lives.
> 
> ltr


Saying "gee, it's cold, global warming is a hoax" is just as 'dumb' as saying ever natural disaster like floods, hurricanes, fires, droughts are caused by global warming.

It is perfectly possible to have local record cold temps while the globe is on average warming. A weakening jet stream is one mechanism that might explain why you might get more variability in temps.


----------



## Eder

andrewf said:


> S
> It is perfectly possible to have local record cold temps while the globe is on average warming.


And the opposite may be true as well. We all know records are set all the time....

its interesting that our gov thought it wise to remove 100 years of actual weather data in Canada to replace it with smoothed model generated data...otherwise we would see many record highs set in the 1800's and especially the 1930's...unfortunatelt those numbers will be unavailable to future Canadians.

The scrapping of all observed weather data from 1850 to 1949 was necessary, a spokesman for Environment Canada told Blacklock’s Reporter, after researchers concluded that historically, there weren’t enough weather stations to create a reliable data set for that 100-year period.

“The historical data is not observed historical data,” the spokesman said. “It is modelled historical data … 24 models from historical simulations spanning 1950 to 2005 were used.”
These computer simulations are part of the federal government’s ClimateData.ca website launched by Environment Minister Catherine McKenna on Aug. 15.

Strange that no one cares...well I guess I do since I have enough casual time to be informed.

For example, Vancouver had a higher record temperature in 1910 (30.6C) than in 2017 (29.5C).
Toronto had a warmer summer in 1852 (32.2C) than in 2017 (31.7C).
The highest temperature in Moncton in 2017 was four degrees cooler than in 1906.
Brandon, Man., had 49 days where the average daily temperature was above 20C in 1936, compared to only 16 in 2017, with a high temperature of 43.3C that year compared to 34.3C in 2017.

But lets carry on and dwell on the bad news even though most of it is tainted.


----------



## AltaRed

It is a travesty what Catherine McKenna has done to manipulate the factual record and incite dissension. Just like her launch of the carbon tax citing Arctic data....as if Canada's emissions had anything to do with it. If JT keeps her in her current portfolio, we are going to see more incredible shite coming out of Environment and JT is not going to heal anything in Canada, especially Western Canada. It will be continuing conflict.


----------



## andrewf

Each year, there tend to be more record highs globally than record lows. Flowers bloom earlier, migrations happen earlier. I don't think there is any debate that warming is happening. This is why when people do the whole "look it snowed, warming is a hoax" song and dance, it is incredibly tiring. If your point is that there was also warming in the past (like Medieval Warm Period), then arguing that warming is not happening now is kind of irrelevant, since the argument isn't that warming doesn't happen, it is that warming and cooling happens in cycles and this present warming is 100% natural and 0% human induced.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> Each year, there tend to be more record highs globally than record lows. Flowers bloom earlier, migrations happen earlier. I don't think there is any debate that warming is happening. This is why when people do the whole "look it snowed, warming is a hoax" song and dance, it is incredibly tiring.


There will always be new record highs/lows, they've been happening all the time. Some records stand from way back, others more recent ... that's the normal way things go. 



andrewf said:


> If your point is that there was also warming in the past (like Medieval Warm Period), then arguing that warming is not happening now is kind of irrelevant, since the argument isn't that warming doesn't happen, it is that warming and cooling happens in cycles and this present warming is 100% natural and 0% human induced.


This could very well be the case but I'm not sure what percentage is natural vs human caused. I guess we'll find out after all the bad emissions are extremely limited and if it continues to warm up. Of course the climate activists will just say "Told you, we're too late on making the changes". 

On the flip side, if the climate were to get "out of control due to human activity" it's not like we have no options. We could deploy terraforming to remove gases, etc from our atmosphere but of course the costs would likely be very high to do this on such a large scale.


----------



## james4beach

The reason everyone thinks that the warming trend is human caused, is that it correlates strongly with fossil fuel emission history. It also correlates strongly with CO2 levels measured in the atmosphere.

Therefore, the observations fit a scientific explanation: a rapid increase in fossil fuel emissions results in a significant increase in CO2, which traps heat, and leads to rising temperatures on the global average, including oceans. It's a scientific theory that is well-supported by measurement evidence.

Even Exxon's scientists and the US government knew about this in the 1970s.

And that's why virtually everyone says that global warming and climate change is likely caused by human activities and fossil fuel burning.


----------



## AltaRed

Correction: Climate change is exacerbated by human activity and fossil fuel burning. It is NOT 'caused' by human activity since climate has always changed and changing anyway. That is the part advocates have to acknowledge to be taken seriously. Superlatives don't invite credibility.


----------



## cainvest

james4beach said:


> The reason everyone thinks that the warming trend is human caused, is that it correlates strongly with fossil fuel emission history. It also correlates strongly with CO2 levels measured in the atmosphere.


It also correlates with the times that we have had acurrate temp readings, with both being pretty short term.



james4beach said:


> And that's why virtually everyone says that global warming and climate change is likely caused by human activities and fossil fuel burning.


Yes, some are saying *likely* caused by humans but if the temperature baseline of the earth is warming by itself does anyone have a baseline reading for that rise?


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> There will always be new record highs/lows, they've been happening all the time. Some records stand from way back, others more recent ... that's the normal way things go.


The point is that the records are biased in one direction.



> This could very well be the case but I'm not sure what percentage is natural vs human caused. I guess we'll find out after all the bad emissions are extremely limited and if it continues to warm up. Of course the climate activists will just say "Told you, we're too late on making the changes".
> 
> On the flip side, if the climate were to get "out of control due to human activity" it's not like we have no options. We could deploy terraforming to remove gases, etc from our atmosphere but of course the costs would likely be very high to do this on such a large scale.


The 'warmists' are only ever arguing that human induced warming is not 0% contribution. "Denialists" are arguing that human contribution equals precisely zero.

Just because we can do things to reverse temps in future, does not mean it is a good idea to accelerate warming now. Think of global temps as a giant oil tanker that is gradually picking up speed. It will keep going even if we eliminate human GHG emissions. If we reverse emissions or use other techniques to reduce temps. So even if we take extreme measures to reduce temps, temps are likely to continue rising for decades.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> The 'warmists' are only ever arguing that human induced warming is not 0% contribution. "Denialists" are arguing that human contribution equals precisely zero.


There are likely very few true radical 'denialists' any more than there are radical 'warmists', probably less in actual fact. Regardless, exaggerations on both sides prevent an intelligent conversation.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> The 'warmists' are only ever arguing that human induced warming is not 0% contribution. "Denialists" are arguing that human contribution equals precisely zero.
> 
> Just because we can do things to reverse temps in future, does not mean it is a good idea to accelerate warming now. Think of global temps as a giant oil tanker that is gradually picking up speed. It will keep going even if we eliminate human GHG emissions. If we reverse emissions or use other techniques to reduce temps. So even if we take extreme measures to reduce temps, temps are likely to continue rising for decades.


It's still important to know what is causing the "tanker" speed increase and what percentages are "natural" vs "human". If the tanker is speeding up by factor of 2 a year naturally and only increasing by 0.01 by humans ... well, all of our changes will have little effect won't it.


----------



## sags

Good thing there are still some people around to educate and inform the expert scientists properly.


----------



## sags

Meanwhile in the real world, the NDP is making climate change policy a demand to support the Liberal government.


----------



## cainvest

sags said:


> Good thing there are still some people around to educate and inform the expert scientists properly.


Sad thing is the media sits between the scientists and the public.


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> Each year, there tend to be more record highs globally than record lows.


That's due to the altering of raw data and the urban heat index. Weather stations now exist next to airport runways and air conditioning units.

And now that Canada has dumped all the raw data and instead inserted computer models there are ZERO historical records that can be relied on.


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> "Denialists" are arguing that human contribution equals precisely zero.


That's a falsehood and you know it.


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> That's a falsehood and you know it.


To be fair, "denialists" can't be held to a position. It is like trying to nail Jello to the wall. All they know is they want to keep burning oil.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> To be fair, "denialists" can't be held to a position. It is like trying to nail Jello to the wall. All they know is they want to keep burning oil.


Or the more cautious know what there is to know about oil, as regards cost, practicality, mobility, storage, and infrastructure needs. No one has reasonably imagined, never mind costed out, what is required to support large scale renewable alternatives to tens of millions of barrels of oil per day. I think renewables will mostly be an incremental solution, capturing most/much of the growth in electrical needs, with some displacement of hydrocarbons over time.


----------



## james4beach

cainvest said:


> It also correlates with the times that we have had acurrate temp readings, with both being pretty short term.


The atmospheric CO2 data goes back much longer, reliably, due to ice core samples. There is 800,000 years of CO2 evidence so we know without question that CO2 is currently off the charts. We also know it coincides precisely with industrialization/fossil fuels.

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

So while you are correct that reliable temperature data is more limited, we work with what data we have. There is nearly 1 million years of CO2 data -- so we know conclusively that CO2 in recent years is unbelievably high. It's not a blip.

The temperature data we have also fits the CO2 trend, for the number of years we have it. That's meaningful.

That is generally enough for the scientists. The presence of the CO2 data for 800,000 years is what gives enough long term context to strongly believe that current temperature increases are related to CO2 and fossil fuels.

It's obviously irresponsible to dismiss this much evidence just because the data is not complete. We're trying to take defensive action here.


----------



## cainvest

james4beach said:


> The atmospheric CO2 data goes back much longer, reliably, due to ice core samples. There is 800,000 years of CO2 evidence so we know without question that CO2 is currently off the charts. We also know it coincides precisely with industrialization/fossil fuels.
> 
> https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
> 
> So while you are correct that reliable temperature data is more limited, we work with what data we have. There is nearly 1 million years of CO2 data -- so we know conclusively that CO2 in recent years is unbelievably high. It's not a blip.
> 
> The temperature data we have also fits the CO2 trend, for the number of years we have it. That's meaningful.
> 
> That is generally enough for the scientists. The presence of the CO2 data for 800,000 years is what gives enough long term context to strongly believe that current temperature increases are related to CO2 and fossil fuels.
> 
> It's obviously irresponsible to dismiss this much evidence just because the data is not complete. We're trying to take defensive action here.


Yes I've seen a number of CO2 / Global temp charts. CO2 levels in the past have risen with the global temp long before humans added to it.

We're certainly not at the highest temp or CO2 levels that they've seen in the past but what's interesting is the CO2 levels appear a little higher for the given temperature right now creating an "out of bounds" data set. Given the current CO2 levels our temps should be higher than they are right now (looking at past history) so why are we not warmer already?


----------



## AltaRed

The earth is a big heat sink. It takes awhile for all that heat capacity in oceans to warm up


----------



## Retired Peasant

james4beach said:


> So while you are correct that reliable temperature data is more limited, we work with what data we have.


And apparently throw out the data that doesn't fit the narrative
See post 59


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> The earth is a big heat sink. It takes awhile for all that heat capacity in oceans to warm up


Yes the earth has mass to heat up (or cool down) but the heat sink is really the space outside our atmoshpere, that's where the heat escapes too. Most everyone sees the swing of yearly climate changes associated with the seasons so surface level temps don't take that long to establish, we're talking months here. Even the nearly immediate local surface temp changes can be seen at night, clear vs cloudy sky, as the clouds trap in the heat from escaping into space. So given the above, and with apparent CO2 levels where they are, we should be much hotter than we are now if in fact CO2 is a dominate factor. 

Also, I'm not a scientist but have a somewhat informed opinion. Climate change is a huge data set to understand and it's easy to cherry pick certain data points and say "the sky is falling". I'm in for reasonable reductions for all types of polution humans create. What we really need is to have goverments (and their people) to do things that make really sense and truely understand the science of what is going on. We also need to accept that even if we dropped global CO2 levels the temps still might rise.


----------



## AltaRed

Climate models have to be taken with shakers of salt. To my knowledge, none of them have tracked well and that is because climate is a lot more complicated than anyone knows. Feed forward and feedback loops are generally just educated guesses, and many external factors can disrupt outcomes.


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> To be fair, "denialists" can't be held to a position. It is like trying to nail Jello to the wall. All they know is they want to keep burning oil.


this is ridiculous. its all in your overactive imagination.


----------



## andrewf

Pluto, if you talk to them it is:

-the earth isn't warming
-it is warming, but humans aren't causing it
-it is actually cooling
-it is warming, but that's a good thing


etc.

People do not hold consistent views on this. If your contention is that it used to be warmer and temp variations are normal, then why have this thread about "it snowed in November! LOL @ global warming". Why not just bring a snowball into the US Senate chamber? And all this quibbling about the temperature record being supposedly fudged? If you acknowledge that the climate warms and cools, why spend so much energy denying that it is presently warming?


----------



## AltaRed

Andrew's one liner is completely off-base, but I can understand it given that extremes refuse to use anything but hyperbole, suppositions and superlatives. Perhaps the alarmists need to think in more practical terms. Consider 41 inconvenient truths on the new energy economy for example. While not all are direct comparisons over space and time, the math does demonstrate why oil will be around for a very long time per my post #75.


----------



## sags

A single scientist or discipline that modeled climate change and issued projections based on the evidence collected and the modeling and advanced AI technology could be wrong.

It is far less likely that thousands of scientists in a wide range of scientific disciplines, using different models and advanced AI technology would all falsely come to the same conclusion.

A single or small group of scientists who refute the overall evidence would be far more likely to be wrong. 

The fact is there are very few scientists involved in climate change research who disagree with the majority consensus.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Andrew's one liner is completely off-base, but I can understand it given that extremes refuse to use anything but hyperbole, suppositions and superlatives. Perhaps the alarmists need to think in more practical terms. Consider 41 inconvenient truths on the new energy economy for example. While not all are direct comparisons over space and time, the math does demonstrate why oil will be around for a very long time per my post #75.


You can call it off-base. The only consistent message is "keep burning oil".


----------



## Eder

A good list for thought...I especially liked this one...

40. China dominates global battery production with its grid 70 percent coal-fueled: EVs using Chinese batteries will create _more_ carbon-dioxide than saved by replacing oil-burning engines.


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> Pluto, if you talk to them it is:
> 
> -the earth isn't warming
> -it is warming, but humans aren't causing it
> -it is actually cooling
> -it is warming, but that's a good thing
> 
> 
> etc.
> 
> People do not hold consistent views on this. If your contention is that it used to be warmer and temp variations are normal, then why have this thread about "it snowed in November! LOL @ global warming". Why not just bring a snowball into the US Senate chamber? And all this quibbling about the temperature record being supposedly fudged? If you acknowledge that the climate warms and cools, why spend so much energy denying that it is presently warming?


you are putting words in people mouths without even specifying who the people are, and specifically what they said. Are you talking some scientists? some children in a playground? some journalist? some people on a bus riding to work? 

All the "they" this, "they" that is too vague to be of use in any dialogue.


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> You can call it off-base. The only consistent message is "keep burning oil".


Who is giving the consistent message "keep burning oil"? Give me a person, an organization, and a reference where "they" say "keep burning oil" so I can read it for myself instead of having to rely on hearsay.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> You can call it off-base. The only consistent message is "keep burning oil".


You are off-base because there is no proactive message to 'keep burning oil'. It is more of a 'show me' what the alternatives are to what we are currently doing taking into consideration economics, convenience and practicality. Examples: In the last 3 years, we went from a gas fired laundry dryer and a gas fired oven to electric fueled appliances because it was convenient to do so when we replaced old appliances, we got the models we wanted at less capital cost, and we know our electricity is hydro based. I chose not to do the analysis to see if electricity was less costly than gas for operating costs, but most likely it was not. We won't give up our gas fired cooktop though. I've seen nothing that says deniers, to the extent there are many, insist on continuing to burn oil.


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> you are putting words in people mouths without even specifying who the people are, and specifically what they said. Are you talking some scientists? some children in a playground? some journalist? some people on a bus riding to work?
> 
> All the "they" this, "they" that is too vague to be of use in any dialogue.


They refers to various posters here. How would you bucket your own position? Maybe add it to your signature so we know where you are coming from.


----------



## like_to_retire

AltaRed said:


> Climate models have to be taken with shakers of salt. To my knowledge, none of them have tracked well and that is because climate is a lot more complicated than anyone knows.


Yeah, after they abandoned global cooling years ago, (since that didn't work out), they moved to global warming, and I was totally on board. I could hardly wait. I was thrilled that the weather would be warmer. Who wouldn't want that in Ontario?

Then that didn't work out, so they switched to something that they could hang their hats on regardless what the weather was. It was called climate change/emergency/crisis/, etc. Oh man, I was so looking forward to warmer temperatures. 

In Ontario this year, it is freaking freezing and it hasn't stopped snowing since the first of the month. Many records are being set, although the records only go back 130 years, so it's hardly significant, is it?

I am sick of shoveling my driveway in November.

When is this warming that I had been promised for years going to occur?

ltr


----------



## andrewf

^ Let's file that one under:

"the earth isn't warming"


----------



## like_to_retire

andrewf said:


> ^ Let's file that one under:
> 
> "the earth isn't warming"


Yeah, for sure, and you guys have been making promises since the 60's and it never works out for you. You must feel like fools?

ltr


----------



## sags

The reasons climate change deniers use to continue burning fossil fuels.

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

The psychological reasons behind denial.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/denying-the-grave/201901/climate-change-denial


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> Yeah, for sure, and you guys have been making promises since the 60's and it never works out for you. You must feel like fools?
> 
> ltr


That is quite a feat for me, not having been born!


----------



## like_to_retire

andrewf said:


> That is quite a feat for me, not having been born!


Yeah, I know. You're simply too young to appreciate that there are a lot of old guys that were around when this climate nonsense all started, when they began alerting us to global cooling and getting us all concerned, just as everyone is concerned today about the climate flavour of the week. 

We old guys have seen the climate story change each time the warnings didn't come to fruition. Changes were from cooling to warming, to crisis, to emergency, etc, etc.

You are experiencing exactly what we all experienced so many years ago on this file. Twenty or thirty years from now you will be in the same position we are at today, with young, keen believers telling you that you're completely wrong. 

ltr


----------



## andrewf

Isn't that a bit like being skeptical about modern medicine because previously doctors used bloodletting and cornflakes to treat illness?


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> Isn't that a bit like being skeptical about modern medicine because previously doctors used bloodletting and cornflakes to treat illness?


It is not the same. Geezers have seen too many stories and too many trends go astray over 5 decades or so to take each trend at complete face value. Young'uns too often take our views as resisting change, or denying reality, but that is mostly a misinterpretation of our thoughts. No trend is as it first appears. Never has been, never will be. Be wise, practical and pragmatic.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> Isn't that a bit like being skeptical about modern medicine because previously doctors used bloodletting and cornflakes to treat illness?


Not the same, bloodletting and corn flakes have real science data backing them!


----------



## james4beach

I also don't believe this global conspiracy that people are living longer. Just nonsense!

One of my highschool classmates dropped dead before she was 20, and we've also seen family friends die in their 50s.

When I was in university I heard many stories about people's friends passing away in their 20s and 30s due to accidents and horrible illnesses. And now the liberal media expects me to believe that people are living longer? What is this "average" thing?


----------



## accord1999

sags said:


> The reasons climate change deniers use to continue burning fossil fuels.


It's because carbon fuels are the lifeblood of modern civilization and is essential to the ever increasing quality of life of humanity. Trying to run the world on unreliable wind and solar will result in most of humanity being dead after the first winter.


----------



## accord1999

james4beach said:


> I also don't believe this global conspiracy that people are living longer. Just nonsense!
> 
> One of my highschool classmates dropped dead before she was 20, and we've also seen family friends die in their 50s.


It's the alarmists that don't believe world-wide people are living longer and better and are scared of a doomsday that's approaching in a few years.


----------



## sags

accord1999 said:


> It's because carbon fuels are the lifeblood of modern civilization and is essential to the ever increasing quality of life of humanity. Trying to run the world on unreliable wind and solar will result in most of humanity being dead after the first winter.


There wouldn't be a "first winter" of complete transition to alternative energy as scientists are focused on lowering emissions over time.

Rhetoric that paints a black and white picture of using massive amounts of fossil fuels versus using no fossil fuels at all is a false narrative used solely by climate change deniers.

The scientists and activists want to stop increasing demand and production of carbon emissions, and then reduce the annual emissions to a sustainable level.

The "changeover" to alternative fuel sources is going to take a long time, but some day the technology will be there to do so. 

In the meantime, if reducing emissions is the goal it makes no sense to continue to build pipelines or approve further expansion and production.

This is the point taken by the Green and NDP parties, and what many Liberal supporters are reminding the PM Justin Trudeau.


----------



## Prairie Guy

Before fossil fuels became widespread people lived to around 40. Now they live to 80. Fossil fuels have doubled life spans.


----------



## Longtimeago

accord1999 said:


> It's because carbon fuels are the lifeblood of modern civilization and is essential to the ever increasing quality of life of humanity. Trying to run the world on unreliable wind and solar will result in most of humanity being dead after the first winter.


I like that, 'ever increasing quality of life of humanity' joke. 

While some things have got better with time, they all come at a cost in other ways accord1999. Perhaps you just aren't old enough to realize the costs and how they have changed. For example, in my parent's day, my Father worked and my Mother was a housewife who took care of the home and the children. How many couples today can manage on one wage earner? Is it progress when both have to work to make ends meet? Is growing up a 'latch key kid' instead of coming home from school to Mom and some homemade cookies an increase in children's quality of life?

Some people think having a boat, 2 tv's and a skidoo is an increase in their quality of life. My parents certainly could never have afforded all of those. But then my parents never had any debts either. Which is better? Which do you think would sleep better at night if they worked at GM Oshawa? People make me laugh when they think they have a better quality of life just because they have more 'stuff' they owe money on.

Some years ago, I used to joke with a friend about buying a little piece of land somewhere; getting a few goats and chickens; planting some vegetables and fruits; building a cabin to live in. No tv, no radio, no electricity, no flush toilet and NO concern whatsoever about the rest of the world. If you did it right and were good at it, I think your quality of life might be about as good as it gets.


----------



## cainvest

Longtimeago said:


> People make me laugh when they think they have a better quality of life just because they have more 'stuff' they owe money on.


Quality of life is very subjective, also I own "stuff" (much more than my parents did) and have no debts. It's about what makes "you" happy, not someone elses idea of it. If that means owning "stuff" so be it, whether it's a home, 2 cars and a boat or an off grid cabin with goats.

Until they come out with a power source as than can replace oil/fuel, without all the drawbacks, we're pretty much tied to it. I really hope they do find a great new battery tech, 10x less weight and cost plus it charges to full in 2 minutes.


----------



## Longtimeago

Prairie Guy said:


> Before fossil fuels became widespread people lived to around 40. Now they live to 80. Fossil fuels have doubled life spans.


Your assumption of course is that that is a good thing. Not all agree with that assumption Prairie Guy.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4328740/

Like I said to accord1999, all things come at a cost. In the case of extended lifetimes, the cost is a longer period of poor quality of life. Higher cost of healthcare and pension plan payments by those still working, etc. There is always a cost and the question should be is the cost worth it or not?

You might also want to consider Standard of Living vs. Quality of Life. They are quite different. Many people talk about Quality of Life as accord1999 has while in fact they are really just referring to Standard of Living. https://simplicable.com/new/standard-of-living-vs-quality-of-life

There are many poor people in the world who have much less than say the average Canadian but in fact have a better quality of life in that they are happier. Whether they life a shorter lifespan or have less 'stuff' is not what matters, it is how they live the life they have and how happy they are living it.

I always remember coming back for a visit to Canada after I had retired and was living what my Mother worriedly referred to as 'a beach bum' life on a lovely, warm, island in the Mediterranean. I had lunch with an acquaintance in Toronto and after asking me what I did with my days, his comment was 'I am so busy living the lifestyle, I have no time to live my life.' He saw the difference between what his relatively high income was getting him and what it was not getting him. I went from a 6 figure income to spending around $12k a year on my needs and my quality of life increased immensely. Money and stuff do not buy happiness.

Any suggestion that we need fossil fuels to increase our quality of life and just ludicrous.


----------



## cainvest

Longtimeago said:


> I went from a 6 figure income to spending around $12k a year on my needs and my quality of life increased immensely. Money and stuff do not buy happiness.


And again, what works for you doesn't mean it'll make others happy. My stuff does make me happy otherwise I wouldn't own that stuff ...


----------



## Longtimeago

cainvest said:


> Quality of life is very subjective, also I own "stuff" (much more than my parents did) and have no debts. It's about what makes "you" happy, not someone elses idea of it. If that means owning "stuff" so be it, whether it's a home, 2 cars and a boat or an off grid cabin with goats.
> 
> Until they come out with a power source as than can replace oil/fuel, without all the drawbacks, we're pretty much tied to it. I really hope they do find a great new battery tech, 10x less weight and cost plus it charges to full in 2 minutes.


Yes it is of course subjective cainvest and there are people who truly believe more stuff will get them there. The problem with following that course I believe is that the need for 'more' never stops and I question whether their qualify of life ever does truly increase. 

But I also believe, as I said, that a lot of people confuse Standard of Living with Quality of Life and are not making a conscious decision as to what would provide them with more Quality of Life, they are simply pursuing a 'higher standard of living' as they see it being measured. If someone is making a conscious choice to pursue more stuff as being necessary to increasing their quality of life, that is their choice but if they are just blindly following the herd as most do, that's a shame in my opinion.

The biggest thing I did to improve my quality of life in my opinion was to stop working. I believe the most important thing in life is TIME. It is one thing you cannot bank, when it is gone it is gone. So to me, what you do with your time and energy is what matters and what you do with your time is also what defines your life. Your life is time and what you do with that time and your energy is what defines who you are.


----------



## Longtimeago

cainvest said:


> And again, what works for you doesn't mean it'll make others happy. My stuff does make me happy otherwise I wouldn't own that stuff ...


You might want to look up the Hedonic Treadmill cainvest. Needing stuff to be happy just means you will need more stuff next week. Needing more stuff means needing more money and more money generally means needing more work.

I prefer to need more stimulation from things that do not require more money or more work. You are right that what works for one person may differ from what works for another person but I would suggest that ANY person would be better off finding something that works to make them happy that does not cost money or at least not as much money.


----------



## AltaRed

cainvest said:


> Until they come out with a power source as than can replace oil/fuel, without all the drawbacks, we're pretty much tied to it. I really hope they do find a great new battery tech, 10x less weight and cost plus it charges to full in 2 minutes.


The link I posted in #84 (regardless of being 100% or 70% accurate) provides a perspective of why oil will be with us for a very, very long time. There is no way, no matter the technology, for renewables displacing more than a portion of current oil demand in the near term of 10-15 years. Even if renewables captured 100% of the incremental growth in global energy demand some day soon, and slowly started to replace fossil fuels in transportation and electrical generation, there is no way all the planet's countries can afford to build out the infrastructure required for renewables to capture the bulk of the replacement hydrocarbon fueled market in mere decades. We can hope people will replace ICEs with EVs on a large scale, and we can hope nat gas or renewable power can replace all the coal fired generating plants over time, but when Asia in particular continues to build gigawatts of coal fired generation every year, it will take a very long time. Reports of oil's imminent death and to a much lesser extent, natural gas, are greatly exaggerated.


----------



## Longtimeago

AltaRed said:


> The link I posted in #84 (regardless of being 100% or 70% accurate) provides a perspective of why oil will be with us for a very, very long time. There is no way, no matter the technology, for renewables displacing more than a portion of current oil demand in the near term of 10-15 years. Even if renewables captured 100% of the incremental growth in global energy demand some day soon, and slowly started to replace fossil fuels in transportation and electrical generation, there is no way all the planet's countries can afford to build out the infrastructure required for renewables to capture the bulk of the replacement hydrocarbon fueled market in mere decades. We can hope people will replace ICEs with EVs on a large scale, and we can hope nat gas or renewable power can replace all the coal fired generating plants over time, but when Asia in particular continues to build gigawatts of coal fired generation every year, it will take a very long time. Reports of oil's imminent death and to a much lesser extent, natural gas, are greatly exaggerated.


I don't think anyone here is arguing anything different than that AltaRed. I don't see anyone saying ICE are going to disappear tomorrow. But I see that as irrelevant when the question should be whether we are going to continue to contribute to Climate Change or are we going to stop contributing. In other words, stop adding on and start deducting from. Not stop 100% today, just stop adding on. Not change 100% today, just start changing, in the right direction.

What I see is some people hear trying to argue that since it can't be changed 100% overnight, that is a reason to continue to ADD to Climate Change. There is simply no logic in that argument whatsoever.


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> They refers to various posters here. How would you bucket your own position? Maybe add it to your signature so we know where you are coming from.


1) "They" doesn't really exist. "They" is an abstraction. Only particulars exist. So give me a particular from the abstract "they" who says consistently to keep burning oil.


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> Before fossil fuels became widespread people lived to around 40. Now they live to 80. Fossil fuels have doubled life spans.


I think it was eliminating pirates that did it. Since we are talking about correlation and not causation.


----------



## AltaRed

Longtimeago said:


> What I see is some people hear trying to argue that since it can't be changed 100% overnight, that is a reason to continue to ADD to Climate Change. There is simply no logic in that argument whatsoever.


A matter of perspective I suppose. I don't see anyone arguing what you suggest, at least not in a broad, proactive sense. Provide practical, pragmatic and economic alternatives and virtually everyone will arrest growth in HC usage. It is the pocketbook that talks for the most part, plus social conscientiousness. 

However, HC usage growth is still going to happen to some extent for some time to come. People will continue to buy ICEs until something better comes along, including incremental creep due to population and wealth growth across the globe. To the extent the global economy grows and construction accelerates, more diesel fueled construction machinery will continue to be purchased, and more Boeing and Airbus airliners will be in the sky. So will all those new coal fired generating stations in Asian countries in particular. True, many of the OECD countries collectively will be able to stall growth in HC usage soon, but whether we like it or not. there will be growth in hydrocarbon fuel usage for years to come.


----------



## cainvest

Longtimeago said:


> Needing stuff to be happy just means you will need more stuff next week. Needing more stuff means needing more money and more money generally means needing more work.


For some people maybe, not me...



Longtimeago said:


> I prefer to need more stimulation from things that do not require more money or more work. You are right that what works for one person may differ from what works for another person but I would suggest that ANY person would be better off finding something that works to make them happy that does not cost money or at least not as much money.


I have hobbies that cost very little money and others that do. Why should one have to find something else to do if you can easily afford it and it makes you happy?


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> Isn't that a bit like being skeptical about modern medicine because previously doctors used bloodletting and cornflakes to treat illness?


You don't seem to be educated, formally or informally, in science. You're too naive.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> The link I posted in #84 (regardless of being 100% or 70% accurate) provides a perspective of why oil will be with us for a very, very long time. There is no way, no matter the technology, for renewables displacing more than a portion of current oil demand in the near term of 10-15 years. Even if renewables captured 100% of the incremental growth in global energy demand some day soon, and slowly started to replace fossil fuels in transportation and electrical generation, there is no way all the planet's countries can afford to build out the infrastructure required for renewables to capture the bulk of the replacement hydrocarbon fueled market in mere decades. We can hope people will replace ICEs with EVs on a large scale, and we can hope nat gas or renewable power can replace all the coal fired generating plants over time, but when Asia in particular continues to build gigawatts of coal fired generation every year, it will take a very long time. Reports of oil's imminent death and to a much lesser extent, natural gas, are greatly exaggerated.


Each car drives about 15k km on average, and an EV requires about 1 kwh per 4-5 km. So a car needs 4,000 or so kWh per year. There are about 35M cars in Canada, which would then need 140 billion kWh (or 140 TWh) per year to power. Canada produces 650 TWh of electricity per year. So, powering passenger vehicles with electricity would only require a 20% increase in power generation. And even that is not as daunting as it might sound, as there is latent generating capacity that is underutilized at night when most vehicles would be charging. I imagine these proportions apply to most developed countries. So these scales are maybe not so vast as you might present them to be. 

Considering that road vehicle consumption is about half of total oil demand, we can put a significant dent in oil use. Even if you add heavy goods vehicles, which traveled 30 billion kms per year in Canada, that would be another 30 TWh or so of electricity at 1 kwh per km. If anything, electrifying road transport can make the electricity grid a lot more productive due to higher utilization, because it results in effectively massive storage that can be used as a sink for excess generation due to variable sources. 35M cars would have storage capacity in the range of 3 TWh in their batteries, or a couple days of total electrical demand in the country. Even if we do continue to need backup fossil generation, they can be of the cheaper/non peaker plant variety, spooled up only during extended periods of low renewable generation.


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> The link I posted in #84 (regardless of being 100% or 70% accurate) provides a perspective of why oil will be with us for a very, very long time. There is no way, no matter the technology, for renewables displacing more than a portion of current oil demand in the near term of 10-15 years. Even if renewables captured 100% of the incremental growth in global energy demand some day soon, and slowly started to replace fossil fuels in transportation and electrical generation, there is no way all the planet's countries can afford to build out the infrastructure required for renewables to capture the bulk of the replacement hydrocarbon fueled market in mere decades. We can hope people will replace ICEs with EVs on a large scale, and we can hope nat gas or renewable power can replace all the coal fired generating plants over time, but when Asia in particular continues to build gigawatts of coal fired generation every year, it will take a very long time. Reports of oil's imminent death and to a much lesser extent, natural gas, are greatly exaggerated.


I totally agree, oil (and fuels) will be around for a long time coming. New tech (if/when it happens) will take time to displace current tech and it may not be a 100% exchange.


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> You don't seem to be educated, formally or informally, in science. You're too naive.


Oh, I'm wounded. You think I'm ignorant of science because I don't take "I'm old, listen to me" as a valid argument?

As the kids say these days, "ok boomer".


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> A matter of perspective I suppose. I don't see anyone arguing what you suggest, at least not in a broad, proactive sense. Provide practical, pragmatic and economic alternatives and virtually everyone will arrest growth in HC usage. It is the pocketbook that talks for the most part, plus social conscientiousness.
> 
> However, HC usage growth is still going to happen to some extent for some time to come. People will continue to buy ICEs until something better comes along, including incremental creep due to population and wealth growth across the globe. To the extent the global economy grows and construction accelerates, more diesel fueled construction machinery will continue to be purchased, and more Boeing and Airbus airliners will be in the sky. So will all those new coal fired generating stations in Asian countries in particular. True, many of the OECD countries collectively will be able to stall growth in HC usage soon, but whether we like it or not. there will be growth in hydrocarbon fuel usage for years to come.


I have seen the argument that Canada is too small to effect change on its own, so it should enact no policy to reduce emissions repeated here ad nauseum. How is this not an argument that we should continue to keep burning fossil fuels at an unabated rate?

I sometimes try to tack that even if you deny that CO2 emissions are a problem, burning fossil fuel results in many other pollutants that we should desire to eliminate. That this doesn't sway anyone indicates to me that the underlying motivation is to keep burning oil, however it needs to be rationalized.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> Each car drives about 15k km on average, and an EV requires about 1 kwh per 4-5 km. So a car needs 4,000 or so kWh per year. There are about 35M cars in Canada, which would then need 140 billion kWh (or 140 TWh) per year to power. Canada produces 650 TWh of electricity per year. So, powering passenger vehicles with electricity would only require a 20% increase in power generation. And even that is not as daunting as it might sound, as there is latent generating capacity that is underutilized at night when most vehicles would be charging. I imagine these proportions apply to most developed countries. So these scales are maybe not so vast as you might present them to be.


The main issue I see with pure EV is that it doesn't fit into people's lifestyles unless you want most to have two vehicles. As I look down my street most people have trucks/SUVs with ATVs, boats and other trailers. Now "plug in" hybrid SUVs might fill the gap however there are not many of these around.

Edit: This brings up another "industry" error as far as fuel savings go. Nowadays most cars are not allowed to tow anything ... yup, have to buy a bigger, less fuel efficient vehicle now! Also the auto industry is going away from more fuel efficient cars (and cars in general), better profit margin on the bigger stuff.


----------



## Eder

Longtimeago said:


> Money and stuff do not buy happiness.


 Maybe you are just normally miserable and maybe you need better stuff


----------



## Prairie Guy

Longtimeago said:


> Money and stuff do not buy happiness.


Random stuff doesn't buy happiness but having sufficient funds to live comfortably reduces stress. But having "stuff" is not the same as money and there is no reason to link them.

Having money isn't just about buying things to many people. It's about quality of life. Who do you think is happier...someone struggling pay cheque to pay cheque or someone that has a good income and doesn't have to worry about buying food? Someone who worries about their car breaking down or someone who has a reliable vehicle?

Those who link money to "stuff" are leading a shallow life and probably will never be happy.


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> I think it was eliminating pirates that did it. Since we are talking about correlation and not causation.


Well, I guess if you don't have a valid argument then just say something foolish. If you're not aware how much fossil fuels have improved life then you're dangerously uninformed.

If there were no more fossil fuels how long do you think it would take for every single tree on the planet to be chopped down to provide wood for heating? One year? Two years? How many people would die or suffer from the effects of wood smoke? How many people would die because they froze to death? How many millions of tons of food would spoil without the electricity that coal provides for refrigeration?

Look beyond the narrow minded alarmist screeching about SUV's and try to understand what fossil fuels REALLY provide towards quality of life.

Or make another dumb joke about pirates.


----------



## andrewf

My point is that the lengthening of human lifespan has many causes, and it is rather simplistic to explain that it happened as a consequence of fossil fuels. Scientific advancement is the main driver. Now, that advancement was greatly aided by industrial processes that use fossil fuels. But we had fossil fuels in 1800. What has changed in the intervening time is scientific understanding of the world (medicine, agriculture, sanitation, etc.). And it is also true that human lifespans can remain long or even lengthen while fossil fuel use decreases. So more coal/oil/gas <> more lifespan.


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> Random stuff doesn't buy happiness but having sufficient funds to live comfortably reduces stress. But having "stuff" is not the same as money and there is no reason to link them.
> 
> Having money isn't just about buying things to many people. It's about quality of life. Who do you think is happier...someone struggling pay cheque to pay cheque or someone that has a good income and doesn't have to worry about buying food? Someone who worries about their car breaking down or someone who has a reliable vehicle?
> 
> Those who link money to "stuff" are leading a shallow life and probably will never be happy.


Living paycheque to paycheque is more a function of mentality than income. There are families that earn $250k+ per year that live paycheque to paycheque because they are highly leveraged, while there are families than earn $50k that live more modestly but not paycheque to paycheque. I have always maintained a fair amount of liquidity in my finances. I don't even know when pay day is. It isn't something I think about. And I really like that. Even when I was a student, and living on about $12k per year of consumption, I didn't really have financial stress. I just lived more simply and denied myself more things. Having negative cashflow (like students typically have) is not a problem as long as you have reasonable liquidity.

So, the trick is keeping a bit of a buffer. Pausing high levels of consumption for 6 months gives you enough breathing space to not stress about money. You can wait for that big screen TV or foreign vacation.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> Each car drives about 15k km on average, and an EV requires about 1 kwh per 4-5 km. So a car needs 4,000 or so kWh per year. There are about 35M cars in Canada, which would then need 140 billion kWh (or 140 TWh) per year to power. Canada produces 650 TWh of electricity per year. So, powering passenger vehicles with electricity would only require a 20% increase in power generation. And even that is not as daunting as it might sound, as there is latent generating capacity that is underutilized at night when most vehicles would be charging. I imagine these proportions apply to most developed countries. So these scales are maybe not so vast as you might present them to be.
> 
> Considering that road vehicle consumption is about half of total oil demand, we can put a significant dent in oil use. Even if you add heavy goods vehicles, which traveled 30 billion kms per year in Canada, that would be another 30 TWh or so of electricity at 1 kwh per km. If anything, electrifying road transport can make the electricity grid a lot more productive due to higher utilization, because it results in effectively massive storage that can be used as a sink for excess generation due to variable sources. 35M cars would have storage capacity in the range of 3 TWh in their batteries, or a couple days of total electrical demand in the country. Even if we do continue to need backup fossil generation, they can be of the cheaper/non peaker plant variety, spooled up only during extended periods of low renewable generation.


All what you wrote about Canada means little to nothing for a vast host of countries that don't give much of a shite about fossil fuel use, especially oil and nat gas. Demand reduction will mostly be economics driven, or where there are strategic concerns about oil supply availability and reliability from despicable regimes. Policy in OECD countries can certainly accelerate, or not, a decline in oil use, but how is that working out so far in the majority of them? Then there is Africa, South America, portions of Asia and Europe. Much of Asia is still building coal fired generating plants to meet electrical demand. Do you think they really care very much given the scope of their other problems? You gotta get realistic. Idealistic visioning is almost certainly going to disappoint those who think the majority of the population remotely thinks along the same lines.

Even if 100% of global transport eventually converted to alternate fuels, that will still leave 50-60 million barrels per day of oil consumption, assuming some population growth and standard of living growth, offset by ongoing increases in energy efficiency. I suspect global transport will never get beyond 60-80% EV penetration simply because there are no viable or cost effective alternatives in vast areas of this planet. Even if your math for Canada is correct, it will hardly matter what Canada does within the global framework. It really doesn't. Wish all that you like.


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> The main issue I see with pure EV is that it doesn't fit into people's lifestyles unless you want most to have two vehicles. As I look down my street most people have trucks/SUVs with ATVs, boats and other trailers. Now "plug in" hybrid SUVs might fill the gap however there are not many of these around.
> 
> Edit: This brings up another "industry" error as far as fuel savings go. Nowadays most cars are not allowed to tow anything ... yup, have to buy a bigger, less fuel efficient vehicle now! Also the auto industry is going away from more fuel efficient cars (and cars in general), better profit margin on the bigger stuff.


Not that it is affordable, but Model X can tow. Multiple companies are working on EV pickups. So, while there are not affordable EV towing-capable vehicles on the market today, they are not impossible to make. In a few years there will be multiple options for reasonably affordable, highly capable EV vehicles capable of towing. That will just be the first generation, and they will continue to get better and cheaper until you would have to be crazy or living off-grid (but have access to fuel) to buy an ICE vehicle.

I should add that technically current EVs can tow, but are not necessarily designed for it. You can get a tow hitch for Model 3, but it doesn't come with a wiring harness for trailers. I believe Tesla built in the functionality to add one, mainly for the European market.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> All what you wrote about Canada means little to nothing for a vast host of countries that don't give much of a shite about fossil fuel use, especially oil and nat gas. Demand reduction will mostly be economics driven, or where there are strategic concerns about oil supply availability and reliability from despicable regimes. Policy in OECD countries can certainly accelerate, or not, a decline in oil use, but how is that working out so far in the majority of them? Then there is Africa, South America, portions of Asia and Europe. Much of Asia is still building coal fired generating plants to meet electrical demand. Do you think they really care very much given the scope of their other problems? You gotta get realistic. Idealistic visioning is almost certainly going to disappoint those who think the majority of the population remotely thinks along the same lines.
> 
> Even if 100% of global transport eventually converted to alternate fuels, that will still leave 50-60 million barrels per day of oil consumption, assuming some population growth and standard of living growth, offset by ongoing increases in energy efficiency. I suspect global transport will never get beyond 60-80% EV penetration simply because there are no viable or cost effective alternatives in vast areas of this planet. Even if your math for Canada is correct, it will hardly matter what Canada does within the global framework. It really doesn't. Wish all that you like.


I anticipated your comment about Canada being an insignificant speck, which is why I said that the proportions would more or less apply to the rest of the developed world (road fuel usage:electrical generation). This was intended to demonstrate that the size of the challenge is not unreasonable. Yes, it will take time to replace the existing vehicle fleet, and yes, it may require a bit of investment to beef up electrical generation and distribution, but not all that much. And yes, oil may become cheap enough that it remains cheaper than conversion to EV. My point is that this competing technology acts as a put on oil prices. And to the extent that countries value clean air, they may be willing to make it less and less attractive to own an ICE vehicle. How long will countries continue to allow diesel trucks to belch toxins in cities when there are economically viable alternatives? Even if the approach is just to tighten emissions standards, that will just make ICE vehicles more and more expensive to scrub those pollutants.

You accuse me of wishful thinking. I think you should reflect on that as well. You invoke IEA to say that there is a long, profitable future ahead for oil. I think you should consider whether a lot of the reserves are going to become a stranded asset. Especially when low cost producers see the writing on the wall and want to cash in their reserves before the ceiling on the oil price crushes them.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> Not that it is affordable, but Model X can tow. Multiple companies are working on EV pickups. So, while there are not affordable EV towing-capable vehicles on the market today, they are not impossible to make. In a few years there will be multiple options for reasonably affordable, highly capable EV vehicles capable of towing. That will just be the first generation, and they will continue to get better and cheaper until you would have to be crazy or living off-grid (but have access to fuel) to buy an ICE vehicle.
> 
> I should add that technically current EVs can tow, but are not necessarily designed for it. You can get a tow hitch for Model 3, but it doesn't come with a wiring harness for trailers. I believe Tesla built in the functionality to add one, mainly for the European market.


Problem is EV won't work for the vast majority of people with their limited range, especially when heading out to cabin / wilderness areas. PHEV would work providing their costs are not to high for the option. They could run as EV in town for daily use then have the ICE for longer trips out of town. AFAIK towing with a vehicle without a tow rating is a big no-no so while you might be able to get a hitch it still might not be legal to tow with it.

Then there is the cold weather issues as well, a major problem for some parts of Canada.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> You accuse me of wishful thinking. I think you should reflect on that as well. You invoke IEA to say that there is a long, profitable future ahead for oil. I think you should consider whether a lot of the reserves are going to become a stranded asset. Especially when low cost producers see the writing on the wall and want to cash in their reserves before the ceiling on the oil price crushes them.


Of course there will be a long profitable future ahead for oil. That is a given. I also agree that a lot of current known reserves (and reserves yet to be found) will become a stranded asset depending on where supply cost of the marginal barrel and oil price lies. Global reserves/production ratio is currently about 50 years (which I've linked before) and that has been decreasing by about 0.5 each year because oil prices have not supported 100% reserves replacement over the past 4 years. But previous to 2015, global reserve/production ratios were increasing. If oil prices start to slowly decline towards $40, I would expect R/P ratio will start to fall again. The marginal barrels will stay in the ground.

What most people don't realize is most producing countries in the Middle East and Russia and Venezuela count on oil revenue to meet their budgetary needs. It is known both Saudi and Russia, as examples, need about $60 to break even, i.e. it is not the operating cost of each barrel that matters, but the combination of operating cost AND budgetary skim off that sets the minimum price needed. Further, wherever infrastructure currently exists, the capital is a sunk cost no longer is a factor in continuing to produce. Our oil sands can make money at $30/bbl on a cash flow basis. Granted sustaining capex has to be added, along with royalties and income taxes, so let's say $40/bbl. Our oil sands are thus more competitive than a Russian or Saudi barrel overall.

Oil producing countries and corporations are well aware of the balance needed between production and price. There is no value in accelerating production indiscriminately, and there is also no value in constraining supply such that oil prices skyrocket. My view is that oil prices, with some geo-political and GDP aberrations, will remain between $50-65 for decades to come. For the most part, Canada's oil industry can sustain itself (not necessarily grow) within that price range.

Natural declines will take about 4 million barrels per day out of supply in 2020, while at the same time re-investment will like add about the same amount of new production, primarily from Norway, Brazil and Guyana. Potentially some from the USA but their supply growth rate is falling off. Overall, about a balance requiring Russia and OPEC to continue to hold some barrels off the market. That cushion is necessary to avoid extreme volatility in oil prices. Ultimately Iran and Venezuela will be factors again but Venezuela in particular won't have the capital themselves needed to re-invigorate their industry. China will most likely become the defactor owner of much of Venezuela's oil production in the coming decades.

Added: You can't wish oil away any more than you can wish overwhelming adoption of alternative energy. They will both co-exist in some ratio for decades (and centuries) to come.


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> Problem is EV won't work for the vast majority of people with their limited range, especially when heading out to cabin / wilderness areas.


That really depends on your definition of "most people". Do "most people" drive 250-300kms past the electric grid? Not sure I have ever been that far from it in my life, at least when traveling by car.



> PHEV would work providing their costs are not to high for the option. They could run as EV in town for daily use then have the ICE for longer trips out of town. AFAIK towing with a vehicle without a tow rating is a big no-no so while you might be able to get a hitch it still might not be legal to tow with it.
> 
> Then there is the cold weather issues as well, a major problem for some parts of Canada.


Yes. How does your gas vehicle start when off-grid in deep cold, with no block heater? EVs will at least work in the cold, albeit with reduced range.

As I said, there are expensive tow-capable EVs on the market today (luxury vehicle). There will be more, cheaper options in the coming years. PHEVs may remain an option, particularly for people who do frequently go way off the beaten track, but "most" people even when they go to a cabin/cottage, have power there. And if they don't, they probably aren't more than 50 km from a place that does have a grid connection (and thus potential charging infrastructure). Your cabin also doesn't have a gas station.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Of course there will be a long profitable future ahead for oil. That is a given. I also agree that a lot of current known reserves (and reserves yet to be found) will become a stranded asset depending on where supply cost of the marginal barrel and oil price lies. Global reserves/production ratio is currently about 50 years (which I've linked before) and that has been decreasing by about 0.5 each year because oil prices have not supported 100% reserves replacement over the past 4 years. But previous to 2015, global reserve/production ratios were increasing. If oil prices start to slowly decline towards $40, I would expect R/P ratio will start to fall again. The marginal barrels will stay in the ground.
> 
> What most people don't realize is most producing countries in the Middle East and Russia and Venezuela count on oil revenue to meet their budgetary needs. It is known both Saudi and Russia, as examples, need about $60 to break even, i.e. it is not the operating cost of each barrel that matters, but the combination of operating cost AND budgetary skim off that sets the minimum price needed. Further, wherever infrastructure currently exists, the capital is a sunk cost no longer is a factor in continuing to produce. Our oil sands can make money at $30/bbl on a cash flow basis. Granted sustaining capex has to be added, along with royalties and income taxes, so let's say $40/bbl. Our oil sands are thus more competitive than a Russian or Saudi barrel overall.
> 
> Oil producing countries and corporations are well aware of the balance needed between production and price. There is no value in accelerating production indiscriminately, and there is also no value in constraining supply such that oil prices skyrocket. My view is that oil prices, with some geo-political and GDP aberrations, will remain between $50-65 for decades to come. For the most part, Canada's oil industry can sustain itself (not necessarily grow) within that price range.
> 
> Natural declines will take about 4 million barrels per day out of supply in 2020, while at the same time re-investment will like add about the same amount of new production, primarily from Norway, Brazil and Guyana. Potentially some from the USA but their supply growth rate is falling off. Overall, about a balance requiring Russia and OPEC to continue to hold some barrels off the market. That cushion is necessary to avoid extreme volatility in oil prices. Ultimately Iran and Venezuela will be factors again but Venezuela in particular won't have the capital themselves needed to re-invigorate their industry. China will most likely become the defactor owner of much of Venezuela's oil production in the coming decades.


So what happens if/when EVs are cost effective with oil at $50/bbl? $40? $30? Yes, existing assets can continue to be sweated, but the investment required to maintain production will dry up.

Russia and Saudi will be faced with the unenviable decision of selling their oil today for $40/bbl or $30/bbl in the future. The fact that they want oil prices to be higher to fund their spending would not have any bearing on a world where there is a cap on oil prices and declining demand. They can choose between a shortfall driven by fewer barrels produced or lower prices. In the process of converting oil reserves to dollar reserves, if they have any doubts about the future value of oil, they would be well served by producing now.


----------



## AltaRed

Oil prices will always be supported by the portion of transport that won't be EV, petrochemicals, lubricants and the like. There is no real risk of $30 oil on a sustained basis, not even $40. As much as 50% of today's oil production rates will need to be sustained as far as one can imagine. Russia and Saudi both know production volumes will need to decrease over time to sustain price. Oil is more price sensitive than volume sensitive, e.g. for purposes of discussion, an imbalance of as little as 1 million barrels per day might have a $10 effect on price. You can bet OPEC will share that 1 million barrel of volume reduction over a $10 delta on price on all barrels. How soon they can diversify their economies to make up the shortfall in gross dollars is quite another story. It may be hard to wrap one's head around this, but that is how oil (and commodities in general) have always been produced and sold.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> That really depends on your definition of "most people". Do "most people" drive 250-300kms past the electric grid? Not sure I have ever been that far from it in my life, at least when traveling by car.


Quite common here in Manitoba actually, 150-300 kms is not uncommon to reach cabin areas. And it's not just "off-grid" areas, more remote area cabins don't have significant power grids, like where I rent cabins in NW Ontario 3-4 hours away. Let's just cut to the chase here, EVs are limited and most really don't want to wait hours charging at 110v just to go somewhere. God help you if you want to drive to BC for a skiiing weekend from Manitoba.



andrewf said:


> Yes. How does your gas vehicle start when off-grid in deep cold, with no block heater? EVs will at least work in the cold, albeit with reduced range.
> 
> As I said, there are expensive tow-capable EVs on the market today (luxury vehicle). There will be more, cheaper options in the coming years. PHEVs may remain an option, particularly for people who do frequently go way off the beaten track, but "most" people even when they go to a cabin/cottage, have power there. And if they don't, they probably aren't more than 50 km from a place that does have a grid connection (and thus potential charging infrastructure). Your cabin also doesn't have a gas station.


Gas works fine in anything but the most extreme cold, below -35c. Even my diesel even starts down to -25c not plugged in. Worst case, I have to start my car every once in a while, no big deal.

So you're plan is to drive 50kms to plug your EV into 110v and wait there for 12 hours ... ya, right. 

And funny you ask, even remote cabins sell gas at their marinas, albeit 20-30 cents more per litre or just bring a 5 gal gas can with you if you need it.


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> Quite common here in Manitoba actually, 150-300 kms is not uncommon to reach cabin areas. And it's not just "off-grid" areas, more remote area cabins don't have significant power grids, like where I rent cabins in NW Ontario 3-4 hours away. Let's just cut to the chase here, EVs are limited and most really don't want to wait hours charging at 110v just to go somewhere. God help you if you want to drive to BC for a skiiing weekend from Manitoba.
> 
> 
> Gas works fine in anything but the most extreme cold, below -35c. Even my diesel even starts down to -25c not plugged in. Worst case, I have to start my car every once in a while, no big deal.
> 
> So you're plan is to drive 50kms to plug your EV into 110v and wait there for 12 hours ... ya, right.
> 
> And funny you ask, even remote cabins sell gas at their marinas, albeit 20-30 cents more per litre or just bring a 5 gal gas can with you if you need it.


Any place that can pump gas has electricity. And it would not be difficult to put in a circuit that can charge EVs quickly. It may not be there today, but once there is a market it will be installed. And this is not a "most people" scenario we are talking about here. Most people don't even get all that far from a major highway.

I'll also note that 300 kms from Winnipeg generally puts you out of the province. I'd wager you have decent grid connections outside out Winnipeg.

It just seems like you really don't want EVs to ever be a possible option in this case. It's not that threatening, is it?


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> Any place that can pump gas has electricity. And it would not be difficult to put in a circuit that can charge EVs quickly. It may not be there today, but once there is a market it will be installed. And this is not a "most people" scenario we are talking about here. Most people don't even get all that far from a major highway.
> 
> I'll also note that 300 kms from Winnipeg generally puts you out of the province. I'd wager you have decent grid connections outside out Winnipeg.
> 
> It just seems like you really don't want EVs to ever be a possible option in this case. It's not that threatening, is it?


Until such a time when EV charging becomes commonplace and it doesn't waste hours of people's time "charging" it'll take a back seat to ICE.

And you're wrong ... I'm in for EVs, some really good potential there BUT it's just not ready for center stage, main stream adoption. When it is ready, I'll be looking at one.


----------



## AltaRed

I think Cainvest was mainly being counter-argumentative in his position as a reaction to unrealistic expectations/assumptions on the other hand. EVs will become considerably more popular when there are more options available, subject to cost of course, and charging station build outs will need to occur as/when demand requires it. 

But as LTR also pointed out, build outs will need to recognize no one wants to sit around more than 5 minutes 'filling up'. As an example, there is not a chance of me driving an EV to Vancouver from the Okanagan because there isn't a place between here and there that I would remotely consider spending 5 minutes at (and don't). Fast chargers will need to be the norm and located where drivers can do something else enjoyable, e.g .eat or play or go for a walk. The issues are not in major urban areas. Most people will charge at home. 

Time will tell how this all plays out but there are growing pains in Norway. People hogging charging stations, insufficient charging stations, etc. For me personally, EVs and infrastructure are quite a ways from being a viable option for a primary vehicle. Five years maybe. Perhaps as many as 10 years.


----------



## m3s

I'm sure all the cowboys said the same when "horseless carriages" were introduced

Where are you gonna get gas outside of town when ma horse can eat grass and drink from da water hole?

And ma horse can go far more places than roads exist! God help you if you wanna go huntin


----------



## accord1999

andrewf said:


> Yes. How does your gas vehicle start when off-grid in deep cold, with no block heater? EVs will at least work in the cold, albeit with reduced range.


Actually, off-grid with no external heating will probably irreversibly damage a lithium-ion based battery if it ever runs out of energy trying to keep the battery above freezing temperature. 



> Many battery users are unaware that consumer-grade lithium-ion batteries cannot be charged below 0°C (32°F). Although the pack appears to be charging normally, plating of metallic lithium can occur on the anode during a sub-freezing charge. This is permanent and cannot be removed with cycling. Batteries with lithium plating are more vulnerable to failure if exposed to vibration or other stressful conditions.


https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/charging_at_high_and_low_temperatures


----------



## Eder

cainvest said:


> So you're plan is to drive 50kms to plug your EV into 110v and wait there for 12 hours ... ya, right.
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> 12 hours is a dream....
> Technically you can connect your *Tesla* to a standard *110v plug receptacle* with the free adapter that comes with the car. But you can only *charge* slowly–at about 3 miles of range per hour parked. ... It will take up to 4 full days to fully *recharge* an empty *Tesla* car battery using a regular wall *outlet*.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> I think Cainvest was mainly being counter-argumentative in his position as a reaction to unrealistic expectations/assumptions on the other hand. EVs will become considerably more popular when there are more options available, subject to cost of course, and charging station build outs will need to occur as/when demand requires it.
> 
> But as LTR also pointed out, build outs will need to recognize no one wants to sit around more than 5 minutes 'filling up'. As an example, there is not a chance of me driving an EV to Vancouver from the Okanagan because there isn't a place between here and there that I would remotely consider spending 5 minutes at (and don't). Fast chargers will need to be the norm and located where drivers can do something else enjoyable, e.g .eat or play or go for a walk. The issues are not in major urban areas. Most people will charge at home.
> 
> Time will tell how this all plays out but there are growing pains in Norway. People hogging charging stations, insufficient charging stations, etc. For me personally, EVs and infrastructure are quite a ways from being a viable option for a primary vehicle. Five years maybe. Perhaps as many as 10 years.


You never stop for bathroom breaks or a coffee on long road trips?

Saying that the technology is 5-10 years away for adoption for your use case is quite different from saying it will never come. I would not disagree with the assessment that it will take 10 years before EVs see mass adoption/put a big dent in the vehicle fleet. However, there are many people for whom the products on the market today work very well, and yes as a primary vehicle. I would say the main barrier is cost rather than functionality.


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> cainvest said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're plan is to drive 50kms to plug your EV into 110v and wait there for 12 hours ... ya, right.
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> 12 hours is a dream....
> Technically you can connect your *Tesla* to a standard *110v plug receptacle* with the free adapter that comes with the car. But you can only *charge* slowly–at about 3 miles of range per hour parked. ... It will take up to 4 full days to fully *recharge* an empty *Tesla* car battery using a regular wall *outlet*.
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully you don't need to use a 110 outlet, though the option is there.
Click to expand...


----------



## andrewf

accord1999 said:


> Actually, off-grid with no external heating will probably irreversibly damage a lithium-ion based battery if it ever runs out of energy trying to keep the battery above freezing temperature.
> 
> 
> 
> https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/charging_at_high_and_low_temperatures


Indeed, for long term off-grid maybe. You could use a flexible solar panel to trickle charge, but it wouldn't be recommended. By the way, batteries don't need to be kept above freezing. Charging is a different story. The battery would have to be warmed before charging. Teslas do this by using a small current to heat the battery to the point where it can accept a higher charge rate.


----------



## andrewf

Bjorn Nyland is a Youtuber who lives in Norway and does tests of Tesla performance.

Here is his experience of leaving a Model S in an outdoor parking garage for 27 days Dec - Jan. It lost 20% of its charge, and the temp was showing -1C when he returned. Given that is not all that cold, but I'm sure it was colder at points during that month.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEPBkjmS2uE

He also has a Model X. His business used to involve towing trailers/transporting things. Doubters that EV can tow should check out some videos. He has hauled big boat trailers up mountains. He has also slept in the car overnight at elevation in the middle of the winter, using the climate control and some sun shades to keep it warm. And it is by no means a perfect car, but yes, EVs can tow. Just the ones that can are pricey. This will change.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> You never stop for bathroom breaks or a coffee on long road trips?


lmao ... I do but my coffee/bathroom breaks are normally shorter than 10 hours.


----------



## james4beach

There's winter, and then there's winter. I am very hesitant to buy an electric vehicle here in Manitoba.

This Tesla owner reported a 40% drop in range on the coldest days. That's a huge loss! And what kind of wear is happening on this battery under -30 conditions?

I like the heating situation in my little car. As I understand it, the coolant flows through the engine block. The engine's waste heat then radiates into the cabin. What is considered waste heat to people elsewhere in the world is sweet sweet warmth to us in MB.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think cabin heating is basically "free" since it's coming from the engine. With an electric car, you need to generate the heat, which means using your battery. So in cold MB conditions, not only are you stressing your battery by using it in the worst possible conditions, but you're also placing a higher load (drawing more amps) to run auxiliary heaters.


----------



## james4beach

And by the way, from that article:



> Tesla advises against exposing vehicles to temperatures below –25 C or above 60 C for more than 24 hours at one time because *damage may occur*, but Loewen hasn't seen any issues.


It's pretty easy to exceed -25 C for more than a day. I wonder if the manufacturer's warranty will cover damage resulting from this?


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> You never stop for bathroom breaks or a coffee on long road trips?
> 
> Saying that the technology is 5-10 years away for adoption for your use case is quite different from saying it will never come. I would not disagree with the assessment that it will take 10 years before EVs see mass adoption/put a big dent in the vehicle fleet. However, there are many people for whom the products on the market today work very well, and yes as a primary vehicle. I would say the main barrier is cost rather than functionality.


Indeed I stop for breaks every 3-4 hours, but a 380 km trip to Vacouver is only 3.5 hours door to door. I just used that example to say I expect to be able to go about 400 km non-stop. So an EV won't work for me at this time.

That said, I don't disagree with you that there are a few EV options today at both the low end and the high end. A lot more will have to come in the middle to make EVs mainstream. They will come perhaps within 5 years.


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> lmao ... I do but my coffee/bathroom breaks are normally shorter than 10 hours.


20 minutes every 200 miles?

No one is suggesting charging using 110v. That's absurd. Tesla has 250kw charging in the market. 1000 miles per hour charging capacity. I think this insistance that EVs can't work until they charge 0 to 100% in 5 minutes is frankly wrong. Consumers don't need this. 5 minute refueling is important for ICE because you have to hold the fuel nozzle in January, and you have to do it every week or so. For EVs you just plug your car in each night and go inside your home. The odd road trip with 20-30 minute charging stops every 3 hours are not unreasonable for normal humans with bladders and hungry tummies. You probably spend less time waiting to power an EV than you do waiting for your ICE vehicle over the course of a year.


----------



## andrewf

james4beach said:


> There's winter, and then there's winter. I am very hesitant to buy an electric vehicle here in Manitoba.
> 
> This Tesla owner reported a 40% drop in range on the coldest days. That's a huge loss! And what kind of wear is happening on this battery under -30 conditions?
> 
> I like the heating situation in my little car. As I understand it, the coolant flows through the engine block. The engine's waste heat then radiates into the cabin. What is considered waste heat to people elsewhere in the world is sweet sweet warmth to us in MB.
> 
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think cabin heating is basically "free" since it's coming from the engine. With an electric car, you need to generate the heat, which means using your battery. So in cold MB conditions, not only are you stressing your battery by using it in the worst possible conditions, but you're also placing a higher load (drawing more amps) to run auxiliary heaters.


How often are you driving several hundreds of kms on bitterly cold days? It will still work but require more frequent charging. If you are just doing your normal daily routine, then you won't notice any difference. ICE vehicles also see a similar efficiency degradation when very cold. The baseline level of inefficiency masks it.

Maybe the correct way to think about the 'free' heat with an ICE vehicle is that they are constantly running with heat on max, just most of the time you dump it into the environment instead of the cabin. It is much cheaper to power an EV. You are paying for that heat every mile you drive.

You are not necessarily stressing the battery when using it in the cold. The pack temp is maintained in its nominal operating temperature. The range impact is due to cabin heating and generally worse road conditions (more resistance driving on more roads).


----------



## james4beach

Those are good arguments andrewf. Right, internal combustion engines are inefficient in the other case (normal temperatures) where they're just _discarding_ waste heat.

Perhaps it's not so bad to explicitly "pay" for the cabin heat when it's needed. I would like to look more into your final comment, to check that the battery compartment is actually heated to a sensible operating temperature.

However, take note of the manufacturer's guidance on not going below -25. It looks like that particular Tesla is not appropriate for my climate.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> 20 minutes every 200 miles?
> 
> No one is suggesting charging using 110v. That's absurd. Tesla has 250kw charging in the market. 1000 miles per hour charging capacity. I think this insistance that EVs can't work until they charge 0 to 100% in 5 minutes is frankly wrong. Consumers don't need this. 5 minute refueling is important for ICE because you have to hold the fuel nozzle in January, and you have to do it every week or so. For EVs you just plug your car in each night and go inside your home. The odd road trip with 20-30 minute charging stops every 3 hours are not unreasonable for normal humans with bladders and hungry tummies. You probably spend less time waiting to power an EV than you do waiting for your ICE vehicle over the course of a year.


As AltaRed said earlier, maybe in 10 years time .... right now Telsa doesn't even have chargers to get me from MB to BC.
Also stopping for 30 mins (more like 2+ hours right now) to recharge every four hours would get timesome real fast for most people. In today's "instant gratification" world EVs fall way short compared to ICE but there is hope for the future.

Let's revisit this in 5 years and see how far they've gotten and how many pure EVs are on the road.


----------



## accord1999

james4beach said:


> It's pretty easy to exceed -25 C for more than a day. I wonder if the manufacturer's warranty will cover damage resulting from this?


I wouldn't necessarily count on it from Tesla, here's a giant thread where mostly older vehicles suddenly had their range and/or high voltage charging rates throttled, likely due to previously undetected degradation issues that require these changes to prevent failure or fires. Not surprisingly, the owners are unhappy.

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/sudden-loss-of-range-with-2019-16-x-software.154976/


----------



## Spidey

Bill Gates does an excellent job of demonstrating how impractical many of the climate alarmist demands are:


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

To put things in perspective, I agree that electric cars may not be practical yet for Canadian winters and long trips, even though I like electric cars. Gas engine cars and trucks will have a place on the roads for a long time to come.

Where the electric shines is in commuting, city driving, running errands and the short trips in an urban or suburban setting. This accounts for about 90% of most peoples' driving. For those who live in the country or routinely indulge in coast to coast trips, we still have gas cars and trucks.

After all, we still have railroad trains, boats, cars trucks and buses even though we also have airplanes and rocket ships. All part of a complete transportation system. It's not a matter of all electric or all IC power, there is need for both.


----------



## sags

Big announcement coming from Ford for a new all electric Mustang Mach vehicle.


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> Oh, I'm wounded. You think I'm ignorant of science because I don't take "I'm old, listen to me" as a valid argument?
> 
> As the kids say these days, "ok boomer".


Science doesn't cough up immutable facts. It designs theories. a theory selects facts that support it, and deselects facts that don't support it. 
cainvest has presented you with a circumstance in climate science that as far as I can tell you deselect, ignore, sidestep. I can tell cainvest, for example, has done some reading on the subject, but you look like all you have is newspaper headlines leading you. 

If you want credibility, you have to study what you critique and I don't see any study in your posts.


----------



## Pluto

cainvest said:


> Problem is EV won't work for the vast majority of people with their limited range, especially when heading out to cabin / wilderness areas. PHEV would work providing their costs are not to high for the option. They could run as EV in town for daily use then have the ICE for longer trips out of town. AFAIK towing with a vehicle without a tow rating is a big no-no so while you might be able to get a hitch it still might not be legal to tow with it.
> 
> Then there is the cold weather issues as well, a major problem for some parts of Canada.


In addition to that, cars are not the main source of emissions that andrew is worried about, although he seems to think so. The main source of emissions is industry. So bunch of cars get charged up by coal fired generating plants, he thinks he is reducing emissions because the car is EV, not gas eventhough the power plants are worse - dirtier - than gas powered cars.


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> Any place that can pump gas has electricity. And it would not be difficult to put in a circuit that can charge EVs quickly. It may not be there today, but once there is a market it will be installed. And this is not a "most people" scenario we are talking about here. Most people don't even get all that far from a major highway.
> 
> I'll also note that 300 kms from Winnipeg generally puts you out of the province. I'd wager you have decent grid connections outside out Winnipeg.
> 
> It just seems like you really don't want EVs to ever be a possible option in this case. It's not that threatening, is it?


Options are always welcome in my view. But you seem to think that if you charge a EV from a plant run on fossil fuels, you have an emissions free car. doesn't make sense. 
Also, where does Tesla manufacturing plant get its power from? probably mostly from coal fired plants. And Ll the manufacturing done in China relies greatly on coal fired plants. Similarly with India, Germany, and what have you. you seem to be touting the EV as an emissions reducer, but I don't see it. Industry is by far the greatest source of emissions. 

Your issue with emissions will not be solved until industry has an emissions free source of power. In the meantime, EV's on a large scale will make emissions worse because power plants are dirtier than gas power cars. EV's will just shift the source of emissions from the location of the car, to the location of the coal fired plant.


----------



## Pluto

*Will EV's save the world from global warming?*

https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants

According to the link in 2000 global coal capacity was 1,065,942 MW

Currently it is 1,783,292 an increase of 67%. Many more plants are under construction.

So switching to EV's globally will not save the world from greenhouse gas emissions. Instead it will make it worse by putting increased demands on coal fired plants.


----------



## Eder

Couldn't resist


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> Science doesn't cough up immutable facts. It designs theories. a theory selects facts that support it, and deselects facts that don't support it.
> cainvest has presented you with a circumstance in climate science that as far as I can tell you deselect, ignore, sidestep. I can tell cainvest, for example, has done some reading on the subject, but you look like all you have is newspaper headlines leading you.
> 
> If you want credibility, you have to study what you critique and I don't see any study in your posts.


Not sure what you're referring to. I seem to recall you are highly evasive in discussions we've had in the past. I think it was related to your belief in god. So, maybe you shouldn't be tossing stones? 

That said, I'm not sure what remark of cainvest you are referring to. Feel free to requote. I might not have commented on it because I didn't disagree with it?


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> Couldn't resist


Science!

Any thoughts on the frequency of flooding, and any patterns therein? At any rate, my understanding is that Venice is actually sinking, not so much suffering from rising sea levels. So Eder, is your contention that sea levels are not rising? Want to understand how to bucket this argument for future Jello nailing purposes.


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants
> 
> According to the link in 2000 global coal capacity was 1,065,942 MW
> 
> Currently it is 1,783,292 an increase of 67%. Many more plants are under construction.
> 
> So switching to EV's globally will not save the world from greenhouse gas emissions. Instead it will make it worse by putting increased demands on coal fired plants.


It does not follow that one has caused the other. Not very scientific. However, it is true that regardless of grid energy mix, even in coal-heavy jurisdictions, EVs are more CO2 efficient than ICE vehicles. Primarily due to the massive difference in efficiency. ICE vehicles are very inefficient, particularly when compared to a large power plant. 

There has been a similar amount of nameplate capacity of renewables added in just the past couple of years. Nuclear is also growing in output. 

https://www.irena.org/Statistics/View-Data-by-Topic/Capacity-and-Generation/Statistics-Time-Series


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> Options are always welcome in my view. But you seem to think that if you charge a EV from a plant run on fossil fuels, you have an emissions free car. doesn't make sense.
> Also, where does Tesla manufacturing plant get its power from? probably mostly from coal fired plants. And Ll the manufacturing done in China relies greatly on coal fired plants. Similarly with India, Germany, and what have you. you seem to be touting the EV as an emissions reducer, but I don't see it. Industry is by far the greatest source of emissions.
> 
> Your issue with emissions will not be solved until industry has an emissions free source of power. In the meantime, EV's on a large scale will make emissions worse because power plants are dirtier than gas power cars. EV's will just shift the source of emissions from the location of the car, to the location of the coal fired plant.


Not very scientific to be making unresearched assumptions. Link below indicates Nevada electricity is sourced 70% natural gas, 20% from solar and geothermal.
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=NV

Tesla has its main assembly plant in California (Bay area). California's power mix seems to be over half renewables, and about 40% natural gas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California

The vast majority of Tesla's cell production takes place in Nevada. They do source cells from other jurisdictions/providers as well, but I don't think they source from China as yet. They will soon, when they start production in their new factory there. Power plants are not dirtier than cars. Natural gas is relatively clean burning (ask Alta here) from a pollutant standpoint, when compared to gasoline. And even coal can have many of the pollutants scrubbed at the point of generation. Not to mention that it is one thing to have fossil fuels burned at a plant 100 miles away than to have exhaust puffing in your face from the car ahead of you on the street. Particulate emissions (PM2.5) are highly deleterious to health, particularly for the young and those of advanced age. Furthermore, when comparing to gasoline, you have to consider the well-to-wheels emissions. Did you know that a fair amount of electricity is required to refine gasoline? Nevermind to extract, transport and refine the oil. One should consider that that electricity could instead be directly used for transportation. An estimate is that it takes 8 kwh to produce a gallon of gasoline (https://www.autoblog.com/2011/10/14/how-gas-cars-use-more-electricity-to-go-100-miles-than-evs-do/). I'm sure it varies, but it is not zero. 8kwh can propel a model 3 about 32 miles. A similar performance and size car, a BMW 3 series, gets less than this using a gallon of gasoline. So, a Model 3 can go farther on the electricity required to produce the gallon of gasoline than a 3 series can go on that electricity PLUS the gallon of gas.

I see you promulgating a lot of opinion here, rather than any researched information. Glass houses and bricks and all that. 

You seem to be suggesting that nothing should be done unless perfection can be achieved. As a rule, I try to take the advice that one should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.


----------



## Eder

I am mocking the alarmist community.So much fun and so much material. I'll let you decide whether your sea levels are rising.


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> In addition to that, cars are not the main source of emissions that andrew is worried about, although he seems to think so. The main source of emissions is industry. So bunch of cars get charged up by coal fired generating plants, he thinks he is reducing emissions because the car is EV, not gas eventhough the power plants are worse - dirtier - than gas powered cars.


According to IEA, 50% of oil is used in road transport. Of course, there are other fossil fuels being burned, but suffice to say that road transport is a major emitter. Of course, I am not foolish enough to believe that there is one silver bullet solution to reducing emissions. We can start another thread to discuss how industrial emissions can be reduced, if you like. All the same, you don't need to suppose what I think--you can just ask me.


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> I am mocking the alarmist community.So much fun and so much material. I'll let you decide whether your sea levels are rising.


Unintended irony?


----------



## Eder

andrewf said:


> Unintended irony?


I like the cut of your jib....Touché


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> Not very scientific to be making unresearched assumptions. Link below indicates Nevada electricity is sourced 70% natural gas, 20% from solar and geothermal.
> https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=NV


OK. so 70% fossil fuel.


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> It does not follow that one has caused the other. Not very scientific. However, it is true that regardless of grid energy mix, even in coal-heavy jurisdictions, EVs are more CO2 efficient than ICE vehicles. Primarily due to the massive difference in efficiency. ICE vehicles are very inefficient, particularly when compared to a large power plant.
> 
> There has been a similar amount of nameplate capacity of renewables added in just the past couple of years. Nuclear is also growing in output.
> 
> https://www.irena.org/Statistics/View-Data-by-Topic/Capacity-and-Generation/Statistics-Time-Series


1. "Cause": I didn't say anything caused anything. 
2. I think you know that EV's have to be charged. The ones that are charged by fossil fuel power plants give you no gain in terms of reducing emissions. Transporting electricity from a power plant to your home is very inefficient. Lots of power is lost along the way.
3. The fact that coal plant capacity has increased by 67% over the stated years indicates a) those countries don't care very much about your unfounded alarmist views, and b) wind and solar hasn't had any effect in reducing overall emissions. If it had coal fired plant capacity would decrease, not increase. 

I believe cainvest asked you what % of climate change is caused by humans and what % is natural factors? I know that nobody knows. not you, not any scientist. so when alarmists claim humans are causing climate change, it is a statement of faith.


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> OK. so 70% fossil fuel.


It is false to say mostly coal. In fact, there is virtually no coal used to power either factory.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> It is false to say mostly coal. In fact, there is virtually no coal used to power either factory.


Pluto did say fossil fuel, not coal. From the chart, Nevada electrical generation does appear to be predominately fossil fuels. More on Nevada's energy outlook here http://energy.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/energynvgov/content/Home/2018 SOE web(1).pdf


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> 2. I think you know that EV's have to be charged. The ones that are charged by fossil fuel power plants give you no gain in terms of reducing emissions. Transporting electricity from a power plant to your home is very inefficient. Lots of power is lost along the way.


This is just hand waving. And it is wrong. I already explained that gasoline requires electricity to refine. You need to consider that. And EVs are more efficient, so it is entirely possible to burn less fossil fuels to first create power, then charge an EV than to burn gasoline directly. This is an argument called "the long tailpipe". Feel free to do some research on it.



> 3. The fact that coal plant capacity has increased by 67% over the stated years indicates a) those countries don't care very much about your unfounded alarmist views, and b) wind and solar hasn't had any effect in reducing overall emissions. If it had coal fired plant capacity would decrease, not increase.


It indicates nothing of the sort. You don't speak for those countries. You are free to offer your interpretation of their actions, but that is your opinion, not theirs'. Claim b is also false, because you do not know the counterfactual. Emissions could have risen more otherwise.

Your argument is not valid, consider this example. Claim: Opening a window in the winter does not cool the house. How do I know? The temperature increased in the house despite the window being open (nevermind the furnace working overtime). Therefore, open windows do not cool houses in the winter. Reductio ad absurdum.



> I believe cainvest asked you what % of climate change is caused by humans and what % is natural factors? I know that nobody knows. not you, not any scientist. so when alarmists claim humans are causing climate change, it is a statement of faith.


I didn't see it, please feel free to quote him/her. I maybe didn't answer because it seemed like a rhetorical question.

You are using faulty logic in your reasoning here. As I said, glass houses and bricks and all that.


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> Also, where does Tesla manufacturing plant get its power from? *probably mostly from coal fired plants.*


See above


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> 1. "Cause": I didn't say anything caused anything.


You said:


Pluto said:


> So switching to EV's globally will not save the world from greenhouse gas emissions. Instead it will make it worse by putting increased demands on coal fired plants.


Sure sounds like an argument that 'thing A' will make 'think B' happen. EV adoption causes GHG emissions.


----------



## Eder

I'm still waiting...(in my sailboat just in case)


----------



## accord1999

andrewf said:


> One should consider that that electricity could instead be directly used for transportation. An estimate is that it takes 8 kwh to produce a gallon of gasoline (https://www.autoblog.com/2011/10/14/how-gas-cars-use-more-electricity-to-go-100-miles-than-evs-do/). I'm sure it varies, but it is not zero.


I consider that estimate to be BS. A barrel of oil contains about 42 gallons of useful products, so that suggests that a barrel of oil requires over 300 kWh electricity input, which given even typical industrial rates would mean most of the cost of a barrel is electricity. And when scaled to the level of production and consumption of the US, oil alone would take 1/3rd of its electricity generation. 

EIA data shows that refineries in the US use only 48 TWh of electricity (for over 190B gallons of gas+diesel), so the supposed 8 kWh would have to be mostly in extraction and transport. 

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_capfuel_dcu_nus_a.htm

But if that was the case, Alberta with production of about 1B barrels of oil a year, should see electricity consumption of hundreds of TWh/year just for oil. But total generation in 2018 was only 84 TWh.

http://www.auc.ab.ca/Shared Documents/TotalGeneration.pdf


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> See above


OK. Like I said, 70% gas, a fossil fuel. How much plastic, a fossil fuel by product, is in a Tesla or any EV? And charging them via a fossil fuel power plant doesn't eliminate emissions, it just shifts the emissions to the location of the power plant. 

Doesn't matter how you slice and dice, a 67% increase in coal fired generation capacity, with more being built, shows there is no viable option in wind and solar. the latter two are just supplements to a main diet of fossil fuel. 

You seem to be happy with an EV charged up by fossil fuel fired plants so what's your problem? Your argument is they are efficient, therefore charging them with a fossil fueled power plant solves the problem of emissions. Somehow, in your mind, the emissions created due to charging the car don't count. Since you are happy with that, I don't get what your problem is?


----------



## andrewf

accord1999 said:


> I consider that estimate to be BS. A barrel of oil contains about 42 gallons of useful products, so that suggests that a barrel of oil requires over 300 kWh electricity input, which given even typical industrial rates would mean most of the cost of a barrel is electricity. And when scaled to the level of production and consumption of the US, oil alone would take 1/3rd of its electricity generation.
> 
> EIA data shows that refineries in the US use only 48 TWh of electricity (for over 190B gallons of gas+diesel), so the supposed 8 kWh would have to be mostly in extraction and transport.
> 
> https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_capfuel_dcu_nus_a.htm
> 
> But if that was the case, Alberta with production of about 1B barrels of oil a year, should see electricity consumption of hundreds of TWh/year just for oil. But total generation in 2018 was only 84 TWh.
> 
> http://www.auc.ab.ca/Shared Documents/TotalGeneration.pdf


I haven't had time to read it in more detail, but I found an old analysis from ORNL. Maybe someone got confused between a barrel and gallon at some point? The point remains that a lot of energy is consumed in extracting, refining and transporting gasoline.

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/7261027


----------



## Pluto

Eder said:


> I'm still waiting...(in my sailboat just in case)


And the current scientific sermon on the apocalypse has the end of the world at 2030. But no worries. andrew has researched it. EV's will save the world even if they are charged up by power from fossil fuels, and even if the factories of EV's are powered by fossil fuels, because EV's are more efficient than gas automobiles.


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> OK. Like I said, 70% gas, a fossil fuel. How much plastic, a fossil fuel by product, is in a Tesla or any EV? And charging them via a fossil fuel power plant doesn't eliminate emissions, it just shifts the emissions to the location of the power plant.
> 
> Doesn't matter how you slice and dice, a 67% increase in coal fired generation capacity, with more being built, shows there is no viable option in wind and solar. the latter two are just supplements to a main diet of fossil fuel.
> 
> You seem to be happy with an EV charged up by fossil fuel fired plants so what's your problem? Your argument is they are efficient, therefore charging them with a fossil fueled power plant solves the problem of emissions. Somehow, in your mind, the emissions created due to charging the car don't count. Since you are happy with that, I don't get what your problem is?


No, you said mostly coal. Don't move the goal posts. Accept the correction. My main point is that you were accusing me of not doing research, then you started making wild, unresearched claims.

Plastic is a separate issue from an environmental perspective. We can talk about it another time if you like.

You seem to be willfully missing the point. Just because zero emissions is not achieved by converting to EVs, does not mean that EVs result is as much (or more, as you contend) emissions than ICE vehicles. Reduction in emissions is a step on the path to eliminating them. I don't see how you think it is reasonable to expect a magic wand can be waved and we replace the infrastructure of civilization overnight. And because we can't do that, we shouldn't do anything? I mean, reflect on that and decide whether you want to engage in cheap rhetoric or be taken seriously. I actually had a higher opinion of you before and you are making me re-evaluate.


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> And the current scientific sermon on the apocalypse has the end of the world at 2030. But no worries. andrew has researched it. EV's will save the world even if they are charged up by power from fossil fuels, and even if the factories of EV's are powered by fossil fuels, because EV's are more efficient than gas automobiles.


Don't strawman, it's a bad look.


----------



## Longtimeago

Pluto said:


> And the current scientific sermon on the apocalypse has the end of the world at 2030. But no worries. andrew has researched it. EV's will save the world even if they are charged up by power from fossil fuels, and even if the factories of EV's are powered by fossil fuels, because EV's are more efficient than gas automobiles.


People who use 'either/or' in an attempt to argue something really need to think a little harder. If we want to reduce green house gases, we need to START making multiple changes. So start driving EVs AND start finding alternatives to fossil fuel generated electricity. The word AND makes a fool out of an either/or argument.


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> No, you said mostly coal. Don't move the goal posts. Accept the correction. My main point is that you were accusing me of not doing research, then you started making wild, unresearched claims.
> 
> Plastic is a separate issue from an environmental perspective. We can talk about it another time if you like.
> 
> You seem to be willfully missing the point. Just because zero emissions is not achieved by converting to EVs, does not mean that EVs result is as much (or more, as you contend) emissions than ICE vehicles. Reduction in emissions is a step on the path to eliminating them. I don't see how you think it is reasonable to expect a magic wand can be waved and we replace the infrastructure of civilization overnight. And because we can't do that, we shouldn't do anything? I mean, reflect on that and decide whether you want to engage in cheap rhetoric or be taken seriously. I actually had a higher opinion of you before and you are making me re-evaluate.


You're funny. you said 70% natural gas. I said OK gas, a fossil fuel. I said that numerous times. 
You say EV's will save the world. EV's are well on the way. so what is your problem?


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> Don't strawman, it's a bad look.


Well I guess I got your point incorrect. 
your point seems to be EV's are more efficient, than gas cars. EV's are on the way big time. Problem solved because we won't have to burn any oil anymore. Isn't that your point?

Your opponents say EV's will not replace gas cars completely. that upsets you because you think burning gasoline is causing global warming. But really, most of the emissions come from industry, not cars. 

So my question to you was, even if EV's become prevalent, what will you power industry with?


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> Just because zero emissions is not achieved by converting to EVs, does not mean that EVs result is as much (or more, as you contend) emissions than ICE vehicles. Reduction in emissions is a step on the path to eliminating them. I don't see how you think it is reasonable to expect a magic wand can be waved and we replace the infrastructure of civilization overnight. And because we can't do that, we shouldn't do anything?


This brings me back to the PHEV as a short-term (~10 years) solution and in my quick thoughts, it's a total win-win.

First problem is adoption by the masses. EVs just don't work for most people (multiple reasons) and the infrastructre to support them isn't here yet. 

PHEV pros
- Eliminates daily driver emissions, can go to work and home totally on electric (for many people)
- Allows range/convenience to go across country or out of town, no need for a second vehicle
- Can be charged at home overnight with 110v for the next days commute.
- Can also be charged at EV stations promoting their adoption.
- Cheaper to run (at least where electric costs are fairly cheap)
- Reduces city polution levels
- Can basically be done to any vehicle currrently in production (people like choices)

PHEV cons
- More complex vehicle (ICE + EV)
- Additional cost to make, so higher price to the consumer

Now if the government (all levels) were to take these carbon taxes and give some of it to consumers for buying a PHEV that would help for quicker adoption. I would personally look at PHEV just for the savings of driving around town alone but currently there are none.


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> Well I guess I got your point incorrect.
> your point seems to be EV's are more efficient, than gas cars. EV's are on the way big time. Problem solved because we won't have to burn any oil anymore. Isn't that your point?


Nope. My goal in engaging these discussions is to dispel some of the FUD that is being promulgated. I have never claimed that EV adoption alone will eliminate oil use. That is a strawman. In fact, I clearly said that 50% of oil use is road transportation, leaving a full 50% for other uses. Please don't misattribute things to me when I said the exact opposite.



> Your opponents say EV's will not replace gas cars completely. that upsets you because you think burning gasoline is causing global warming. But really, most of the emissions come from industry, not cars.


No, they are saying that EVs won't be useful (and won't be adopted) until X or because of Y. I'm addressing the validity of those claims. I don't think ICE vehicles will ever be completely eliminated (classic cars/antiques, for instance). I think it is quite possible to substantially eliminate ICE from use in road transportation.



> So my question to you was, even if EV's become prevalent, what will you power industry with?


There are a variety of options. I think nuclear is a good option, and there is a lot of effort being put into improved nuclear technology that is cheaper/standardized, walk-away safe, and/or produces less and less hazardous byproducts. Even without it, current nuclear technology is safer (deaths/TWh) and cleaner than coal. Orders of magnitude better. Renewables will have a role to play. Solar is already cheaper than coal in some sunny equatorial countries. Offshore wind is advancing at a good pace. Even without subsidies, we should reach a point where they are cheaper than fossil fuel energy.

You seem to be arguing that electric generation has to be fossil fuel based. Ontario has already largely eliminated fossil fuels in its energy mix, except for peak capacity. Batteries can play that role, too, and ever moreso as they become cheaper. At the end of the day, your opposition to electrification is irrelevant, as the cost declines for renewables will continue apace regardless.

There are options for making other industrial processes more efficient as well, such as steel-making, cement-making or chemicals. I am leaving that out of scope for discussion in this thread. If you want to talk about it, you can start another.


Overall, I am deeply disappointed by your participation here, Pluto. I recall you being able to form cogent arguments, even if I did not always agree with you. I don't think you have acquitted yourself well here.


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> This brings me back to the PHEV as a short-term (~10 years) solution and in my quick thoughts, it's a total win-win.
> 
> First problem is adoption by the masses. EVs just don't work for most people (multiple reasons) and the infrastructre to support them isn't here yet.
> 
> PHEV pros
> - Eliminates daily driver emissions, can go to work and home totally on electric (for many people)
> - Allows range/convenience to go across country or out of town, no need for a second vehicle
> - Can be charged at home overnight with 110v for the next days commute.
> - Can also be charged at EV stations promoting their adoption.
> - Cheaper to run (at least where electric costs are fairly cheap)
> - Reduces city polution levels
> - Can basically be done to any vehicle currrently in production (people like choices)
> 
> PHEV cons
> - More complex vehicle (ICE + EV)
> - Additional cost to make, so higher price to the consumer
> 
> Now if the government (all levels) were to take these carbon taxes and give some of it to consumers for buying a PHEV that would help for quicker adoption. I would personally look at PHEV just for the savings of driving around town alone but currently there are none.


PHEVs will be available, I just don't know how much commercial success they will see. GM has abandoned their PHEV (Bolt) car because they were losing money on it.

I don't think governments should be specifically subsidizing any particular solution (like EV subsidies, etc.). Carbon pricing should form the basis of incentives. I think the main driver for industry at this point is CAFE/fuel economy standards. It is basically a cross-subsidy, as car makers have to produce less-profitable/more economical vehicles to be able to sell more profitable gas guzzlers.

If automakers manage to pull off full autonomy, the whole industry is going to be massively disrupted. EVs will be the obvious choice for fleet cars, because their much lower operating cost will quickly overwhelm the additional capital cost. For many consumers, being able to rent a car on demand for less than the cost of owning will be very attractive (including renting a bigger vehicle when needed and smaller ones for every day use). Free parking mandates can be relaxed, which will dramatically change land use in cities (some cities are 30% parking).


----------



## AltaRed

Electrical generation, if nuclear is not an option for base load, will have a lot of natural gas fired consumption, where NG can be delivered cost effectively as NG or as LNG. Nevada is about 70% natural gas a the moment and is likely to increase as the last coal fired units are retired. Solar and wind and battery storage may, or may not, ever be the majority of power generation in places like Nevada essentially devoid of, or have limited, incremental hydro-electric opportunities.

Given the price of natural gas, it is the one that is causing coal fired generation to be retired in North America in particular. The competitive fuel souces will be different in different regions. There is no one size fits all.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> PHEVs will be available, I just don't know how much commercial success they will see. GM has abandoned their PHEV (Bolt) car because they were losing money on it.
> 
> I don't think governments should be specifically subsidizing any particular solution (like EV subsidies, etc.). Carbon pricing should form the basis of incentives. I think the main driver for industry at this point is CAFE/fuel economy standards. It is basically a cross-subsidy, as car makers have to produce less-profitable/more economical vehicles to be able to sell more profitable gas guzzlers.


Maybe the Bolt was just a crappy car? Prius sales figures aren't bad and they only just released a PHEV.

Not sure how well CAFE will continue to push for less emissions, the industry and comsumer trends are moving from more fuel efficient cars to SUV/Light trucks. We'll also have to see if the CAFE numbers keep moving upwards as they may not now. In any case, relying on CAFE will be a very slow process and certainly won't appeal to the climate change crowd. 



andrewf said:


> If automakers manage to pull off full autonomy, the whole industry is going to be massively disrupted. EVs will be the obvious choice for fleet cars, because their much lower operating cost will quickly overwhelm the additional capital cost. For many consumers, being able to rent a car on demand for less than the cost of owning will be very attractive (including renting a bigger vehicle when needed and smaller ones for every day use). Free parking mandates can be relaxed, which will dramatically change land use in cities (some cities are 30% parking).


With AV's being probably 30+ years out for mass usage it'll be little or too late for the climate. Probably best to start a new thread to discuss this topic.


----------



## james4beach

One consequence of people getting stuck into old fashioned thinking (that grids need fossil fuels) is that this can stop people from pursuing new technology and adancements.

Big picture, this is a problem I see in Alberta. Lots of effort spent fighting and clinging to the past, instead of doing what real business people and innovators do: look for new directions, new business, economic advancement. Maybe Alberta needs to kick out these old men from the ranks of power.

IMO the old men who run the O&G industry and the government are hurting Alberta.

The grid, for example. Texas has been making huge advancements in renewables:
https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/...y-doesn-t-bring-electricity-price-armageddon/



> But it's not just about retiring coal. Texas already leads the nation in wind generation capacity with nearly 25 gigawatts (more than a quarter of the nation's total), and it still added more renewable generation (wind and solar) than any other state last year. In fact, Texas has enough wind capacity to rank No. 5 globally if it were still a country.
> 
> But wait, there's more.
> 
> Texas is on the cusp of a boom in solar generation.


----------



## cainvest

james4beach said:


> One consequence of people getting stuck into old fashioned thinking (that grids need fossil fuels) is that this can stop people from pursuing new technology and adancements.
> 
> Big picture, this is a problem I see in Alberta. Lots of effort spent fighting and clinging to the past, instead of doing what real business people and innovators do: look for new directions, new business, economic advancement. Maybe Alberta needs to kick out these old men from the ranks of power.
> 
> IMO the old men who run the O&G industry and the government are hurting Alberta.
> 
> The grid, for example. Texas has been making huge advancements in renewables:
> https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/...y-doesn-t-bring-electricity-price-armageddon/


If it was cost effective I'm sure more of Canada (not just Alberta) would do solar/wind. Also being much farther north doesn't help with solar when compared to Texas.


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> Maybe the Bolt was just a crappy car? Prius sales figures aren't bad and they only just released a PHEV.
> 
> Not sure how well CAFE will continue to push for less emissions, the industry and comsumer trends are moving from more fuel efficient cars to SUV/Light trucks. We'll also have to see if the CAFE numbers keep moving upwards as they may not now. In any case, relying on CAFE will be a very slow process and certainly won't appeal to the climate change crowd.
> 
> 
> With AV's being probably 30+ years out for mass usage it'll be little or too late for the climate. Probably best to start a new thread to discuss this topic.


I think CAFE + desire for big vehicles is going to drive EV adoption. You need zero emissions to balance out the growth in vehicle size.

I think Musk thinks 2-3 years, I'm more inclined to think 5-10 years for AV adoption. 30 years is definitely on the high side. Just think that 30 years ago, we barely had an internet. The advancement in compute power, sensors, algorithms, etc. over 30 years is _massive._


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> Nope. My goal in engaging these discussions is to dispel some of the FUD that is being promulgated. I have never claimed that EV adoption alone will eliminate oil use. That is a strawman. In fact, I clearly said that 50% of oil use is road transportation, leaving a full 50% for other uses. Please don't misattribute things to me when I said the exact opposite.
> 
> 
> No, they are saying that EVs won't be useful (and won't be adopted) until X or because of Y. I'm addressing the validity of those claims. I don't think ICE vehicles will ever be completely eliminated (classic cars/antiques, for instance). I think it is quite possible to substantially eliminate ICE from use in road transportation.
> 
> 
> 
> There are a variety of options. I think nuclear is a good option, and there is a lot of effort being put into improved nuclear technology that is cheaper/standardized, walk-away safe, and/or produces less and less hazardous byproducts. Even without it, current nuclear technology is safer (deaths/TWh) and cleaner than coal. Orders of magnitude better. Renewables will have a role to play. Solar is already cheaper than coal in some sunny equatorial countries. Offshore wind is advancing at a good pace. Even without subsidies, we should reach a point where they are cheaper than fossil fuel energy.
> 
> You seem to be arguing that electric generation has to be fossil fuel based. Ontario has already largely eliminated fossil fuels in its energy mix, except for peak capacity. Batteries can play that role, too, and ever moreso as they become cheaper. At the end of the day, your opposition to electrification is irrelevant, as the cost declines for renewables will continue apace regardless.
> 
> There are options for making other industrial processes more efficient as well, such as steel-making, cement-making or chemicals. I am leaving that out of scope for discussion in this thread. If you want to talk about it, you can start another.
> 
> 
> Overall, I am deeply disappointed by your participation here, Pluto. I recall you being able to form cogent arguments, even if I did not always agree with you. I don't think you have acquitted yourself well here.


1) I'm not against EV's. You are funny. But at least now you seem to accept that natural gas is a fossil fuel. 
2) In areas powered by nat gas and coal EV's will have to be charged by fossil fuel plants. Countries with huge populations are building coal fired plants at a tremendous rate. Reportedly 1600 coal fired plants are under construction right now. Trust me, if wind and solar were viable options, such plants would not be under construction. Apparently China gets 70% of its power from coal. India over 50%. china is building coal fired plants in many counties around the world. Global emissions of co2 continue to rise and the generation of electricity is the main source. 
so yes, Many EV's will be charged by fossil fuel power plants, yielding no net benefit. that's doesn't mean I am against EV's. It means I am against promoting them as the salvation technology.
3. Besides, despite increasing emissions of co2, global temperatures do not match the expectations of the climate models. the world is cooler than the models project suggesting that the Co2 component in the models is over rated as a greenhouse gas. 
4. Very rare early frost in Alabama. Huge abnormal snowfall in UK. Global temps not as high as science projects. Add it up and it looks like no climate emergency.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> I think CAFE + desire for big vehicles is going to drive EV adoption. You need zero emissions to balance out the growth in vehicle size.


I just don't see CAFE being a driving force to promote EV adoption, no pun intended. If they make some significant EV battery breakthroughs, then it's a maybe ...


----------



## Userkare

What about FCV and FCEV cars? I believe they're still being made, but don't see any real push to embrace the technology. 

I don't know how much power is needed to create the compressed H2, so maybe it isn't as practical as EV? Surely though, it can't be as damaging as mining Lithium and Cadmium.


----------



## Eder

At any rate this is the 10 year anniversary of Climate Gate. For those too young to remember heres a good read of how data manipulation and pseudo science was used to forward alarmist agendas.

“The evidence points to some clear conclusions.


The scientists involved in the email exchanges manipulated evidence in IPCC and WMO reports with the effect of misleading readers, including policymakers. The divergence problem was concealed by deleting data to “hide the decline.” The panels that examined the issue in detail, namely Muir Russell’s panel, concurred that the graph was “misleading.” The ridiculous attempt by the Penn State Inquiry to defend an instance of deleting data and splicing in other data to conceal a divergence problem only discredits their claims to have investigated the issue.
Phil Jones admitted deleting emails, and it appears to have been directed towards preventing disclosure of information subject to Freedom of Information laws, and he asked his colleagues to do the same. The inquiries largely fumbled this question, or averted their eyes.
The scientists privately expressed greater doubts or uncertainties about the science in their own professional writings and in their interactions with one another than they allowed to be stated in reports of the IPCC or WMO that were intended for policymakers. Rather than criticise the scientists for this, the inquiries (particularly the House of Commons and Oxburgh inquiries) took the astonishing view that as long as scientists expressed doubts and uncertainties in their academic papers and among themselves, it was acceptable for them to conceal those uncertainties in documents prepared for policy makers.
The scientists took steps individually or in collusion to block access to data or methodologies in order to prevent external examination of their work. This point was accepted by the Commons Inquiry and Muir Russell, and the authors were admonished and encouraged to improve their conduct in the future.
The inquiries were largely unable to deal with the issue of the issue of blocking publication of papers, or intimidating journals. But academics reading the emails could see quite clearly the tribalism at work, and in comparison to other fields, climatology comes off looking juvenile, corrupt and in the grip of a handful of self-appointed gatekeepers and bullies

https://judithcurry.com/2019/11/12/legacy-of-climategate-10-years-later/

Is the entire write up about the state of climate science today for those that want to digest a better understanding than a few memes on twitter.


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> Many EV's will be charged by fossil fuel power plants, yielding no net benefit.


This is not true, though. You are making too strong of a claim.










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

Yes, yes, temps are not rising. Anecdotes don't cut it, you have to look at data. If I listed 3 exceptionally hot places, would it prove the opposite conclusion?


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> Big picture, this is a problem I see in Alberta. Lots of effort spent fighting and clinging to the past, instead of doing what real business people and innovators do: look for new directions, new business, economic advancement. Maybe Alberta needs to kick out these old men from the ranks of power.
> 
> IMO the old men who run the O&G industry and the government are hurting Alberta.
> 
> The grid, for example. Texas has been making huge advancements in renewables:


The usual broad brush hyperbole, supposition and misrepresentation that destroys personal credibility. Certainly Alberta is coming from being a significant laggard (cheap coal virtually on premises), but here is current installed electrical capacity.

https://www.aeso.ca/aeso/electricity-in-alberta/ which does not include the new gas pipelines to replace coal fired generation https://globalnews.ca/news/6052778/premier-kenney-new-pipeline/ nor does it include Suncor's more recent commitment to its co-generation project.

And here is information that I have posted before on new power projects, but that you either didn't read or are in denial due to built-in bias and/or maliciousness?

https://majorprojects.alberta.ca/#l...ower_Solar,Power_Transmission-Line,Power_Wind Wind will need to be key because it is tough to make solar economics work at 50+ degrees latitude.

There will be considerable transformation over the next 5-10 years including towns that plan to go 'all green'.


----------



## cainvest

Pluto said:


> Many EV's will be charged by fossil fuel power plants, yielding no net benefit.





andrewf said:


> This is not true, though. You are making too strong of a claim.


Is it too strong? 

Efficiency wise ~36% (coal) vs ~30% (ICE) ... not that far apart!

Also that's not taking into account the EV car's charger where you'll lose another 8-15%.


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> Is it too strong?
> 
> Efficiency wise ~36% (coal) vs ~30% (ICE) ... not that far apart!
> 
> Also that's not taking into account the EV car's charger where you'll lose another 8-15%.


You're not taking into account any upstream refining emissions. Or using natural gas.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...getting-cleaner-even-where-grids-rely-on-coal


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> You're not taking into account any upstream refining emissions. Or using natural gas.


Nope, just pointing out it wasn't "too strong" a claim but that's just my opinion.


----------



## andrewf

No net benefit is too strong. Most jurisdictions are not 100% fossil fuel powered.

Check the article I posted. The claim is unsubstantiated.


----------



## accord1999

james4beach said:


> The grid, for example. Texas has been making huge advancements in renewables:


Which is why its electricity prices are going up:

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/bu...y-rates-climbing-higher-than-U-S-14380252.php

and its electricity system has become more fragile:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...rices-briefly-surpass-9-000-amid-searing-heat

Shouldn't be a surprise, it has happened to just about everybody that invested heavily into wind and/or solar.


----------



## AltaRed

None of those things are unusual when "availability" drops to 40-60% or so....from 90+% with large thermal or nuclear generating stations. There is a significant price to be paid for standby generation and/or prices peaking stations need to charge (in free market generation) to be economic. The more a grid has wind or solar power, the more expensive overall prices will be, at least until cost effective storage can become available.


----------



## sags

Breaking news......

Bill Gates and other super wealthy people have invested in a company that has created a ground breaking technology in solar power.

They use mirrors to reflect available power to a central point and the heat produced is equal to 25% of the temperature at the surface of the sun.

The new energy source is aimed at large fossil fuel users.......like cement producers who alone account for 7% of all fossil fuel use. 

The new source can also create hydrogen fuel and will be able to produce an abundance at lower prices than current fuel sources.

_A secretive startup backed by Bill Gates has achieved a solar breakthrough aimed at saving the planet.

Heliogen, a clean energy company that emerged from stealth mode on Tuesday, said it has discovered a way to use artificial intelligence and a field of mirrors to reflect so much sunlight that it generates extreme heat above 1,000 degrees Celsius._

_"Bill and the team have truly now harnessed the sun," Soon-Shiong, who also sits on the Heliogen board, told CNN Business. "*The potential to humankind is enormous. ... The potential to business is unfathomable.*"_

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates/index.html


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> No net benefit is too strong. Most jurisdictions are not 100% fossil fuel powered.
> 
> Check the article I posted. The claim is unsubstantiated.


In a situation where there is coal and wind sources for a particular area, when it is windy and they get power from the wind, they don't stop burning coal because it has to take over the instant the wind dies down. We can't assume that as soon as it gets windy, the coal burning shuts off. Until there is better storage technology for the erratic sources, wind and solar, the benefit is limited and suspect.


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> Breaking news......
> 
> Bill Gates and other super wealthy people have invested in a company that has created a ground breaking technology in solar power.
> 
> They use mirrors to reflect available power to a central point and the heat produced is equal to 25% of the temperature at the surface of the sun.
> 
> The new energy source is aimed at large fossil fuel users.......like cement producers who alone account for 7% of all fossil fuel use.
> 
> The new source can also create hydrogen fuel and will be able to produce an abundance at lower prices than current fuel sources.
> 
> _A secretive startup backed by Bill Gates has achieved a solar breakthrough aimed at saving the planet.
> 
> Heliogen, a clean energy company that emerged from stealth mode on Tuesday, said it has discovered a way to use artificial intelligence and a field of mirrors to reflect so much sunlight that it generates extreme heat above 1,000 degrees Celsius._
> 
> _"Bill and the team have truly now harnessed the sun," Soon-Shiong, who also sits on the Heliogen board, told CNN Business. "*The potential to humankind is enormous. ... The potential to business is unfathomable.*"_
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/business/heliogen-solar-energy-bill-gates/index.html


Here's to hoping. We only have about 10 years until we all die, so do you think we will make it?


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> You're not taking into account any upstream refining emissions. Or using natural gas.
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...getting-cleaner-even-where-grids-rely-on-coal


I think you are painting an overly rosy picture. If it was as good as you say, there wouldn't be 1600 coal fired plants under construction right now.

But I guess that's the alarmist method: exaggerate global warming, exaggerate the role of co2 in warming, and exaggerate the benefits of wind and solar and EV's.


----------



## Eclectic12

sags said:


> Breaking news......
> 
> Bill Gates and other super wealthy people have invested in a company that has created a ground breaking technology in solar power ...
> _A secretive startup backed by Bill Gates has achieved a solar breakthrough aimed at saving the planet.
> 
> Heliogen, a clean energy company that emerged from stealth mode on Tuesday, said it has discovered a way to use artificial intelligence and a field of mirrors to reflect so much sunlight that it generates extreme heat above 1,000 degrees Celsius._



The solar furnace is at Odeillo in the Pyrénées-Orientales in France which opened in 1970 has had temperatures above 3,500 degrees Celsius.
Getting to 1,000 degrees Celsius doesn't seem like much of a break through.

I'm guessing it's more about marketing hype, commercial application and Gates' name?


Cheers


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> In a situation where there is coal and wind sources for a particular area, when it is windy and they get power from the wind, they don't stop burning coal because it has to take over the instant the wind dies down. We can't assume that as soon as it gets windy, the coal burning shuts off. Until there is better storage technology for the erratic sources, wind and solar, the benefit is limited and suspect.


That is more like it! I don't think coal is typically used for peaking, more for baseload. There are peaker gas plants that can follow load pretty well. It seems that battery storage is becoming competitive in this role (grid regulation and short term storage), as Tesla successfully demonstrated with the Hornsdale installation in Australia. Batteries are better at this than any power plant can hope to be.


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> I think you are painting an overly rosy picture. If it was as good as you say, there wouldn't be 1600 coal fired plants under construction right now.


This does not follow. All forms of electric generation are growing. And the relative efficiency of EVs vs ICE from a carbon emissions does not have any bearing on whether coal plants get built.




> But I guess that's the alarmist method: exaggerate global warming, exaggerate the role of co2 in warming, and exaggerate the benefits of wind and solar and EV's.


Is the "denialist" method just to use a lot of non sequitur, unsupported claims and invalid reasoning to say "therefore EVs suck and will never work"?


----------



## sags

_In the past, mirrors couldn’t direct light as precisely, but computer vision and image processing have improved that process. “We have a series of high-resolution cameras look at a whole field of mirrors, and have all of them be pointing very precisely by looking at the position of the mirrors in real time. And that has never been done before.”

In the past, the hottest achievable temperature for this kind of solar tech was around 575 degrees Celsius. But many industrial processes—such as forming cement or steel—requires kilns with temperatures of at least 950 degrees, something that plants currently accomplish by burning dirty, cheap fuel such as coal, peat, or even tires and trash. Regular solar power wasn’t really a solution; a factory might put solar panels on the roof to provide some electric power, but the vast majority of its operations couldn’t shift to renewables. “It’s extremely inefficient to turn sunlight into electricity and then back into heat,” says Gross. “But it’s very efficient to just take sunlight, concentrate the heat, and use that heat directly.”_


https://www.fastcompany.com/9043186...could-help-finally-decarbonize-heavy-industry


----------



## Eclectic12

Odd that the previous best temp is supposedly as low as about 575 degrees Celsius (at least according to the marketing statement) when there are other examples that beat it.

1600+ degrees Celsius ... https://www.theatlantic.com/technol...wered-furnace-can-reach-3-000-degrees/360423/
1800 degrees Celsius ... https://www.nrel.gov/csp/facility-hfsf.html


I expect that the computers/tech are making it cheaper/more efficient/scalable. That seems more compelling than what looks like misleading temperature claims. 


Cheers


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> This does not follow. All forms of electric generation are growing. And the relative efficiency of EVs vs ICE from a carbon emissions does not have any bearing on whether coal plants get built.


The point being, EV use may not be as "green" as some think. EV polution may still occur just your tailpipe is located elsewhere.


----------



## cainvest

Even the weather channel guy figured it out! lol


----------



## AltaRed

cainvest said:


> The point being, EV use may not be as "green" as some think. EV polution may still occur just your tailpipe is located elsewhere.


That is a given, but not one the climate cheerleaders care to discuss or disclose very often. Ultimately though, there is a net positive for EVs in almost all jurisdictions and clearly materially so in grids that are almost entirely renewable to begin with. BC and QC for example in Canada (maybe ON too).


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> That is a given, but not one the climate cheerleaders care to discuss or disclose very often. Ultimately though, there is a net positive for EVs in almost all jurisdictions and clearly materially so in grids that are almost entirely renewable to begin with. BC and QC for example in Canada (maybe ON too).


Manitoba as well, almost all hydro power here! 
We're just finishing a big electric line down to Minnesota, been watching them build the towers as I walk the dog close by there.

PHEV/EVs definitely help out, would cut down on smog in major centers at the very least.


----------



## AltaRed

FWIW, when I came home a few hours ago, I was driving behind a Tesla with AB plates on! So the concept is not lost on Albertans.


----------



## like_to_retire

AltaRed said:


> Ultimately though, there is a net positive for EVs in almost all jurisdictions...............


I can see the adoption of EV's in subdivisions where there are individual homes that can install chargers in their garages. Seems like a good idea.

I have my doubts about many of the other situations where practicality comes into play.

I look at my downtown and see that all the homes/townhomes/rowhouses were built before they invented cars, so most of the people park on the street at night and pay for a permit to do so. Works out great. I know this because I did it for years. Where will these people plug in their EV every night?

I look at every apartment building complex where there is a mix of underground parking and outdoor lots. Where will these people plug in their EV every night?

I see many private downtown apartments above stores, and behind businesses where they park in a small lot through a lane-way. Where will these people plug in their EV every night?

Should all these people sit for an hour or so every day at some random public charger before going home?

It's all a big pipe dream...............

ltr


----------



## AltaRed

Agree there will be a large portion of the population that won't have convenient access to home plug-ins. The counter to that I think is ultimately more of these people in such locations (especially in our big cities) will forego owning a car eventually. I do think there will be more car sharing services, etc.


----------



## cainvest

like_to_retire said:


> I look at every apartment building complex where there is a mix of underground parking and outdoor lots. Where will these people plug in their EV every night?


Most apartment buildings here in Winnipeg have plug-ins, as do a number of work places. Two problems do exist, many outlets alternate plug power and because they are shared outlets, they are limited in wattage. They are basically setup for block heaters.

Not doubt it'll take time before it can go mainstream ...


----------



## like_to_retire

AltaRed said:


> Agree there will be a large portion of the population that won't have convenient access to home plug-ins.


On that we completely agree.



AltaRed said:


> The counter to that I think is ultimately more of these people in such locations (especially in our big cities) will forego owning a car eventually. I do think there will be more car sharing services, etc.


Nope, we don't agree. You'd be surprised how many people in downtown's of big cities park their car on the street in front of their home and pay for a permit. I did it for years and years. You get up every day and drive to work. You simply cannot _"forego owning a car"_, and the idea of car sharing is ridiculous. I get in my car every day and go to work - why would I share my car. These are EV pie-in-the-sky ideas that don't actually hold water in the practical world.

The only situation where EV's will thrive is in subdivisions where people own their homes, and have a driveway.

ltr


----------



## AltaRed

I know people in mid-town Calgary that walk to work each day. 5-10 blocks from all the high rises and other multi-family buildings to the heart of the office district. No vehicle there. Nor for the higher density that is coming up along rapid transit stations. Catch the bus on inclement days.

For that matter, not even the Bankview or Marda Loop areas or Inglewood or Mount Royal etc need cars during the week. A whole segment, maybe 20% of the population, who really don't need a vehicle on work days. Just saying cars are not as necessary as we now think.

P.S. Seems to be a lot of Car2Go type businesses springing up? Spouse's son and his then wife-to-be did not own a car for all the years they lived in Vancouver. They used Car2Go for times when it was necessary or more convenient to have a car. They only got a small SUV when a kid came along...and of course, had to park it on the street. BTW, a Tesla parked down the block on their particular street had a 15amp 115V extension cord from the house to the car......LOL.


----------



## Eder

Car2Go went tits up in Calgary...they were too costly to make a go of it and no parking concessions. My daughter lives in Marda Loop and works downtown...she often jogs to work but its a few miles, definitely needs a car to live in Calgary. The entire neighborhood is bumper to bumper cars with no parking. They are tearing down single houses & putting up 8 plex and apartments with not enough parking. Once they are all EV's there will be a mares nest of extension cords permanently frozen to the sidewalks as people charge their cars for 3 days at a time. What a gong show, yet if you want to be hip in Calgary you need to live in Marda Loop apparently.


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> I can see the adoption of EV's in subdivisions where there are individual homes that can install chargers in their garages. Seems like a good idea.
> 
> I have my doubts about many of the other situations where practicality comes into play.
> 
> I look at my downtown and see that all the homes/townhomes/rowhouses were built before they invented cars, so most of the people park on the street at night and pay for a permit to do so. Works out great. I know this because I did it for years. Where will these people plug in their EV every night?
> 
> I look at every apartment building complex where there is a mix of underground parking and outdoor lots. Where will these people plug in their EV every night?
> 
> I see many private downtown apartments above stores, and behind businesses where they park in a small lot through a lane-way. Where will these people plug in their EV every night?
> 
> Should all these people sit for an hour or so every day at some random public charger before going home?
> 
> It's all a big pipe dream...............
> 
> ltr


Yes, it is easiest in single detached housing. But if that is not an option, the alternatives are not so impossible to imagine. My workplace has 4 EV charging spots, and they see heavy use with Teslas, Nissan Leafs, etc. I drive by a Tesla supercharger on my way to work each day (shockingly--never a queue to charge as FUDed here).

Condos will start to retrofit to add charging stations in their parking areas as residents demand it. Probably not dedicated charging spots for each resident, but Level 2 chargers (can charge a car to full in a couple of hours). Residents can charge their car once per week or so, and move it to their normal spot when charging is complete. Businesses where people spend an amount of time that is well suited to charging stops, ie around an hour, will add charging stations. Think grocery stores, gyms, the mall, restaurants/coffee shops. It is not all that convenient yet, but EVs are only 2-3% of new car sales and maybe 1% of the fleet. This is going to change dramatically when EVs are 10, 20, 30% of the fleet. It is not too expensive to install charging stations (Tesla will give lower power "destination" charging stations to businesses free of charge)--they are going to be ubiquitous. Particularly when compared to gas stations, which have a lot more environmental risk.

I think a lot of the downtown residents you describe with really extreme parking situations are likely to forego car ownership as ridesharing becomes more prevalent. Driving downtown is a huge PITA, not to mention parking. And generally, if you live downtown, you probably don't have a 100 km commute. So an EV with a 500 km range is not going to need to be charged every night.


----------



## andrewf

I should also note that many jurisdictions are experimenting with solutions for charging with on-street parking. One of the ideas is to leverage the fact that many existing light standards have power provision for old high pressure sodium lights but have now been upgraded to LEDs. That power overhead can be used for EV charging. Could also install relatively unobtrusive parking-meter style charging stations. It's going to require some experimentation to determine the best solution, but there will be options.


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> Even the weather channel guy figured it out! lol


Ten year old video with a dead guy, RIP 2018? 

Mostly just hand-waving and strawmanning.


----------



## Eder

Other than a lot of facts ya just hand waving.


----------



## like_to_retire

andrewf said:


> Ten year old video with a dead guy, RIP 2018?
> 
> Mostly just hand-waving and strawmanning.


They had to make the video ten years ago since we're all supposed to be dead by now. At least that's what they told us ten years ago when they predicted the end of days.

ltr


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> Other than a lot of facts ya just hand waving.


Facts sure, but the interpretation is facile.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> Facts sure, but the interpretation is facile.


Not sure why you'd think that but everyone has a right to their own opinion.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> I should also note that many jurisdictions are experimenting with solutions for charging with on-street parking. One of the ideas is to leverage the fact that many existing light standards have power provision for old high pressure sodium lights but have now been upgraded to LEDs. That power overhead can be used for EV charging. Could also install relatively unobtrusive parking-meter style charging stations. It's going to require some experimentation to determine the best solution, but there will be options.


Experimenting is one thing, but massive infrastructure change will be a monumental undertaking, expensive and take a long time. Someone has to pay for all that and cities certainly cannot afford to spend billions, on the scale of rapid transit systems. It is just like the talk about self-driving cars and smart streets with all the sensors. Who is going to pay for that over 10,000 km of roadway in a large city? I don't reckon I will see any significant penetration in my remaining 20 years of life.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> Mostly just hand-waving and strawmanning.


More of the same? A little deeper look into the science of earth's climate change history ...


----------



## Longtimeago

Always the assumptions from some people. What people will do in the future and consider 'normal' is always changing. Who thought we would consider writing a letter archaic or using a paper map to find our way to somewhere outdated. The list of things that have changed over time is endless. When cars first appeared on roads and started to offer an alternative to the horse and buggy, there were a lot of people who said horses would never be replaced by them. How did that work out? 

When someone says something like, 'I'm not gonna spend 30 minutes charging my car' or 'where will someone street parking plug in their EV', the assumption is that this view of things will continue to be the 'norm' in the future. I can tell you EXACTLY what people will do in the future. Wanna know? They will do what they HAVE to do as determined by what is available for them to do. You cannot argue that at all. 

So regardless of what someone's personal opinion is of how inconvenient charging might be and how they personally are not going to do it, all that matters is where the norm is going to be and in that regard, I would say the trend is pretty clear. If you're still alive say 30 years from now, you WILL be driving a non-ICE vehicle or not driving at all. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehicles

The auto makers are not spending billions on developing alternative fuel vehicles because they think it will be a small niche market, they see the writing on the wall for the ICE. Even oil companies are getting on board. Why do you think Petro Canada is now advertising their 'Electric Highway' across Canada from coast to coast.
https://www.petro-canada.ca/en/pers...BC_xBwwiUgasbUREUp0aArQ8EALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

I suspect the same people trying to argue, 'it will never happen' were the people saying, 'no one is going to tell me I have to wear a seatbelt', right up until they got a ticket for it. Some here are old enough to remember just how heated the arguments were over that at the time. And now what do people think about seatbelts? Yup, they're the norm and accepted by all but a few diehards living in the past.


----------



## like_to_retire

AltaRed said:


> Experimenting is one thing, but massive infrastructure change will be a monumental undertaking, expensive and take a long time. Someone has to pay for all that and cities certainly cannot afford to spend billions, on the scale of rapid transit systems. It is just like the talk about self-driving cars and smart streets with all the sensors. Who is going to pay for that over 10,000 km of roadway in a large city? I don't reckon I will see any significant penetration in my remaining 20 years of life.


Totally agree. The only solution I see is to solve the puzzle of charging speed. If that nut is cracked, then we could have 'electric stations' just as we have 'gas stations' now. No one would have a charger at their home as that is impractical for a huge portion of the population. Everyone would simply stop at the station where they use to get gas, and now would charge up their vehicle in 5 minutes and be on their way.

ltr


----------



## cainvest

like_to_retire said:


> Totally agree. The only solution I see is to solve the puzzle of charging speed. If that nut is cracked, then we could have 'electric stations' just as we have 'gas stations' now. No one would have a charger at their home as that is impractical for a huge portion of the population. Everyone would simply stop at the station where they use to get gas, and now would charge up their vehicle in 5 minutes and be on their way.
> 
> ltr


Hopefully they can solve that issue and have fast charging (e.g. 5 mins) soon, that alone would greatly speed up adoption for EVs.


----------



## Longtimeago

cainvest said:


> Hopefully they can solve that issue and have fast charging (e.g. 5 mins) soon, that alone would greatly speed up adoption for EVs.


There is always the question of does demand result in improvements or do improvements result in demand. The truth is they work in tandem usually. As demand increases, innovation (such as faster charging) gets funding to provide improvements. As improvements happen, demand increases. But if there is a trend happening, it doesn't need one to happen before the other. EVs are a trend that is growing obviously and while faster charging will increase the rate of adoption, adoption will nevertheless increase with or without faster charging. All that will change is what is ACCEPTABLE. 

For example, if battery capacity is increased so that you get say 500 km on a charge, how long a charge takes becomes less relevant. Who cares if you have to plug your car in for 30 minutes if you only have to do so once a week? You'll get used to it.


----------



## Prairie Guy

cainvest said:


> Hopefully they can solve that issue and have fast charging (e.g. 5 mins) soon, that alone would greatly speed up adoption for EVs.


The amount of power required to charge an EV is double or more than the average house uses in an entire day. To reduce it to 5 minutes would require very substantial and very expensive changes to the infrastructure and grid.


----------



## cainvest

Prairie Guy said:


> The amount of power required to charge an EV is double or more than the average house uses in an entire day. To reduce it to 5 minutes would require very substantial and very expensive changes to the infrastructure and grid.


What does the average home power usage have to do with anything?

LTR (and my response) was talking about gas stations having these "5 min" chargers.

Good question on what the stations could support now so one would need to know at least the following ...
1> # of chargers the station would have
2> What's the average gas station's electrical supply right now? (100, 200, 400 amp service)
3> How much of the electrical supply is used by the station for normal operations? ... (50, 100, 200 amps)

Sure, maybe not all stations (especially those out of town) would have a surplus of electricity but I'd "guess" many could support 1 charger.


----------



## like_to_retire

cainvest said:


> What does the average home power usage have to do with anything?
> 
> LTR (and my response) was talking about gas stations having these "5 min" chargers.


Correct. 

And yes, the gas/electric stations would likely have to be beefed up with more power, but it would a single upgrade that served the entire community, rather than every darn house and street getting electric car chargers. We'd be up to our asses in chargers. It's a ridiculous dream that we shouldn't even entertain. 

Research would be better served figuring out how to charge quickly and then everyone would just go to the gas/electric station to fill their vehicles just like we do now.

If someone told me I could just go to the station and fill my electric vehicle in 5 minutes, I'd buy an EV tomorrow. Other than that - not so much.

ltr


----------



## AltaRed

The key impediment now is the lack of conveniently located 5 minute super chargers for a ~50-70% charge. A standard 240V 40 amp Level 2 charger is plenty for home. We already have one of those outlets in our garage.


----------



## Eder

There is no such thing as a 5 minute charger....the best is 30 minutes...in BC there are 64 of these super chargers. More common is a level 2 charger which adds 25 mile range/ hour.
A guy here in Hawaii says it cost about $34 USD to fully charge his Tesla...electricity is pretty pricey here. The car I rented is cheaper to run by far.


----------



## cainvest

AltaRed said:


> The key impediment now is the lack of conveniently located 5 minute super chargers for a ~50-70% charge. A standard 240V 40 amp Level 2 charger is plenty for home. We already have one of those outlets in our garage.


I'm not sure how many garages have 240, I know most of my friends don't have them ... do they always put them into newer homes now?

I did my own years ago but don't remember the cost ... 60ft of buried cable, a few boxes, outlets, permit/inspection and a circuit breaker in my main panel.


----------



## cainvest

Eder said:


> There is no such thing as a 5 minute charger....the best is 30 minutes...


We know ... we're saying that *if* they could do that in the near future it would be a big help towards EV adoption.


----------



## like_to_retire

cainvest said:


> We know ... we're saying that *if* they could do that in the near future it would be a big help towards EV adoption.


I would say it would the answer to immediate wholesale adoption of EV's.

If they announced that they found a way to charge EV batteries in 5 minutes and that every gas station would now be installing chargers next to every gas pump, I don't think they would be able to keep up with the demand for EV's.

ltr


----------



## AltaRed

cainvest said:


> I'm not sure how many garages have 240, I know most of my friends don't have them ... do they always put them into newer homes now?
> 
> I did my own years ago but don't remember the cost ... 60ft of buried cable, a few boxes, outlets, permit/inspection and a circuit breaker in my main panel.


Don't know, but our building code should require at least one level 2 circuit in every garage now in every new build. 

We have a ~20 year old home and I suspect our outlet near the vehicle door was installed by the builder or original owner, for an emergency generator to supply power to the panel.


----------



## sags

EV vehicles that charge themselves while running, perhaps incorporating solar and wind energy.

Perpetual motion engines..........something that has already been developed but not refined.

The technology in 50 years will be beyond our imagination today.


----------



## hboy54

I am suprised nobody has done the math yet.

I saw one Tesla battery that has a capacity of 85kWh ...

A 5 minute charge is 1/12 of an hour ...
The power needed is 85/(1/12) = 1020 kW.

At a 240 volt service, 1020*1000/240 = 4250 A

The above is the power capacity of 42 100A services, 42 modest houses. I can't see a gas station/snack shop setup having as service anywhere near this capacity. Maybe 400A service at the very most, or 1/10th of what is needed for a 5 minute charge scenario. Maybe a Wendies/Timmies big 401 place would have the capacity for 1 or 2 5 minute charging stations without redoing the service ... maybe.

Then consider how many cars a day goes through in an hour. Say 12 pumps, 12 cars an hour per pump. We need 12 5 minute charging stations to have equivalent fueling capacity.

Very clearly, individual stations will need a massive upgrade for an all electric car future and charging on the go in 5 minutes. I have no idea how further far back in the system upgrades would be needed, 1, mile, 10 miles? Any power engineers here to comment further?

Looks to me that a very substantial and expensive upgrade to the system will be required. Looks to me like a factor of 10 at least needed in the power capacity of a service station, but maybe as high as 100.

Anything unreasonable about my assumptions, calculations, and conclusions?

Frankly I think the idea of a 5 minute charge isn't an economic idea over the whole fleet when we get to something like a 500km range. Most people will be charging at home over night. On long road trips, tough, you will stop for an hour and eat or whatever every 4 hours, or pay the extra $$$ to install the 5 minute charge option. I think I do 2 trips a year over 400 km, so I know which version I'd own.


----------



## like_to_retire

hboy54 said:


> Looks to me that a very substantial and expensive upgrade to the system will be required. Looks to me like a factor of 10 at least needed in the power capacity of a service station, but maybe as high as 100.
> 
> Anything unreasonable about my assumptions, calculations, and conclusions?


Nope, seems reasonable. Compare this to the massive amount of upgrading to every low-rise, high-rise, row-house, semi-detached, detached, street parking situation where chargers would be required. I think a single upgrade to gas stations would be much easier.

I'm simply not interested in stopping on the highway for an hour to charge my car. I'll stick with an ICE and do it in 5 minutes. When they come up with that ability for an EV, I'm on board. Me, and just about every other reasonable person will agree with me.

ltr


----------



## AltaRed

hboy54 said:


> I am suprised nobody has done the math yet.


The key will need to be inexpensive, on-site electrical storage of 1000-5000 kwh at charging stations, not the re-build of the entire electrical distribution system from a sub-station.... never mind the 500kV grid. All of this cost will be passed through to the customer. A typical commercial Level 2 charger from one (of 3) known networks* in our neck of the woods is 35 cents/kwh, more than 3 times the residential rate. A Level 3 DC charger must cost multiple times that today.

* Never mind the confusion around the accounts one will need to have with multiple networks. All that will need to get sorted out someday.

Added: I used 1000-5000 kwh range for storage capacity on the assumption the average charge might be about 40 kwh... so 25 vehicles per 1000 kwh. A busy location with multiple charging stations would need a whole lot more storage servicing maybe 50 EVs per hour during a 12 hour busy day.


----------



## Userkare

sags said:


> Perpetual motion engines..........something that has already been developed but not refined.


This should be interesting.... What exactly are these perpetual motion machines, and which law of thermodynamics do they violate?

Edit... To be specific, perpetual motion machines that exceed 'unity' ( get more out than you put in ).


----------



## cainvest

hboy54 said:


> Looks to me that a very substantial and expensive upgrade to the system will be required. Looks to me like a factor of 10 at least needed in the power capacity of a service station, but maybe as high as 100.
> 
> Anything unreasonable about my assumptions, calculations, and conclusions?


Thanks hboy54, didn't have time to do the calc earlier but sounds about right.

I think many stations would (could?) have 96 kw/h supply but that still falls way short for a "super fast" 5 min charge.
Also charging when the battery is low to 80% is much faster than topping it off, cold weather also causes problems.
To make matters worse, the charging conversion will lose power as well.

Ok, so the reality is ... each station gets a small nuclear reactor or is in proximity to HVDC lines.


----------



## Eder

Might be time to start buying copper miners for all that cable distribution that will obviously be required.


----------



## sags

So auto makers are converting their manufacturing facilities and spending billions of dollars developing electric vehicles, and they never thought of "charging" the vehicle ?


----------



## Prairie Guy

cainvest said:


> What does the average home power usage have to do with anything?


Nothing...it was just a way to illustrate how much more power needs to be generated and then fed through the grid in a tiny fraction of the time. hboy54 explained it far better.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> So auto makers are converting their manufacturing facilities and spending billions of dollars developing electric vehicles, and they never thought of "charging" the vehicle ?


They did the same thing with ICE vehicles and gas stations and it worked itself out.


----------



## cainvest

Eder said:


> Might be time to start buying copper miners for all that cable distribution that will obviously be required.


I believe most high power lines are made with aluminum and steel.


----------



## Prairie Guy

like_to_retire said:


> Nope, seems reasonable. Compare this to the massive amount of upgrading to every low-rise, high-rise, row-house, semi-detached, detached, street parking situation where chargers would be required. I think a single upgrade to gas stations would be much easier.
> 
> I'm simply not interested in stopping on the highway for an hour to charge my car. I'll stick with an ICE and do it in 5 minutes. When they come up with that ability for an EV, I'm on board. Me, and just about every other reasonable person will agree with me.
> 
> ltr


I know someone who paid $1400 for a VCR back in the day. It weighed about 40 pounds and didn't even have a remote. I told myself I'd never be that guy and would wait until the early adopters worked out the bugs and inconveniences of any new technology until buying one made sense. We're still not there yet...for me.


----------



## Eder

cainvest said:


> I believe most high power lines are made with aluminum and steel.



True that but normally secondary power to buildings use copper although aluminum conductors can also be used if local codes allow...just becomes a fire hazard unless you tighten all connections annually.


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> The amount of power required to charge an EV is double or more than the average house uses in an entire day. To reduce it to 5 minutes would require very substantial and very expensive changes to the infrastructure and grid.


Yes, there are some physical limits that you start to run up against. Already, to deliver 250 kw (enough to recharge the car in 20-30 minutes) requires liquid cooled charging cables and beefy transformers. This is surmountable, I think Tesla is planning a charging solution for their Semi truck that can charge 1000 kwh in an hour, so pushing a MW of power. I suspect it will involve multiple, actively cooled cables. Similar to using multiple pumps to fill the tanks of diesel powered truck. That works for a large truck but is probably overkill for a car.

I think the perceived need for 5 minute refills is not a reality. The technology may get there eventually, but I don't think it is a barrier to mass adoption.


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> Correct.
> 
> And yes, the gas/electric stations would likely have to be beefed up with more power, but it would a single upgrade that served the entire community, rather than every darn house and street getting electric car chargers. We'd be up to our asses in chargers. It's a ridiculous dream that we shouldn't even entertain.
> 
> Research would be better served figuring out how to charge quickly and then everyone would just go to the gas/electric station to fill their vehicles just like we do now.
> 
> If someone told me I could just go to the station and fill my electric vehicle in 5 minutes, I'd buy an EV tomorrow. Other than that - not so much.
> 
> ltr


5 minute charge at home is crazy. But a 40 amp circuit is pretty reasonable from a cost perspective. Older homes would have to upgrade their service, but a lot of newer homes were built with head room.


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> I would say it would the answer to immediate wholesale adoption of EV's.
> 
> If they announced that they found a way to charge EV batteries in 5 minutes and that every gas station would now be installing chargers next to every gas pump, I don't think they would be able to keep up with the demand for EV's.
> 
> ltr


The industry is going to take time to scale. There isn't the battery production today for mass adoption. Ford announced the EV SUV (Mach E), but they plan to make only 50k per year due to battery cell availability. Tesla thought ahead and secured their supply. While competitors fail to scale, they won't be doing much Tesla 'killing'.


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> Nope, seems reasonable. Compare this to the massive amount of upgrading to every low-rise, high-rise, row-house, semi-detached, detached, street parking situation where chargers would be required. I think a single upgrade to gas stations would be much easier.
> 
> I'm simply not interested in stopping on the highway for an hour to charge my car. I'll stick with an ICE and do it in 5 minutes. When they come up with that ability for an EV, I'm on board. Me, and just about every other reasonable person will agree with me.
> 
> ltr


Gas stations will install chargers, but people would rather charge at destinations. Gas stations need to be segregated due to environmental risk factors, but EV chargers can be next to a Tim Hortons, Sobeys or a Goodlife Fitness.


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> Nope, seems reasonable. Compare this to the massive amount of upgrading to every low-rise, high-rise, row-house, semi-detached, detached, street parking situation where chargers would be required. I think a single upgrade to gas stations would be much easier.
> 
> I'm simply not interested in stopping on the highway for an hour to charge my car. I'll stick with an ICE and do it in 5 minutes. When they come up with that ability for an EV, I'm on board. Me, and just about every other reasonable person will agree with me.
> 
> ltr


What if it was 20 minutes? There is a whole spectrum between 5 minutes and 60.

But I guess you have a bladder of steel.


----------



## Eder

andrewf said:


> Gas stations will install chargers, but people would rather charge at destinations. Gas stations need to be segregated due to environmental risk factors, but EV chargers can be next to a Tim Hortons, Sobeys or a Goodlife Fitness.



Theres a Tim Hortons in my gas station. One of favorite restaurants located in Beaverdell BC pumps gas as well.

Right now getting 25 miles more/hour of charge is about the best most can do.(but not in Beaverdell.)


----------



## like_to_retire

andrewf said:


> Gas stations will install chargers, but people would rather charge at destinations..


People want to charge at destinations now since EV's takes so long to charge. If they charged as fast as gas vehicles, then they would rather continue the status quo and use stations where they're located now. I use 5 minutes as an example of the time it takes to gas a car (whatever that time is).

ltr


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> Theres a Tim Hortons in my gas station. One of favorite restaurants located in Beaverdell BC pumps gas as well.
> 
> Right now getting 25 miles more/hour of charge is about the best most can do.(but not in Beaverdell.)


Not a technical limit. Tesla superchargers can charge the bottom half of Model 3 batteries at a rate of 1000 miles/hr. IOW, you can go from 5% to 50% in 11.5 minutes. To 80% in 25 minutes. Most charging stops would be 20 minutes, and should be enough to add 3 hours of driving range.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/11/1...harging-times-2-to-100-state-of-charge-video/


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> People want to charge at destinations now since EV's takes so long to charge. If they charged as fast as gas vehicles, then they would rather continue the status quo and use stations where they're located now. I use 5 minutes as an example of the time it takes to gas a car (whatever that time is).
> 
> ltr


Why would you want to make a special stop at a crappy store to charge? When you are already at a store you actually want to go to, why not plug in?

I think you are too stuck in the current frame of reference. I mean, how often do people stop at gas stations but not to buy gas? I avoid convenience stores like the plague.


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> Theres a Tim Hortons in my gas station. One of favorite restaurants located in Beaverdell BC pumps gas as well.
> 
> Right now getting 25 miles more/hour of charge is about the best most can do.(but not in Beaverdell.)


Usually those are crappy/half assed Tim Hortons (coffee and donuts only).


----------



## Eder

andrewf said:


> Not a technical limit. Tesla superchargers can charge the bottom half of Model 3 batteries at a rate of 1000 miles/hr. IOW, you can go from 5% to 50% in 11.5 minutes. To 80% in 25 minutes. Most charging stops would be 20 minutes, and should be enough to add 3 hours of driving range.
> 
> https://cleantechnica.com/2019/11/1...harging-times-2-to-100-state-of-charge-video/


But all of BC has only 64 of those chargers ....in all of Canada only 23 new ones are under construction...the rest (almost all users) are stuck with 25 miles/ hour of charge right now once they get in line for a level 2 charger station at Whole Foods or something.


----------



## cainvest

Eder said:


> But all of BC has only 64 of those chargers ....in all of Canada only 23 new ones are under construction...the rest (almost all users) are stuck with 25 miles/ hour of charge right now once they get in line for a level 2 charger station at Whole Foods or something.


Yup, it's still a looooong way off before you won't need to worry about finding a charging station. That's ok though, gives them time to build the infrastructure and scavange for battery materials.

On a side note, RAV4 PHEV is out next year so there's another one.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> Usually those are crappy/half assed Tim Hortons (coffee and donuts only).


If Tesla was smart they'd make a deal to put a charging station at each Timmy's ... you have one every 4 blocks! lol


----------



## james4beach

cainvest said:


> On a side note, RAV4 PHEV is out next year so there's another one.


Looks like it might run around $35K ... who can afford all these vehicles? I see brand new SUVs on the streets, many in the 30 to 40K price range. The Winnipeg streets are full of them.

I made 140K last year, and I can't afford something like this. Who are all these people?

My current vehicle is a 2005. I can get about 600 km per tank on the highway.


----------



## andrewf

^Depends on your definition of afford. I think you can afford more than you think, James.


----------



## james4beach

You're right, I should have said: I don't want to pay that much money for a vehicle.

Thinking I might buy something like a Hyundai Elantra or Honda Accord at some point, but I'm very open minded. I should give the hybrids a closer look.


----------



## cainvest

james4beach said:


> You're right, I should have said: I don't want to pay that much money for a vehicle.


That's better ... I'm sure you could afford one at $140k / yr if you "wanted" too. 

Really, wait a few years and look at a used one, that'll save you a load of money.
Then it'll save you money running around town on electric only, cheap here in MB!


----------



## cainvest

And the Tesla truck was revealed tonight .... specs and price don't seem to bad but .... well, see it for yourself and decide.


----------



## james4beach

cainvest said:


> That's better ... I'm sure you could afford one at $140k / yr if you "wanted" too.
> 
> Really, wait a few years and look at a used one, that'll save you a load of money.
> Then it'll save you money running around town on electric only, cheap here in MB!


I try to be frugal because my income is pretty volatile. The 140 was just a really good year. It probably averages out to more like 70k a year over time. This is why I never go and blow all the dough 

Same logic as working in the oil & gas business. One appreciates the good years but knows it's cyclical and there will be years with no income ahead. Therefore, save and invest a lot, don't get habituated to high income because it's not constant. The aggressive saving & investing smooths things over.

I wish people in O&G did the same since it's guaranteed to be boom-and-bust. Every time someone on this forum had a money diary in O&G, I said the same thing.


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach;2055392I wish people in O&G did the same since it's guaranteed to be boom-and-bust. Every time someone on this forum had a money diary in O&G said:


> You can't pay the industry with one brush. A lot of jobs are highly cyclic while others are as solid as any industry. Most of the volatility is in oil service industries, construction trades and labourers, and certain consulting engineering firms. This most recent bust has emptied out the PMT ranks in Calgary office buildings too.


----------



## cainvest

james4beach said:


> It probably averages out to more like 70k a year over time.


Even at $70k you "could" afford it but do you really need or want it?

But you could save our climate with this bad boy!


----------



## accord1999

andrewf said:


> Not a technical limit. Tesla superchargers can charge the bottom half of Model 3 batteries at a rate of 1000 miles/hr. IOW, you can go from 5% to 50% in 11.5 minutes. To 80% in 25 minutes. Most charging stops would be 20 minutes, and should be enough to add 3 hours of driving range.
> 
> https://cleantechnica.com/2019/11/1...harging-times-2-to-100-state-of-charge-video/


Now let's wait a few years to see how batteries hold up under repeated use of that kind of charge rate and the passage of time.

Here's a report from a early Model S owner:



> My car is 3.7 years old and has 133k miles on it. It's a 2014 85.
> 
> While I never noticed a sudden decrease and also not a cap in the highest charge rate, I did notice it takes longer to charge at Superchargers. Now there are a lot of factors that can influence charge speed at a Supercharger. So I captured the data from many Supercharging sessions and noted other factors so I would be able to compare.
> 
> It turns out that my car now charges 25% slower than when it was new. 25% is a significant difference. Big enough to make a real world difference. Here are two typical charge curves when the car was new and as it is now..











https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/25-slower-supercharging-due-to-degradation.100913/


----------



## andrewf

accord1999 said:


> Now let's wait a few years to see how batteries hold up under repeated use of that kind of charge rate and the passage of time.
> 
> Here's a report from a early Model S owner:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/25-slower-supercharging-due-to-degradation.100913/


Tesla does not recommend using only supercharging to charge the battery, but can do it, with the battery management system reducing charge rate over time to extend the life of the battery. There is a company called Tesloop that runs Teslas back and forth from LA to Vegas, LA to San Diego, etc. They only supercharge, and always charge to full (not recommended), and put hundreds of thousands of miles on their vehicles. So, maybe the FUD should be moderated. And Model S and X use Tesla's older battery architecture with 18650 cells, whereas Model 3 uses newer cell architecture with better performance. For instance, only Model 3 can charge at 250 kW, while Model S and X are capped around 180 kw or so. Tesla is generally pretty conservative about what they will let you do with batteries to maintain their useful lifespan. They haven't had experience like Nissan with the Leaf, which is air cooled and has had some major battery degradation issues.


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> Even at $70k you "could" afford it but do you really need or want it?
> 
> But you could save our climate with this bad boy!


Elon did warn people that it was going to be "not for everyone"!

I think it is pretty ugly. They will still sell some, but I suspect not too much to the main pickup market demo. I think the short bed is a bit of an issue as well (only 6.5 ft). The price is pretty aggressive, compared to what Rivian has announced. It does have pretty impressive specs.

I think Tesla will likely at some point make a more 'mainstream' version of this vehicle.


----------



## sags

Greta Thunberg is a time traveller, sent from the past to warn us about climate change.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/greta-thunberg-photo-klondike-1.5368901


----------



## Userkare

sags said:


> Greta Thunberg is a time traveller, sent from the past to warn us about climate change.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/greta-thunberg-photo-klondike-1.5368901


I hope her time machine runs on renewable enery, or perhaps perpetual motion {/rolleyes }.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> Elon did warn people that it was going to be "not for everyone"!
> 
> I think it is pretty ugly. They will still sell some, but I suspect not too much to the main pickup market demo. I think the short bed is a bit of an issue as well (only 6.5 ft). The price is pretty aggressive, compared to what Rivian has announced. It does have pretty impressive specs.
> 
> I think Tesla will likely at some point make a more 'mainstream' version of this vehicle.


I think if he scaled back the apocalypse styling, dropped the air suspension, made the roller box cover and ramp an option (all of which would drop the price and weight) he would sell a fair number of units. Also needs to have the long range battery with the single motor.

He obviously isn't going after volume sales, likely because be can't produce them very fast. 

BTW, 6.5ft for a bed isn't out of the norm for today's trucks, many are 5.5-6.2ft unless you "order" a long box at 8ft which is almost never seen nowadays.


----------



## sags

Userkare said:


> I hope her time machine runs on renewable enery, or perhaps perpetual motion {/rolleyes }.


Dilithium crystal warp drive......we are in the early stages but Greta started from far in the future and is traveling across milestones of history to effect changes needed to save the earth.

https://www.wired.com/2012/10/dilithium-crystals-warp-drive/

We are also well on the way to developing the perpetual motion concept, but have not fully conquered all the laws of physics yet.

Nevertheless, "partial" perpetual motion would greatly reduce the world's dependence on future oil supplies, and the pollution that it creates.

Be one with the universe.........

_“The surface of the Earth is the shore of the cosmic ocean. On this shore, we've learned most of what we know. Recently, we've waded a little way out, maybe ankle-deep, and the water seems inviting. Some part of our being knows this is where we came from. We long to return, and we can, because the cosmos is also within us. We're made of star stuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.” _

Carl Sagan.


----------



## Userkare

sags said:


> Dilithium crystal warp drive......we are in the early stages but Greta started from far in the future and is traveling across milestones of history to effect changes needed to save the earth.
> 
> We are also well on the way to developing the perpetual motion concept, but have not fully conquered all the laws of physics yet.
> 
> Nevertheless, "partial" perpetual motion would greatly reduce the world's dependence on future oil supplies.


I have more faith in Rick Sanchez's invention, Concentrated Dark Matter. There's even a mug and T-Shirt! https://www.teepublic.com/mug/3516576-recipe-for-concentrated-dark-matter


----------



## accord1999

andrewf said:


> Tesla does not recommend using only supercharging to charge the battery, but can do it, with the battery management system reducing charge rate over time to extend the life of the battery. There is a company called Tesloop that runs Teslas back and forth from LA to Vegas, LA to San Diego, etc. They only supercharge, and always charge to full (not recommended), and put hundreds of thousands of miles on their vehicles.


And have had six battery replacements, while running a gentle operating cycle for cars.

https://qz.com/1737145/the-economics-of-driving-seven-teslas-for-2-5-million-miles/



> For instance, only Model 3 can charge at 250 kW, while Model S and X are capped around 180 kw or so.


As I said, let's wait a few years to see whether they hold up.



> Tesla is generally pretty conservative about what they will let you do with batteries to maintain their useful lifespan.


Here's a giant thread with numerous and unhappy owners seeing their usable capacity and/or supercharging rates suddenly decrease after a software update. Probably because Tesla missed a form of degradation in the past and it's become a risk that they're trying to mitigate.

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/sudden-loss-of-range-with-2019-16-x-software.154976/


----------



## AltaRed

Not surprising they are not ready for prime time. New technologies take years to sort out. Maybe in 5 years, EVs will be mainstream enough for me to buy one. It may be longer.


----------



## Prairie Guy

AltaRed said:


> Not surprising they are not ready for prime time. New technologies take years to sort out. Maybe in 5 years, EVs will be mainstream enough for me to buy one. It may be longer.


Batteries are not new technology. Neither are electric cars....the first one came out in 1834-35:

http://www.automostory.com/first-electric-car.htm


----------



## cainvest

Prairie Guy said:


> Batteries are not new technology


Well they didn't have LiNiCoAlO2 batteries in 1835.


----------



## AltaRed

Glad I have PG on ignore...........


----------



## like_to_retire

james4beach said:


> , but I'm very open minded. I should give the hybrids a closer look.


I like the PHEV's but I wouldn't buy one. There's just too much to go wrong with two complete cars in one package. I'm sure people will have personal anecdotes how they haven't had any trouble, but the math would say that with so many more parts to fail, they can't be as reliable and would be costly to repair. It would also rankle me to be doing oil changes on a car that was suppose to be electric. Plus all that extra weight of the battery can't be good for the ICE train.

I'll wait until they get the kinks out of the full EV's. 8-10 years should do it. My next car will be an ICE, and when it's finished, I'll get an EV that I can charge up at the local station as fast as I could pump a tank of gas. I'm also not too interested in a big cable in my driveway all the time. In the winter it would freeze to the pavement and then I'd trip over it.

ltr


----------



## AltaRed

like_to_retire said:


> It would also rankle me to be doing oil changes on a car that was suppose to be electric.


I would be livid having to do that. Oil change/filter, air filter, rad flush and change, ICE sensors, and on and on it goes. NFW!


----------



## cainvest

like_to_retire said:


> I like the PHEV's but I wouldn't buy one. There's just too much to go wrong with two complete cars in one package. I'm sure people will have personal anecdotes how they haven't had any trouble, but the math would say that with so many more parts to fail, they can't be as reliable and would be costly to repair. It would also rankle me to be doing oil changes on a car that was suppose to be electric. Plus all that extra weight of the battery can't be good for the ICE train.


Ya, the added complexity worries me as well ... If I get serious about buying one I'll have to dig into the design more to see how much "extra" it is. BTW, one comparison (RAV4) shows only a 221 lbs difference (gas vs hybrid) so that's not too bad.

Good point on oil changes, never thought of that. Since most new cars calculate the oil change interval (OCI) I wonder if the miles put on by the electric are still counted towards the OCI? Likely not an issue for most as usually there is a 1 year time limit as well.


----------



## Eder

Lol at worrying about oil changes....every 12000 km's with synthetic oil. I do the oil in my jeep in 10 minutes start to finish including air filter. Like making dinner once every 9 months.


----------



## AltaRed

Eder said:


> Lol at worrying about oil changes....every 12000 km's with synthetic oil. I do the oil in my jeep in 10 minutes start to finish including air filter. Like making dinner once every 9 months.


Not a worry.. It is simply a freaking nuisance and irritant. Once or twice a year, I pass through Jiffy Lube and that is it, but still annoying to have to do it at all. I am not the least bit interested in looking under the hood any more....not since my 30s or 40s.


----------



## like_to_retire

Eder said:


> Lol at worrying about oil changes....every 12000 km's with synthetic oil. I do the oil in my jeep in 10 minutes start to finish including air filter. Like making dinner once every 9 months.


OMG, I did that along with all my car maintenance from age 16 to about age 65 and that was enough. I don't go near my car any more other than to drive it. Just not interested any more and I don't think my body could tolerate getting under a car any more. Now I have to sit in my dealer and wait out oil changes while I use their free WiFi. If I had to go through that with a car that claimed to be electric, I would scream.

ltr


----------



## andrewf

accord1999 said:


> And have had six battery replacements, while running a gentle operating cycle for cars.
> 
> https://qz.com/1737145/the-economics-of-driving-seven-teslas-for-2-5-million-miles/
> 
> 
> As I said, let's wait a few years to see whether they hold up.
> 
> 
> Here's a giant thread with numerous and unhappy owners seeing their usable capacity and/or supercharging rates suddenly decrease after a software update. Probably because Tesla missed a form of degradation in the past and it's become a risk that they're trying to mitigate.
> 
> https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/sudden-loss-of-range-with-2019-16-x-software.154976/


Tesla is generally pretty conservative because they are on the hook for warranty.


----------



## cainvest

like_to_retire said:


> OMG, I did that along with all my car maintenance from age 16 to about age 65 and that was enough.


I'll probably continue to do them for as long as I can hold a wrench. My small "fleet", 2 cars and 3 motorcycles can keep me busy at times but oil changes are fast and easy.


----------



## Longtimeago

like_to_retire said:


> I like the PHEV's but I wouldn't buy one. There's just too much to go wrong with two complete cars in one package. I'm sure people will have personal anecdotes how they haven't had any trouble, but the math would say that with so many more parts to fail, they can't be as reliable and would be costly to repair. It would also rankle me to be doing oil changes on a car that was suppose to be electric. Plus all that extra weight of the battery can't be good for the ICE train.
> 
> I'll wait until they get the kinks out of the full EV's. 8-10 years should do it. My next car will be an ICE, and when it's finished, I'll get an EV that I can charge up at the local station as fast as I could pump a tank of gas. I'm also not too interested in a big cable in my driveway all the time. In the winter it would freeze to the pavement and then I'd trip over it.
> 
> ltr


Have you ever considered just how many more parts to go wrong there are in the average ICE vehicle today than in the past? I can recall people saying that having electric windows instead of a hand crank was just something else to go wrong and cost you money. Having more parts to fail is not something I would attribute to a PHEV and not also attribute to any ICE vehicle being built today vs. in the past.

I have been considering buying a new(er) car for over a year now and one of the things that keeps putting me off the idea is all the STUFF on a newer vehicle that I don't need or want but have to take whether I want to or not and that to me are just more things to go wrong and need repaired.

Re the cable in your driveway, the answer to that is called a garage.


----------



## Pluto

Eder said:


> Other than a lot of facts ya just hand waving.


And he/andrew is saying other people are in denial? gee whiz. The only thing that's happened in 10 years is that the climate models continue to predict warming far above actual temps. He is in denial of the broken climate models.


----------



## Pluto

Eder said:


> Lol at worrying about oil changes....every 12000 km's with synthetic oil. I do the oil in my jeep in 10 minutes start to finish including air filter. Like making dinner once every 9 months.


What brand and model of oil filter do you use?


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> This does not follow. All forms of electric generation are growing.


therefore, emissions will continue to increase.


----------



## cainvest

Pluto said:


> And he/andrew is saying other people are in denial? gee whiz. The only thing that's happened in 10 years is that the climate models continue to predict warming far above actual temps. He is in denial of the broken climate models.


Ya, no negative feedback on the second video I posted that tells us climate change is "normal" for the earth.

Even though it *might not* make much effect on the global temperatures it's still a good idea to limit our polution output. This goes for all forms of polution, not just CO2 and other green house gases.


----------



## Eder

Pluto said:


> What brand and model of oil filter do you use?



Shell Rotella & usually Bosch filters for Jeep.


----------



## Spidey

I suppose it is easier to keep the 97% (or whatever the number really is) when you force out anyone who disagrees.


----------



## cainvest

Spidey said:


> I suppose it is easier to keep the 97% (or whatever the number really is) when you force out anyone who disagrees.


When politics (and the media) ruins real science ... 

It's easy to see what they are doing and despite their reasons and outcome being positive (less polution, more investment into searching for better energy sources, etc) for people globally, it's a black eye for humanity for not telling the whole story. The psychology is simple here, make it sound as if humans are the "major cause" so people are more likely to take action and/or are forced into actions due to allowed policy changes.


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> therefore, emissions will continue to increase.


Also does not follow. Electrical generation is not the only source of emissions.


----------



## AltaRed

Emissions are continuing to increase, not only because of increasing global oil and natural gas demand. This could make Greta weep, assuming she has any kind of global perspective. https://www.ecowatch.com/china-coal-paris-agreement-2641433452.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1



> In addition to the power it is already generating, China has another 121.3 GW of coal-fired power plants under construction, according to the report. That's nearly enough to power all of France, as Reuters reported.
> 
> China has boosted its investment in renewable energy. It successfully cut coal's contribution to the country's total energy from 68 percent in 2012 to 59 percent last year, and researchers predict it will fall to 55.3 percent by 2020. However, while that is welcome news, the total amount of coal that is burned has continued to climb as China's overall demand for energy has grown, according to Reuters.
> 
> "The continued growth of China's coal fleet and consideration of plans to significantly raise the nation's coal power cap show that while the country is often hailed as a clean energy leader, the momentum of coal power expansion has yet to be halted," says the study.
> 
> China has drawn criticism from environmental groups since it has used money earmarked for green energy to invest in clean coal. China approved 40 new coal mines in 2019 and it is building 50 percent more coal plants than the rest of the world combined, as the BBC reported. China also funds one quarter of all the coal plants outside its borders in countries like South Africa, Pakistan and Bangladesh.


----------



## Eder

And China fuels that power in large part by BC and Washington coal exported out of Greater Vancouver. Irony.


----------



## AltaRed

Eder said:


> And China fuels that power in large part by BC and Washington coal exported out of Greater Vancouver. Irony.


Much of that is metallurgical coal for steel making, not electrical generation. All of Teck's coal is metallurgical as far as I know. 

China also has many coal mines of their own for bituminous coal plus imports from Australia and the US


----------



## Eder

Actually they export 11,000,000 metric tonnes of thermal coal annually . Korea burns most of it. Westshore is very deceptive about being up front about their thermal coal exports. Most thermal coal originates in the US shipped from as far as Wyoming in open rail cars, for some reason BC ships it as most USA ports don't want to deal with the product.Lets not start about the dirty little secret on Texada etc.

If we could send Alberta oil in lieu of the thermal coal CO2 emissions from that coal would be cut in half...perhaps a little more effective than random taxes and electric cars.

11million tonnes of thermal coal produces 33 million metric tonnes of CO2...total GHG of Alberta oil sands is only 55 million metric tonnes...what a joke.


----------



## AltaRed

Yes, I know thermal coal from Wyoming, Montana et al goes through Westshore by the thousands of rail car loads. i just wanted to be clear that Canadian exports via Teck is all, or mostly, metallurgical coal.


----------



## sags

Progress is being made. Now is not the time to remove carbon taxes and other measures which would reverse the gains that have been achieved to date.

_An international research team has called for a more sober discourse around climate change prospects, following an extensive reassessment of climate change's progress and its mitigation.

They argue that climate change models have understated potential warming's speed and runaway potential, while the models that relate climate science to consequences, choices and policies have understated the scope for practical mitigation against it. Policymakers are becoming aware of the former bias but seldom perceive the latter.

Their study is published today in Environmental Research Letters. Lead and corresponding author Dr. Amory Lovins, from Rocky Mountain Institute, Colorado, said: "The IPCC's 2018 Special Report is a stark and bracing reminder of climate threats. We know focused and urgent action to combat climate change is still essential. But our findings show that both despair and complacency are equally unwarranted.

*"We found that, while climate change models have understated potential warming, the models used to guide policy makers have understated the scope for practical, let alone profitable, mitigation against it.
*
"Indeed, since 2010, and despite the past three years' disappointing slowdown in energy savings, global decarbonisation has accelerated to trend on course (averaged over the past three years) to achieve the Paris 2 C target. Large gains from energy efficiency have been underemphasized and modern renewable heat—decarbonising about as much as solar power plus windpower—has generally been overlooked altogether."_

https://phys.org/news/2019-11-climate-reassessment-prompts-sober-discourse.html


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> Also does not follow. Electrical generation is not the only source of emissions.


You are funny. Now you are arguing that since coal fired generation increases, emissions will go down. Prove it.


----------



## Pluto

Eder said:


> Actually they export 11,000,000 metric tonnes of thermal coal annually . Korea burns most of it. Westshore is very deceptive about being up front about their thermal coal exports. Most thermal coal originates in the US shipped from as far as Wyoming in open rail cars, for some reason BC ships it as most USA ports don't want to deal with the product.Lets not start about the dirty little secret on Texada etc.
> 
> If we could send Alberta oil in lieu of the thermal coal CO2 emissions from that coal would be cut in half...perhaps a little more effective than random taxes and electric cars.
> 
> 11million tonnes of thermal coal produces 33 million metric tonnes of CO2...total GHG of Alberta oil sands is only 55 million metric tonnes...what a joke.


Hey, no worries according to andrew. burning more coal will result in less emissions, he claims. I don't get it myself, but what the heck. Maybe he will do the math for us one day.


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> Progress is being made. Now is not the time to remove carbon taxes and other measures which would reverse the gains that have been achieved to date.
> 
> _An international research team has called for a more sober discourse around climate change prospects, following an extensive reassessment of climate change's progress and its mitigation.
> 
> They argue that climate change models have understated potential warming's speed and runaway potential, while the models that relate climate science to consequences, choices and policies have understated the scope for practical mitigation against it. Policymakers are becoming aware of the former bias but seldom perceive the latter.
> 
> Their study is published today in Environmental Research Letters. Lead and corresponding author Dr. Amory Lovins, from Rocky Mountain Institute, Colorado, said: "The IPCC's 2018 Special Report is a stark and bracing reminder of climate threats. We know focused and urgent action to combat climate change is still essential. But our findings show that both despair and complacency are equally unwarranted.
> 
> *"We found that, while climate change models have understated potential warming, the models used to guide policy makers have understated the scope for practical, let alone profitable, mitigation against it.
> *
> "Indeed, since 2010, and despite the past three years' disappointing slowdown in energy savings, global decarbonisation has accelerated to trend on course (averaged over the past three years) to achieve the Paris 2 C target. Large gains from energy efficiency have been underemphasized and modern renewable heat—decarbonising about as much as solar power plus windpower—has generally been overlooked altogether."_
> 
> https://phys.org/news/2019-11-climate-reassessment-prompts-sober-discourse.html


Seems like bafflegab. Looks they are trying to rationalize why, as co2 emissions continue to go up, observed global temps haven't followed suit according to the climate models. That article is just a smoke screen covering the failure of the climate models.


----------



## like_to_retire

Pluto said:


> That article is just a smoke screen covering the failure of the climate models.


Agreed, models can make huge errors. I thought the last few minutes of the video from Spidey's post where Dr. Judith Curry was asked if she would have spoken out if she was younger, she said a number of scientists have lost their jobs speaking out against the consensus, but since she was a tenured faculty member, she was pretty safe, but younger scientists can't afford to do so. She says she hears from scientists all the time wishing they could speak out, but they don't want to go through what she has experienced.

ltr


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> You are funny. Now you are arguing that since coal fired generation increases, emissions will go down. Prove it.


I'm not arguing anything, other than that you are making invalid logical arguments.


----------



## sags

The "bafflegab" is the climate deniers forced to continually change to a new position when the old one isn't valid anymore.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> The "bafflegab" is the climate deniers forced to continually change to a new position when the old one isn't valid anymore.


The "bafflegab" is the climate alarmists forced to continually change to a new position when the old one isn't valid anymore. 

They're running out of ideas to change the name of their position from cooling to warming to crisis to emergency. 

What's next? They keep predicting the end of the world every ten years, and I've lived through several of these, but it just doesn't work out for them. They must feel like fools.

ltr


----------



## AltaRed

They will be proven wrong yet again in 10 years. All we know is they can't model much of anything because our planet is more complex than anyone can imagine.


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> The "bafflegab" is the climate deniers forced to continually change to a new position when the old one isn't valid anymore.


I'm niot convinced there are any "climate deniers". Give me an example of a particular person who is a "climate denier".


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> I'm not arguing anything, other than that you are making invalid logical arguments.


more bafflegab.


----------



## andrewf

Would you like me to restate it to make it easier to understand?


----------



## sags

A global conspiracy involving thousands of independent scientists working in different countries, speaking different languages, in a wide range of occupations ?

https://www.myinstants.com/instant/obama-come-on-man-22575/


----------



## sags

A very important development in the world of climate change science.

The US Supreme Court ruled they will not hear an appeal to stop a lawsuit by climate scientist Michael Mann against the conservative news site National Review.

The lawsuit for defamation will continue and the "free speech" defense is not going to be a factor in the outcome of the trial.

This is big news for climate scientists who can sue climate change deniers who defame them by twisting facts and words. 

A lawsuit by Mann may proceed against Dr. Roy Spencer. No longer can climate change deniers make false accusations and then hide behind the shield of "free speech".

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/alito-climate-science-professor-national-review


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> A lawsuit by Mann may proceed against Dr. Roy Spencer. No longer can climate change deniers make false accusations and then hide behind the shield of "free speech".


Create data out of thin air, have it "supported" by your employer, refuse to show it under the rules of discovery, and then sue anyone who dares to question it. What an amazing victory for free speech...


----------



## Eder

Wow....Mann has yet to provide one shred of data to support his ideology. How can he sue anyone without being proven a sham? The sooner these leeches get weeded out of the spotlight the sooner humanity can continue to progress.


----------



## sags

As the victim of climate change deniers, Mann doesn't have to prove anything, nor is there any need for him to submit his personal data. 

Since they made the public statements, it is the defendants (climate change deniers) who will have to prove their accusations and defamation were based on factual evidence.


----------



## accord1999

sags said:


> As the victim of climate change deniers, Mann doesn't have to prove anything, nor is there any need for him to submit his personal data.


In which case, it'll be dismissed like Mann vs Ball:

https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/19/15/2019BCSC1580.htm

But a lot quicker, given the notoriously high standard for defamation in the US.


----------



## MrMatt

Pluto said:


> I'm niot convinced there are any "climate deniers". Give me an example of a particular person who is a "climate denier".


The people saying carbon taxes are the solution are the real climate science deniers.

Even if Canada went to zero, at significant economic cost, global emissions would still be up. 

The science is clear, we (Canada) can't stop this, Global warming is coming and we need to start adapting now.


----------



## andrewf

It's almost as if counties should sign some sort of treaty to coordinate and reduce their emissions.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> It's almost as if counties should sign some sort of treaty to coordinate and reduce their emissions.


Like that's going to happen ... where are they going to meet .. say, Paris?


----------



## AltaRed

And voluntarily commit to their own measurements on emission reductions? 

What does one do about telling military ops around the world to reduce their emissions? Do the Russians and Syrians have 'clean' barrel bombs? Does Turkey have electric UAVs flying over Northern Syria? Do the Saudis have battery powered jets bombing Yemen? What about the Libyans? Are the Russians using bicycles in Eastern Ukraine?

Every time I see pundits and talking heads get emotional about 'we need to do something', I wonder if they have 2 packets of brain cells operating between their ears. They have no concept of how the real world works and will continue to work.


----------



## sags

The only people I see talking about a total elimination of fossil fuels are the climate change deniers.

They use the economic costs and resistance to change as a strategy to argue against any reduction in emissions at all. It is a false argument.

The scientific goal is to reduce emissions and keep them below the danger level that would have severe impact on the planet, economies and our way of life.

Throwing up hands and saying nothing can be done, is akin to people throwing up their hands and saying they will never be able to save for retirement so why bother trying.

The latest research came out the other day, and the global temperatures are rising faster than projected. 

There is even less time to make the necessary changes than was thought. Temperatures are now predicted by some to greatly surpass the previous projections.

If that turns out to be true...the world is in for a lot of trouble. The negative consequences are unimaginable and apocalyptic.

Countries in the middle east may no longer have to worry about tribal conflicts. The whole region may be uninhabitable anyways.


----------



## sags

The Liberal government has implemented a wide range of programs to battle climate change. Carbon taxes are only one aspect of the overall strategy.

While Andrew Scheer led Conservatives sit around complaining about carbon taxes and offering no serious climate plan of their own, the Trudeau government has been busy.

Interesting that Conservatives are now questioning if Andrew Scheer's ideology is hopelessly outdated and tied to his reformer days.

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-action.html


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> As the victim of climate change deniers,


a) Give me a particular example of a "climate change denier", a particular person. Then,
b) explain why that person is a "climate change denier".

I'm not convinced that "climate change deniers" actually exist which is why most of your posts about it are meaningless.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> And voluntarily commit to their own measurements on emission reductions?
> 
> What does one do about telling military ops around the world to reduce their emissions? Do the Russians and Syrians have 'clean' barrel bombs? Does Turkey have electric UAVs flying over Northern Syria? Do the Saudis have battery powered jets bombing Yemen? What about the Libyans? Are the Russians using bicycles in Eastern Ukraine?
> 
> Every time I see pundits and talking heads get emotional about 'we need to do something', I wonder if they have 2 packets of brain cells operating between their ears. They have no concept of how the real world works and will continue to work.


Whenever I see people say "nothing can be done", it is a capitulation to the tragedy of the commons. Why should we undertake any collective action? I should just start chucking my litter on your front lawn as I drive by? Leave my dog's sh!t on the sidewalk? After all, one person unilaterally stopping this won't make a meaningful difference, right?


----------



## AltaRed

I wasn't saying do nothing. I was referring to pundits and talking heads that get all worked up and heated about 'we gotta do something'. It's all over the media this morning about being on a course to have a 3.2 C increase by 2100 (I think that is the headline) and "we" have to do something. If we remotely assume for a minute that the climate "scientists" really know what they are talking about (and they really don't since their models are wonky), who is the 'we'? You and I? The collective 'we' of Canada? The pundit in front of the camera? The whole f'ing world? Good luck with that. 

Rather than wringing their hands and pontificating on some CBC newscast (or similar), those talking heads need to articulate specific solutions. Either get out there and do something yourself, or accept reality and start advocating for mitigation and adaptation measures. Even better, go over to Asia and tell them to stop building all those 150 or so new coal generating plants. This gong show is a freaking joke... a tragicomedy!


----------



## sags

Pluto said:


> a) Give me a particular example of a "climate change denier", a particular person. Then,
> b) explain why that person is a "climate change denier".
> 
> I'm not convinced that "climate change deniers" actually exist which is why most of your posts about it are meaningless.


You answered your own question.

The scientists who publish false claims in attempts to prove Dr. Mann's theories are illegitimate are climate change deniers.

Climate change deniers fit into different stratas of denial......

1) Deny climate change is happening at all and deny the accuracy of the enormous volume of available scientific data.

2) Deny human activity is the cause of climate change and claim it is the natural order of things.

3) Deny there is anything that can be done about it by anyone, despite the available scientific expertise of what should and can be done.

Climate change deniers also often share the common belief in a global conspiracy among scientists to provide a false narrative to the public.


----------



## Userkare

andrewf said:


> Whenever I see people say "nothing can be done", it is a capitulation to the tragedy of the commons.


Nothing can be done by humans to stop climate change; we can only reduce the amount of GHG that 'we' as humans put into the atmosphere; it does nothing for the natural occurring GHGs as we continue towards the peak interglacial. Even in the unlikely event that we manage to achieve global net zero emissions, the Earth will continue to warm - probably more quickly than it normally would have if humans weren't around.

So, if you notice that the rains are more and more severe, causing your eavestrough to overflow, and water damage to your foundation, do you...
1. Have the eavestrough replaced with ones that can handle more water?
or
2. Put a cover on the swimming pool so that less of it evaporates into the atmosphere?

What should be done is mitigate the inevitable effects. Build better infrastructure, prohibit development of wetlands and stop building in flood plains for a start. It seems that these things are actually being done, but the biggest emphasis is on changing human behaviour to lessen their contribution of GHG. This isn't a bad thing, we do waste far too much energy, and would benefit with cleaner air in general. It's just that I can't imagine every country in the world getting together for a common goal. It did work for CFCs being banned, but there was a simple replacement, and the entire economy didn't depend on using CFCs.


----------



## Eder

Pluto said:


> a) Give me a particular example of a "climate change denier", a particular person. Then,
> b) explain why that person is a "climate change denier".
> 
> I'm not convinced that "climate change deniers" actually exist which is why most of your posts about it are meaningless.



I find it odd that people who state that the climate has always changed are demonized as “Climate Change Deniers”. That’s the exact opposite of what they’re saying.
Shouldn’t the people who deny that the climate changed before people came along actually be called “Climate Change Deniers”? That would make much more logical sense.


----------



## AltaRed

Those are the labels cheerleaders put on it because they are not willing to admit there is a wide range of possible scenarios and outcomes. It's intentionally dismissive and meant to deflect.


----------



## andrewf

Userkare said:


> Nothing can be done by humans to stop climate change; we can only reduce the amount of GHG that 'we' as humans put into the atmosphere; it does nothing for the natural occurring GHGs as we continue towards the peak interglacial. Even in the unlikely event that we manage to achieve global net zero emissions, the Earth will continue to warm - probably more quickly than it normally would have if humans weren't around.
> 
> So, if you notice that the rains are more and more severe, causing your eavestrough to overflow, and water damage to your foundation, do you...
> 1. Have the eavestrough replaced with ones that can handle more water?
> or
> 2. Put a cover on the swimming pool so that less of it evaporates into the atmosphere?
> 
> What should be done is mitigate the inevitable effects. Build better infrastructure, prohibit development of wetlands and stop building in flood plains for a start. It seems that these things are actually being done, but the biggest emphasis is on changing human behaviour to lessen their contribution of GHG. This isn't a bad thing, we do waste far too much energy, and would benefit with cleaner air in general. It's just that I can't imagine every country in the world getting together for a common goal. It did work for CFCs being banned, but there was a simple replacement, and the entire economy didn't depend on using CFCs.


So.... leave the dogshit on the sidewalk because everyone else is? You're telling me to buy some rubber boots to walk around town because everyone else is going to leave dogshit on the sidewalk, too.


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> I find it odd that people who state that the climate has always changed are demonized as “Climate Change Deniers”. That’s the exact opposite of what they’re saying.
> Shouldn’t the people who deny that the climate changed before people came along actually be called “Climate Change Deniers”? That would make much more logical sense.


What about the people who are arguing vociferously that the recent warming is all fake, despite the abundance of evidence? How is that not denial? You can argue cause, but a lot of denialists are stuck on "it snowed last week, warming is FAKE NEWS".


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> What about the people who are arguing vociferously that the recent warming is all fake, despite the abundance of evidence? How is that not denial? You can argue cause, but a lot of denialists are stuck on "it snowed last week, warming is FAKE NEWS".


There is exaggeration and falsehoods on both sides. A lot of it is purposely slinging the shite back to where it belongs. Reap what you sow...


----------



## andrewf

Interesting Bloomberg research note on advancement in price performance of Li-Ion batteries.

https://about.bnef.com/blog/behind-scenes-take-lithium-ion-battery-prices/

Bottom line is battery prices are projected to fall by half by 2024 from 2018 levels, and almost half again 2030. Anyone think that a 65% reduction in battery prices won't be disruptive? And I mean, not just in cars. Grid energy storage, home energy storage (combined with similar continued declines in solar costs). This is why it is laughable that IEA is expecting EV fleet to still be in low single digits in 2040. I would say they have lost their minds, but they never seem to have had them.

This also leaves aside any new battery technology that might surpass Li-ion in cost performance--this is just experience gain on proven technology. Technology adoption follows an S curve. One year only a few rich people have TVs, a few years later, almost everyone does. Tesla is still selling to early adopters. Once the script flips, adoption is going to be faster than many people can imagine. And yes, as with technologies, and acknowledged in S curves, there will be late-adopters/holdouts. Just like you see some people still using VHS or feature phones (aka dumb phones).


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> There is exaggeration and falsehoods on both sides. A lot of it is purposely slinging the shite back to where it belongs. Reap what you sow...


This is false equivalence. And condoning of bad faith public discourse. I, personally, think that is kind of dangerous. This is how you end up with people escalating from debate to more concrete actions. Ie, whatever the left wing equivalent is of pro-lifers shooting abortion doctors.


----------



## AltaRed

Since when does IEA say adoption will only be single digits? I don't remember that in reports I've read. Registrations will certainly be well into double digits by then, but it will take awhile to wash through a 10-15 yr ownership cycle.

Added: Here is their EV report. I haven't taken the time to go through it yet. https://www.iea.org/publications/reports/globalevoutlook2019/ Go to Figure 3 and the paragraphs just preceding the figure.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> This is false equivalence. And condoning of bad faith public discourse. I, personally, think that is kind of dangerous. This is how you end up with people escalating from debate to more concrete actions. Ie, whatever the left wing equivalent is of pro-lifers shooting abortion doctors.


That is what is happening though. The cheerleaders think they are so freaking right, they have become obnoxious in their righteousness, don't you think?


----------



## Eder

andrewf said:


> What about the people who are arguing vociferously that the recent warming is all fake, despite the abundance of evidence? How is that not denial? You can argue cause, but a lot of denialists are stuck on "it snowed last week, warming is FAKE NEWS".


Well it has been apparently verified we have warmed just over 1/2 a degree the last hundred years....doesn't seem llike anything more than a rounding error and many alarmist sites discontinued using the term "Global Warming" anymore. 

Why is it that some of the hottest recent weather on record occurred 90 years ago but records show new highs set in the last 20 years...wtf....is that why ex climate barbie erased 100 years of weather records? Good old fashioned book burning.

I saw the UN says another 3.5 degrees in the next 80 years in the G&M today but they also said the world ends in 11 years 3 months only last Spring.


----------



## andrewf

More like a degree in the last ~60 years. I don't know about 3.5C in the next century, but you have to keep in mind that even if emissions stopped tomorrow, there is significantly more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has been in a long time. There is a degree of inertia that will carry global temps upward.

This is why I am obviously not opposed to mitigation measures as well, as they will be necessary. But to say just use mitigation is a bit like driving a car with failed brakes toward a brick wall. You can choose to put on your seat belt or take your foot off the gas. Or you can do both.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> That is what is happening though. The cheerleaders think they are so freaking right, they have become obnoxious in their righteousness, don't you think?


I agree that there are plenty of ill-informed people on the 'alarmist' side of the debate. Sags says a lot of things here that are hyperbole, I try not to engage in that.


----------



## Userkare

andrewf said:


> So.... leave the dogshit on the sidewalk because everyone else is? You're telling me to buy some rubber boots to walk around town because everyone else is going to leave dogshit on the sidewalk, too.


WTH are you talking about? O.K. wierd analogy, but let's try... If dogshit fell out of the sky on a regular basis by some natural process that repeated every 10,000 years or so for the last 2.5 million years, and this was that 10,000 year period, would you stop feeding your dog ( analogy: destroy your economy with little to no effect ), buy diapers for your dog ( analogy: spend money needlessly on non-solutions ), or buy an umbrella for yourself ( analogy: can't stop it, so try to minimize effect )? 

If you think that climate change is exclusively caused by human activity, and that by stopping that activity, the climate will somehow achieve a perpetual state of equilibrium, you weren't paying attention in geology and physics classes.


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Since when does IEA say adoption will only be single digits? I don't remember that in reports I've read. Registrations will certainly be well into double digits by then, but it will take awhile to wash through a 10-15 yr ownership cycle.
> 
> Added: Here is their EV report. I haven't taken the time to go through it yet. https://www.iea.org/publications/reports/globalevoutlook2019/ Go to Figure 3 and the paragraphs just preceding the figure.


IEA is modeling ~50-60M BEV passenger vehicles in 2030. The global car fleet is currently 1B, probably close to 1.5B in 2030 and 2B in 2040.


----------



## AltaRed

I read the graph as 125-250 million EVs of various forms by 2030. That is more than single digit out of 1.5B. My math suggests 8.3% to 16.7% My guess it will be the higher end, maybe more. I've seen some 'green' websites suggest as much as 400M vehicles but then they don't consider material obstacles, nor do they rigorously rationalize their assumptions. A little too much fairy dust for an investor to bet the farm on.

I fully understand IEA's thinking processes may not be fully cognizant of breakthroughs that could happen, but their obligation is to base their analysis on trends as they see them today, not speculate on a wide range of 'what ifs'. They may

Anyways, I see annual registration percentages of PHEV and BEV will most likely be double digit by 2030. 20-30% perhaps? That is what really matters. Since it will take 10-15 years for stock to roll through its natural life, there is a lot of latent lag. I know if I bought an ICE in circa 2025, I would likely only be getting rid of it circa 2040 assuming I am still here, which I most likely won't be.


----------



## andrewf

Their 250M forecast is predicated on drastic regulatory action. Considering that this year, almost 3 million EVs were made, a fleet of 50-60M BEVs could be achieved with nearly flat production. Nevermind that production almost doubled over last year.


----------



## AltaRed

Well, that is the point, isn't it? It will take regulatory coercion to get there.


----------



## Prairie Guy

AltaRed said:


> Well, that is the point, isn't it? It will take regulatory coercion to get there.


More government control has always been the goal...climate is just the latest excuse. I used to joke 30 years ago when I said the government would one day find a way to tax the air, but now that they've found a way it's not so funny anymore.


----------



## accord1999

andrewf said:


> Their 250M forecast is predicated on drastic regulatory action. Considering that this year, almost 3 million EVs were made,


There's no where close to 3 million EVs being produced for 2019 worldwide; with the collapse of New Energy Vehicle sales due to subsidy cuts, China's only on pace for barely 1 million vehicles (including PHEV) in sales and production of less than 1.3 million. 










And the vast majority are for fleet operators:



> Of the nearly 900,000 NEVs sold in China in the first nine months of this year, just over 100,000 went to consumers, said Wang Yongqing, president of General Motors’ Shanghai joint venture, SAIC General Motors Corp. Ltd., speaking at the show. Most of the rest are going to fleet operators, such as city bus and taxi services.


https://www.caixinglobal.com/2019-1...-new-energy-vehicles-executive-101486495.html


----------



## andrewf

AltaRed said:


> Well, that is the point, isn't it? It will take regulatory coercion to get there.


Will it though? If battery prices continue to decline at 18%-ish per year, at some point EVs reach price parity (upfront) and much lower operating cost.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> Will it though? If battery prices continue to decline at 18%-ish per year, at some point EVs reach price parity (upfront) and much lower operating cost.


It probably will require "incentives" for a 10 yr timeframe, price will definitely help but there are many other factors.


----------



## AltaRed

andrewf said:


> Will it though? If battery prices continue to decline at 18%-ish per year, at some point EVs reach price parity (upfront) and much lower operating cost.


I agree, but I am not going to bet on 18%/annum declines sustained over a longer period and won't bank it until I see it.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> More like a degree in the last ~60 years. I don't know about 3.5C in the next century, but you have to keep in mind that even if emissions stopped tomorrow, there is significantly more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has been in a long time. There is a degree of inertia that will carry global temps upward.
> 
> This is why I am obviously not opposed to mitigation measures as well, as they will be necessary. But to say just use mitigation is a bit like driving a car with failed brakes toward a brick wall. You can choose to put on your seat belt or take your foot off the gas. Or you can do both.


Here's a nice heathly debate on the subject ...


----------



## doctrine

Repeat after me: there is no crisis until people who say it is a crisis start acting like it is a crisis. No one is acting like it even if they say it is important. Ho-hum. Back to burning fossil fuels.


----------



## sags

Then there must be a crisis, because our carbon "footprint" is very small.

We live in a small townhouse with units on either side and our heat is provided by natural gas. Our hydro use is provided by Ontario alternative energy. 

We drive less than 12,000 kms per year in new fuel efficient, pollution efficient vehicles. We buy most items used at the Goodwill and Salvation Army.

We recycle everything and waste no food. We have no interest in travel.

If everyone was like us there wouldn't be a crisis.


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> You answered your own question.
> 
> The scientists who publish false claims in attempts to prove Dr. Mann's theories are illegitimate are climate change deniers.
> 
> Climate change deniers fit into different stratas of denial......
> 
> 1) Deny climate change is happening at all and deny the accuracy of the enormous volume of available scientific data.
> 
> 2) Deny human activity is the cause of climate change and claim it is the natural order of things.
> 
> 3) Deny there is anything that can be done about it by anyone, despite the available scientific expertise of what should and can be done.
> 
> Climate change deniers also often share the common belief in a global conspiracy among scientists to provide a false narrative to the public.


Give a name. A specific person. And show how that person fits all your criteria. I can think of no person who fits your definition.


----------



## Pluto

Eder said:


> I find it odd that people who state that the climate has always changed are demonized as “Climate Change Deniers”. That’s the exact opposite of what they’re saying.
> Shouldn’t the people who deny that the climate changed before people came along actually be called “Climate Change Deniers”? That would make much more logical sense.


I agree. they are in denial of natural climate change because it tends to undermine their social and political engineering.


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> So.... leave the dogshit on the sidewalk because everyone else is? You're telling me to buy some rubber boots to walk around town because everyone else is going to leave dogshit on the sidewalk, too.


No, he didn't recommend that. andrew you are mixed up, and incredible.


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> What about the people who are arguing vociferously that the recent warming is all fake, despite the abundance of evidence? How is that not denial? You can argue cause, but a lot of denialists are stuck on "it snowed last week, warming is FAKE NEWS".


Like who? give a name, a quote, a reference. Who are "the people" who make such claims, and what specifically did they say, and where did they say it.


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> Interesting Bloomberg research note on advancement in price performance of Li-Ion batteries.
> 
> https://about.bnef.com/blog/behind-scenes-take-lithium-ion-battery-prices/
> 
> Bottom line is battery prices are projected to fall by half by 2024 from 2018 levels, and almost half again 2030. Anyone think that a 65% reduction in battery prices won't be disruptive? And I mean, not just in cars. Grid energy storage, home energy storage (combined with similar continued declines in solar costs). This is why it is laughable that IEA is expecting EV fleet to still be in low single digits in 2040. I would say they have lost their minds, but they never seem to have had them.
> 
> This also leaves aside any new battery technology that might surpass Li-ion in cost performance--this is just experience gain on proven technology. Technology adoption follows an S curve. One year only a few rich people have TVs, a few years later, almost everyone does. Tesla is still selling to early adopters. Once the script flips, adoption is going to be faster than many people can imagine. And yes, as with technologies, and acknowledged in S curves, there will be late-adopters/holdouts. Just like you see some people still using VHS or feature phones (aka dumb phones).


yes, battery prices are dropping. Yes, alternative energy providers are using such batteries to store wind and solar energy. Reportedly some providers are gathering up used tesla batteries for wind and solar storage. 

Wonderful. So what is your point?


----------



## Userkare

Wooopee, the price of Li Ion batteries are coming down! Who cares where the Lithion, Cadmium, and Cobalt come from, right? The battery looks so nice and shiny, how can there be anything bad associated with that? After all, it helps reduce my carbon footprint; horray for me.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap.../congo-cobalt-mining-for-lithium-ion-battery/


----------



## Eder

Tesla, more than any other automaker, has staked its reputation on “ethically sourcing” every piece of its celebrated vehicles.
“It is something we do take very seriously,” Kurt Kelty, Tesla’s director of battery technology, said in March at a battery conference in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. “And we need to take it even more seriously. So we are going to send one of our guys there.”
Six months later, Tesla told The Post it is still working on sending someone to Congo.


----------



## cainvest

Eder said:


> Six months later, Tesla told The Post it is still working on sending someone to Congo.


Is that the place where they were "possibly" using child labour to mine cobalt?


----------



## Eder

Heres the cobalt being processed before shipping to China so we can feel good about our iPhones & EV's. Think we better start producing ethical cobalt as well as ethical oil.


----------



## andrewf

doctrine said:


> Repeat after me: there is no crisis until people who say it is a crisis start acting like it is a crisis. No one is acting like it even if they say it is important. Ho-hum. Back to burning fossil fuels.


What are you looking for? Bombing refineries? Attacking oil tankers?


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> Like who? give a name, a quote, a reference. Who are "the people" who make such claims, and what specifically did they say, and where did they say it.


See post #1 in this thread as but one example:


Rusty O'Toole said:


> September 14 2006 - we have no more than 10 years left to act
> 
> 
> msnbc.com news services
> updated 9/14/2006 6:17:24 PM ET
> 
> Print
> Font:
> 
> SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A leading U.S. climate researcher says the world has a 10-year window of opportunity to take decisive action on global warming and avert catastrophe.
> 
> NASA scientist James Hansen, widely considered the doyen of American climate researchers, said governments must adopt an alternative scenario to keep carbon dioxide emission growth in check and limit the increase in global temperatures to 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit).
> 
> “I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change ... no longer than a decade, at the most,” Hansen said Wednesday at the Climate Change Research Conference in California’s state capital.
> http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14834318/...t/t/warming-expert-only-decade-left-act-time/
> 
> November 8 2019
> 
> Another Arctic Surge to Deliver Record Mid-November Cold Next Week to the Plains, Midwest, South and East
> https://weather.com/forecast/region...tbreak-mid-november-record-midwest-south-east
> 
> This is why they had to rebrand "Global Warming" as "Climate Change"
> 
> Further comment would be superfluous.


----------



## andrewf

Userkare said:


> Wooopee, the price of Li Ion batteries are coming down! Who cares where the Lithion, Cadmium, and Cobalt come from, right? The battery looks so nice and shiny, how can there be anything bad associated with that? After all, it helps reduce my carbon footprint; horray for me.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap.../congo-cobalt-mining-for-lithium-ion-battery/


Maybe the same place all the cobalt used in oil refining comes from. You're right, no industrial process is perfect. What is your point? If not perfect, all are equally bad?


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> Tesla, more than any other automaker, has staked its reputation on “ethically sourcing” every piece of its celebrated vehicles.
> “It is something we do take very seriously,” Kurt Kelty, Tesla’s director of battery technology, said in March at a battery conference in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. “And we need to take it even more seriously. So we are going to send one of our guys there.”
> Six months later, Tesla told The Post it is still working on sending someone to Congo.


What about the oil refineries that use cobalt--they also sending people to check in on cobalt production?

Tesla, also not perfect. Because perfection is impossible. No one is claiming otherwise.

Tesla has dramatically reduced the amount of cobalt used in the battery chemistry they use, partly for ethical sourcing reasons and partly to mitigate commodity volatility. 

I detect a degree of hypocrisy here. Lots of cobalt and other conflict materials are included in every car or product with electronic components. It is not unique to EVs. Just like EVs still have plastic components made from oil. No one is arguing that present day EVs are perfect.


----------



## Userkare

andrewf said:


> Maybe the same place all the cobalt used in oil refining comes from. You're right, no industrial process is perfect. What is your point? If not perfect, all are equally bad?


Difference being that oil refineries aren't saying that they are saving the planet.


----------



## AltaRed

Userkare said:


> Difference being that oil refineries aren't saying that they are saving the planet.


They just quietly go on fueling the engines of GDP. Unsung heroes in so many ways and many, if not the majority of non-state actors, doing it with considerable energy efficiency. They will be around for a very long time with the least efficient ones closing when/if refined product demand rolls over in the next few decades.


----------



## Eder

Looks like Tesla buy buying cobalt from China is not ethically sourcing...I'm glad they try but don't lie about it. Last I looked no one is ethically sourcing oil...Canada buys from any country regardless of environmental or human rights.


----------



## AltaRed

Eder said:


> Looks like Tesla buy buying cobalt from China is not ethically sourcing...I'm glad they try but don't lie about it. Last I looked no one is ethically sourcing oil...Canada buys from any country regardless of environmental or human rights.


I'd correct that to say, Canada's refiners such as Irving and Valero will buy from 'any' country. Canada itself doesn't buy crude oil last time I looked. 

As for ethical producers, Canada is among the best. Figure 1 of https://business.financialpost.com/...ng-themselves-and-the-environment-in-the-foot


----------



## Eder

I agree but mentioned our oil strategy as "Canada" as our competition..."Norway" refuses to use any fossil fuels not originated within Norway...what a novel idea.


----------



## andrewf

Userkare said:


> Difference being that oil refineries aren't saying that they are saving the planet.


So... perfection or bust? 

Not terribly pragmatic.


----------



## AltaRed

@ Eder: Indeed. We've had posters who have fallen all over themselves pontificating how great Norway is. Well, yes in some ways, but they have their act together. Like going green while promoting oil and gas exports is just smart business for GDP growth and all that to support their green initiatives. Ensuring their balance of payments is not hindered by buying imported oil, and slapping huge taxes on a wide range of imports to keep consumption down. Boggles my mind about how 'stupid' we Canadians look in comparison.


----------



## andrewf

If you consider what we've accomplished with CPPIB, it is a little depressing to consider how much better off Canada could be if we were a bit more prudent with our natural endowments. Alberta is a poster-child for squandering natural resource endowments, running its provincial government off royalties like a Middle East petrostate. At least Saudis have a sovereign wealth fund albeit questionably managed. But other provinces are just as bad. Quebec is a good example with hydro, which it could be doing a much better job of monetizing. Ontario is doing a spectacular job of destroying prime farmland.


----------



## AltaRed

Yes, a lot of provinces have squandered something in one form or another. The loss of agricultural land in several provinces has been a problem but most acute in ON primarily due to population growth. 

AB's refusal to institute a provincial sales tax is one of the great sins of all time. Granted a lot of AB wealth has been siphoned off via income taxes to the Federal Treasury never to be returned in transfers, but that is no excuse not to have a sales tax and put most resource revenue into the Heritage Trust Fund.


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> See post #1 in this thread as but one example:


"Originally Posted by andrewf View Post
What about the people who are arguing vociferously that the recent warming is all fake, despite the abundance of evidence? How is that not denial? You can argue cause, but a lot of denialists are stuck on "it snowed last week, warming is FAKE NEWS"."

He is talking about why "global warming" got rebranded "climate change". He's not saying that cold weather is fake news. Apparently there was warming up to 1998. then it paused due to, the IPCC wrote, "unknown natural factors". So "global warming" got rebranded as "climate change". Sophistic strategy to take attention off of the lack of warming for about a decade. Now unusual weather events such as extreme cold and storms could be blamed on humans too. That was when things really got convoluted with the alarmists: Now global warming causes cold weather. 

We are in an interglacial period. In between ice ages. It is normal to have record high temperatures in an interglacial period. 

Now, as the IPCC wrote, there are "unknown natural factors" impacting climate. As long as they, you, and climate science doesn't know the natural factors, you can not know how much of climate change is caused by humans. 

All your posts, however, presuppose that you know all about it. You are pretensions.


----------



## sags

You misunderstand the IPCC statement.

For years the trend was towards a warming planet, then there was a short pause before the trend resumed at a faster pace.

The IPCC statement of "unknown factors" is why it briefly stopped and restarted the trend upwards. 

It isn't a particularly important interruption since the trend continued it's upward path, but deniers do seize upon such minor details in the absence of real evidence of their own.

The scientists certainly understand that CO2 emissions are trapping heat that cumulatively raises the level. The rising temperature and the consequences are what people care about.


----------



## sags

Climate change is more comprehensive description for those who don't equate global warming to consequences to the climate.


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> "Originally Posted by andrewf View Post
> What about the people who are arguing vociferously that the recent warming is all fake, despite the abundance of evidence? How is that not denial? You can argue cause, but a lot of denialists are stuck on "it snowed last week, warming is FAKE NEWS"."
> 
> He is talking about why "global warming" got rebranded "climate change". He's not saying that cold weather is fake news. Apparently there was warming up to 1998. then it paused due to, the IPCC wrote, "unknown natural factors". So "global warming" got rebranded as "climate change". Sophistic strategy to take attention off of the lack of warming for about a decade. Now unusual weather events such as extreme cold and storms could be blamed on humans too. That was when things really got convoluted with the alarmists: Now global warming causes cold weather.
> 
> We are in an interglacial period. In between ice ages. It is normal to have record high temperatures in an interglacial period.
> 
> Now, as the IPCC wrote, there are "unknown natural factors" impacting climate. As long as they, you, and climate science doesn't know the natural factors, you can not know how much of climate change is caused by humans.
> 
> All your posts, however, presuppose that you know all about it. You are pretensions.


What lack of warming? I can post the chart again!


----------



## humble_pie

AltaRed said:


> Granted a lot of AB wealth has been siphoned off via income taxes to the Federal Treasury never to be returned in transfers



somewhat off topic; but boosters of one province ought to get over this kind ^^ of complaining. We keep hearing this income tax plaint from the alberta/oil crowd.

high taxable income earners in canada all pay income taxes according to the same MTR. Nearly always, high income earners never get anything back in the form of gummint services or payments that is remotely proportionate to the high taxes they pay.

that's how it is in this country. It's called a graduated income tax. The rich pay at a higher rate.

are the complainers desiring a flat tax rate? they are wanting the poor to pay more, proportionately, for the same services while they pay less?

haven't heard of any party running on that platform


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> You misunderstand the IPCC statement.
> 
> For years the trend was towards a warming planet, then there was a short pause before the trend resumed at a faster pace.
> 
> The IPCC statement of "unknown factors" is why it briefly stopped and restarted the trend upwards.
> 
> It isn't a particularly important interruption since the trend continued it's upward path, but deniers do seize upon such minor details in the absence of real evidence of their own.
> 
> The scientists certainly understand that CO2 emissions are trapping heat that cumulatively raises the level. The rising temperature and the consequences are what people care about.


The upward path is what we should expect considering we are in between ice ages. When an ice age ends, the planet warms due to unknown natural factors. The fact that you attribute it all to man made co2 is your subjective opinion. The IPCC phrase "unknown natural factors" was a rare moment of honesty that you seem to quickly forget. It is likely that the upward path is mostly also due to unknown natural factors.


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> What lack of warming? I can post the chart again!


That chart is impressive for those with little skill in critical thinking. There are lots of personal, subjective choices made in designing charts. For one thing they don't use a log scale. Amateurs don't use log scales. Also people who want to manipulate the naive don't use log scales. The scale used in your chart creates the false illusion of huge change. The chart also does not make note that we are in between ice ages and that warming after the end of an ice age is what we should expect. 

Apparently you assume the chart proves that man made co2 is responsible, but actually it doesn't. It tends to prove that whoever designed the chart is trying to manipulate you into thinking according to their subjective perspective.


----------



## sags

If the science on climate change is untrustworthy, how is the science on cyclical ice ages any more reliable ?


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> That chart is impressive for those with little skill in critical thinking. There are lots of personal, subjective choices made in designing charts. For one thing they don't use a log scale. Amateurs don't use log scales. Also people who want to manipulate the naive don't use log scales. The scale used in your chart creates the false illusion of huge change. The chart also does not make note that we are in between ice ages and that warming after the end of an ice age is what we should expect.
> 
> Apparently you assume the chart proves that man made co2 is responsible, but actually it doesn't. It tends to prove that whoever designed the chart is trying to manipulate you into thinking according to their subjective perspective.


Putting global temps on a log scale would be a horizontal line! Log scales are good for showing expontentials, not things that are generally mean reverting. 

I said nothing about the chart proving that warming is human-caused. Just that there has been warming. Your failure to understand is your problem. You have shown astoundingly bad reasoning skills in this thread--I wonder if it is deliberate (as a troll).


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> If the science on climate change is untrustworthy, how is the science on cyclical ice ages any more reliable ?


For one, there is a known pattern of ice ages.


----------



## sags

For a while, there was a nice pattern on the dripping ice sculpture that occupied his space when UK PM didn't show up for a climate change debate.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/20...johnson-corbyn-ice-sculpture-intl-ldn-vpx.cnn


----------



## Eder

Well it looks like the climate scientists again need this carpenter to notarize more of their research. I always felt carpentry was more of an art than science but who am I to argue with PHD's? 
*
Dear scientist, our paper “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency” is now in BioScience magazine and here is the link which is open access https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088
The paper is being widely reported on by the mass media. We are now collecting more scientist signatures on the paper. Therefore, please sign if you have not already done so, and contact your colleagues about signing the paper too. Scientists can sign the paper at  https://scientistswarning.forestry.oregonstate.edu/
The COP25 UN climate meetings are now taking place in Madrid, Spain, and we need your assistance to spread this declaration of a climate emergency. To help get this message to COP25 negotiators, other world leaders, and the public, please share on social media such as Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn. A few sample tweets are shown below.
Thanks, Bill,
William J. Ripple, Distinguished Professor, Oregon State University
Sample tweets:
“We declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency."  https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088
World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088
Spread the word of a Climate Emergency https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088
New warning about the  #ClimateEmergency and six steps that will make a difference: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088
I signed the  #ScientistsWarningtoHumanity about the  #ClimateEmergency. You can help by sharing the following link: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088
Over 11,000 scientists (including me) signed the  #ScientistsWarningtoHumanity about the  #ClimateEmergency. Something in here for everyone: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088
New indicators and six steps to combat the  #ClimateEmergency outlined here:  https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biz088*


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> Putting global temps on a log scale would be a horizontal line! Log scales are good for showing expontentials, not things that are generally mean reverting.
> 
> I said nothing about the chart proving that warming is human-caused. Just that there has been warming. Your failure to understand is your problem. You have shown astoundingly bad reasoning skills in this thread--I wonder if it is deliberate (as a troll).


 Since we are in between ice ages its obvious there has been warming. 
Log scales are good for keeping things in actual perspective, mean reverting or not. And of course it would be horizontal because the actual change over the last 100 years is minuscule. the non log scale is used to make a minuscule change look like a dramatic rise. Its an illusion.


----------



## andrewf

Please show me all the examples of mean-reverting data represented log scale. This should be trivial if this is the standard/correct way to present this kind of information/


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> Please show me all the examples of mean-reverting data represented log scale. This should be trivial if this is the standard/correct way to present this kind of information/


It isn't possible to show "all" examples. How could anyone know if they ever uncovered "all" examples. 

And why would you call this situation, long term temperature graphs, a "mean reversion" situation. Alarmists insist temps will not return to the mean, but go up, and up, and up until we burn up in a huge apocalyptic fire ball. That's not mean reversion. If such alarmist predictions are accurate, you should be happy to use a log scale as it wouldn't be a mean reverting situation. 

You can't have it both ways.


----------



## sags

People are demanding action on climate change all over the world, including Canada

The Liberals tabled climate a change plan commitment in the throne speech. The NDP/Green/Bloc would prefer it be more ambitious. The Conservatives are living in never land.

_“We have still a window open, but it is very narrow … we have 10 more years and that depends on ecosystems still continuing to be a functioning carbon sink,” said Johan Rockström, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. Despite growing use of renewables, fossil emissions continue to rise and the world is far from reaching the Paris Agreement's goals.

*It's clear that protests are having an impact; the EU saw a green wave in this year's European election*, and the bloc is moving to become climate neutral by 2050, but Patricia Espinosa, the U.N.’s climate chief, on Friday cautioned that climate change is a “threat multiplier” that could unleash social clashes. _

The time for discussion and debate has come and passed. It is time for action.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/06/climate-change-protests-077375


----------



## sags

_"*We’ve already baked in 20 meters of sea level rise*,” says James White, a University of Colorado scientist who has studied ancient climates to gain insights about the future. *"The coast is toast."*

*Twenty meters is 65 feet — enough to inundate vast swaths of coastal territory, displacing hundreds of millions of people.*

So far, sea level rise has been relatively modest. As Greenland and Antarctica have shed ice, and sea water has expanded as it has warmed, global mean sea level has come up by about 7 to 8 inches since 1900.

But the rise is accelerating, with about 3 of those inches occurring since 1993. Moreover, just those 8 inches have made high-tide coastal flooding more extensive and severe — as was demonstrated recently with the catastrophic floods in Venice. _

https://www.discovermagazine.com/en...eve-already-hurtled-past-a-point-of-no-return


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> It isn't possible to show "all" examples. How could anyone know if they ever uncovered "all" examples.
> 
> And why would you call this situation, long term temperature graphs, a "mean reversion" situation. Alarmists insist temps will not return to the mean, but go up, and up, and up until we burn up in a huge apocalyptic fire ball. That's not mean reversion. If such alarmist predictions are accurate, you should be happy to use a log scale as it wouldn't be a mean reverting situation.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.


^ Deliberately obtuse response.

Show me a good sample of examples of using log scale for mean reverting data. Or it didn't happen.

And no one believes that temperatures would rise by orders of magnitude over time. There are physical limits to temperature rise, and it will tend to me mean reverting (particularly following the collapse of human civilization over geological time scales).


----------



## Prairie Guy




----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> ^
> 
> And no one believes that temperatures would rise by orders of magnitude over time. There are physical limits to temperature rise, and it will tend to me mean reverting (particularly following the collapse of human civilization over geological time scales).


I'm glad you see that temperatures won't rise by orders of magnitude over time. It will be mean reverting. We agree, there is no climate emergency. Not sure what your problem is then. 

But your claim that "no one believes" seems incredible. haven't you heard of the new apocalyptic prediction that the planet is kaput in 12 years?


----------



## lonewolf :)

The world never lost a single stride as it kept marching regardless of the hyped up propaganda regarding the so called man made hole in the ozone, the acid rain, the wet lands, Y2K, global warming & now global warming has been changed to climate change since the cycle has changed to cooling. Who believes this nonsense ?


----------



## MrMatt

Prairie Guy said:


> View attachment 19818


It's funny that the rich little white girl has to cross the ocean to the colonies to tell them about the evils of their ways.


----------



## Eder

I saw a pretty funny news clip showing huge diesel generators hidden in enclosures away from the public providing the power & heat for areas of COP25.


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> I'm glad you see that temperatures won't rise by orders of magnitude over time. It will be mean reverting. We agree, there is no climate emergency. Not sure what your problem is then.


You are deliberately obtuse. This does not follow. 



> But your claim that "no one believes" seems incredible. haven't you heard of the new apocalyptic prediction that the planet is kaput in 12 years?


Show me anyone who believes that temps will rise by orders of magnitude. The only people who might believe this probably don't understand what that even means. Of course, one does not need global temps to rise by this much to be very bad for human civilization.


----------



## accord1999

andrewf said:


> Of course, one does not need global temps to rise by this much to be very bad for human civilization.


Given the resilience of humanity, especially with modern technology and engineering and the availability of cheap, reliable and powerful forms of energy, it does take global temps to change significantly to be bad for human civilization at a global level.


----------



## andrewf

I guarantee that if temps rise by orders of magnitude, 99.999% of humans will be dead. Just do the math.


----------



## sags

Greta Thunberg is named the TIME person of the year. She is the youngest ever recipient of the award.

_The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them._

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/11/media/time-person-of-the-year-2019/index.html


----------



## Prairie Guy

Who pays for her trips and writes her speeches? Shouldn't they get the "award" instead?


----------



## lonewolf :)

sags said:


> Greta Thunberg is named the TIME person of the year. She is the youngest ever recipient of the award.
> 
> _The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them._
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/11/media/time-person-of-the-year-2019/index.html


 Galileo went to trial for looking through his telescope. Memorize & repeat bogus nonsense & make timer of the year. The herd is really dumber then the dumbest person in the herd. Be the dumbest person in the herd & the herd will like you the most


----------



## sags

Prairie Guy said:


> Who pays for her trips and writes her speeches? Shouldn't they get the "award" instead?


Their reward will be in heaven.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> Their reward will be in heaven.


Well, to be fair, climate alarmism is a religion


----------



## lonewolf :)

sags said:


> Greta Thunberg is named the TIME person of the year. She is the youngest ever recipient of the award.
> 
> _The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them._
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/11/media/time-person-of-the-year-2019/index.html


 Years back Time Magazine named Hitler man of the year. Hitler might of met his match in regards of who can do the most destruction. Hitler with gas chambers, guns & tanks verses Gretta with famine from not preparing for cooler temps, destroying the Auto industry in Europe along with the economies of oil producers, breaking the backs of tax payers & possible civil war as the global warmests will not want us to to freeze to death instead of heating our homes with nat gas & oil.


----------



## Prairie Guy

^^
The end goal isn't much different...give the government as much power as possible. The only difference is the reasoning used.


----------



## Eder

Well the BS continues...looks like pure deception is required today to keep alarmism current


Alarmist scientists have been caught red-handed tampering with raw data in order to exaggerate sea level rise.
The raw (unadjusted) data from three Indian Ocean gauges – Aden, Karachi and Mumbai – showed that local sea level trends in the last 140 years had been very gently rising, neutral or negative (ie sea levels had fallen).
But after the evidence had been adjusted by tidal records gatekeepers at the global databank Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) it suddenly showed a sharp and dramatic rise.
The whistle was blown by two Australian scientists Dr. Albert Parker and Dr. Clifford Ollier in a paper for _Earth Systems and Environment.
_
_The paper – Is the Sea Level Stable at Aden, Yemen? – examines the discrepancies between raw and adjusted sea level data in Aden, Karachi 

_
_Parker, A. & Ollier, C.D. Earth Syst Environ (2017) 1: 18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z 

_


----------



## Eder

Well sea levels aren't rising...lets see if there are actually more frequent and powerful weather?

Guess not lol...

2010s: 826 global tropical storms 445 became hurricane strength 249 majors (Cat 3+) 2000s: 855 global tropical storms 450 became hurricane strength 248 majors (Cat 3+) 1990s: 256 majors (Cat 3+)

Ryan Maue is a research meteorologist. He has developed and maintained a popular weather maps and climate data service based on the world’s best numerical weather prediction systems. During his graduate studies at Florida State University, he researched extratropical and tropical cyclones, utilizing mesoscale models and large reanalysis datasets, and published multiple peer-reviewed articles. After his PhD in 2010, Maue was awarded a National Research Council postdoctoral associateship at the Naval Research Lab in Monterey, California where he focused on global weather prediction and verification


----------



## like_to_retire

Honestly, have we lost our minds? Do we really need to terrorize our youth with this climate emergency nonsense?

For all the youth that are reading this - Please, there is no emergency, go back to your daily routines....................

Mental health stresses of climate change begin to show

_____________________________
_Among the signs held by protesters at a climate strike in September was one that read, “I’m going to die from climate change!”

Canadian Mental Health Association described climate anxiety or eco-anxiety as “a deep fear of environmental doom and human catastrophe,” and while not everyone is susceptible, it’s a growing issue, something the agency said needs more attention from health professionals and governments.

“The climate emergency is not just a question of wildfires, or rising temperatures and rising oceans,” Fardous Hosseiny, CMHA’s interim national chief executive officer, said in a statement in October. “What will we do about rising despair and of the mental health impacts of climate trauma?”

the issue is having an impact on peoples’ mental health, and the despair, grief, fear and anger is often felt most acutely by young people. 

“I had to take a month off because we were all feeling burned out,” she said.

“People don’t want to have a future because there is not going to be a future.

“Especially for young people, it definitely is stressful and an anxiety-inducing reality, the climate situation,_
______________________________


ltr


----------



## AltaRed

The frenzy is truly getting out of hand. Youth immaturity feeds on itself and is egged on by vested interests. Thank goodness for no insane conclusions at COP25?


----------



## cainvest

Eder said:


> 2010s: 826 global tropical storms 445 became hurricane strength 249 majors (Cat 3+) 2000s: 855 global tropical storms 450 became hurricane strength 248 majors (Cat 3+) 1990s: 256 majors (Cat 3+)


Soooo the take away here is we're losing Cat 3+ hurricanes, nature water roombas, how dare we!


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

I always get a kick out of these articles claiming sea levels are rising in one place on the globe. I picture a hill of water with water skiers sliding down the sides.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

I'll believe sea level rise is a threat when climate activists and politicians sell their million dollar beach houses, insurance companies stop insuring them and banks stop loaning money on them.


----------



## lonewolf :)

cycles just like climate naturally cycle from warmer to cooler so would sea levels cycle lower & higher with cycles with in cycles. What kind of egotistical mind is needed to think we cause the cycles in climate & sea levels ?


----------



## Prairie Guy

Greta forced to apologize for advocating violence by saying that politicians who deny a climate emergency should be put against the wall.

So they've moved from suggesting people be jailed for disagreeing with them to them now being executed.


----------



## m3s

Rusty O'Toole said:


> I'll believe sea level rise is a threat when climate activists and politicians sell their million dollar beach houses, insurance companies stop insuring them and banks stop loaning money on them.


I'm on the oceanfront and most are self-insured second homes. The cost to insure a house on the oceanfront nowadays is not economical. Insurance of a beachhouse in Florida would cost more than rent in a landlocked province.


----------



## Eder

_“A federal agency has spent more than $100 million in the Chinese coal industry even as cabinet’s climate change plan proposes to eliminate Canadian coal-fired power plants. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board yesterday did not comment: “The whole world needs to phase out coal.””

Can't make this stuff up...screw Canada but invest in China lol.

https://www.spencerfernando.com/201...1-million-in-chinas-coal-industry-blacklocks/


_


----------



## sags

You should get some better news sources. The CPP is not a federal agency and is not controlled by any government.


----------



## Prairie Guy

I heard a good one :biggrin:

There's no need for climate protests in China because they're already communist.


----------



## sags

Climate change is going to cause a lot of problems, including for financial institutions and pension funds.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/20...compares-climate-change-risk-asbestos-fallout


----------



## Pluto

https://watchers.news/2019/12/19/severe-blizzard-dumps-9-meters-snow-hofsos-iceland/

Iceland gets unprecedented snowfall - up to 30 feet deep.


----------



## andrewf

^ Australia currently on fire. These are all just anecdotes. The plural of anecdotes is not data.


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> The plural of anecdotes is not data.


Since Environment Canada has deleted 100 years of data every "warmest summer ever" going forward will not include any actual data. But that won't stop the alarmists from demanding more government control. And, of course the media will willingly print the "warmest summer ever" claims without any indication or disclaimer that we're not looking at verified data.


----------



## sags

The evidence of global warming is beyond debate. The only questions are "if" or "will" we do anything about it.

Personally I don't think we "will" do much of anything even "if" we could. The level of intelligence in the human race has been greatly exaggerated and used to destroy the earth.

I don't expect that to change.


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> The evidence of global warming is beyond debate. .


We are in between ice ages, when, by definition, the earth naturally warms. I wouldn't debate that. 

the strange thing is that the alarmists have decided arbitrarily that this time, nature shut off its warming factors and its entirely human activity causing the warming. Its a stretch. Science fiction.


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> ^ Australia currently on fire. These are all just anecdotes. The plural of anecdotes is not data.


of course. I'm glad you see that. Most alarmists don't know that and cite heat waves as proof of man made global warming.


----------



## sags

Pluto said:


> We are in between ice ages, when, by definition, the earth naturally warms. I wouldn't debate that.
> 
> the strange thing is that the alarmists have decided arbitrarily that this time, nature shut off its warming factors and its entirely human activity causing the warming. Its a stretch. Science fiction.


I find it strange that some people use the scientific knowledge about ice ages, but refute the knowledge about climate change from the same scientists.


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> I find it strange that some people use the scientific knowledge about ice ages, but refute the knowledge about climate change from the same scientists.


Huh?

Ice age, warming, new ice age, new warming cycles are climate change. I've never heard of any credible scientist who tries to refute climate change. I certainly know of no scientist who has attempted to refute climate change. who are these scientists and people who try to refute climate change?


----------



## peterk

Pluto said:


> Huh?
> 
> Ice age, warming, new ice age, new warming cycles are climate change. I've never heard of any credible scientist who tries to refute climate change. I certainly know of no scientist who has attempted to refute climate change. who are these scientists and people who try to refute climate change?


I think Sags is referring to the scientists/people who are saying things like "We can probably handle dealing with some climate change", "A carbon tax isn't going to change the climate", "It shouldn't take 10 years to approve pipelines and oilsands mines, destroying countless billions in wealth". The devils.


----------



## like_to_retire

peterk said:


> I think Sags is referring to the scientists/people who are saying things like "We can probably handle dealing with some climate change", "A carbon tax isn't going to change the climate", "It shouldn't take 10 years to approve pipelines and oilsands mines, destroying countless billions in wealth". The devils.


No, you guys have it wrong. What sags is trying to get across is that no scientist would attempt to ruin our economy by restricting the use of the golden goose we have stored under ground, unlike every other country that exploits it to the fullest for the benefit of its people. He's saying every scientist knows that the climate has changed for billions of years and will continue to do so, but making it something to scare our children with so they can destroy the exact economy they'll have to live with in the future would be ridiculous and cruel, all in the quest to get a few extra tax dollars now.

ltr


----------



## sags

I don't think the message from the scientists needs much clarification.

They are saying there is a climate change emergency caused by human activity, not part of a natural cycle of warming and cooling.

When dealing with climate change caused by human activity (pollution), it is doubtful the solution is to burn more fossil fuels.

The thread contains good examples of why I am not optimistic humans will address climate change in any meaningful manner.

We are destined to suffer the consequences, whatever they might be.


----------



## sags

When people talk about disruption to the economy, they reveal a total disregard for what the costs of climate change are going to be.

Insurance companies know and are making adjustments in their policy coverage. Financial institutions and pension funds know and are making adjustments on the lending.

Central banks know and are making adjustments to their future predictions. Governments know and are concerned about the cost.

The likely scenario is the consequences of dealing with climate change will overwhelm the ability to respond to it.

Hundreds of millions of people living along coastlines will have to move. Cities will be buried under sea water creating an environmental catastrophe.

There will be droughts in areas that grow food and the world will starve. There will be fires, hurricanes, snowfalls beyond any previous in history.

Pestilence, viruses, and pathogens will roam unchecked around the earth.

Methane will be released into the atmosphere in rising amounts and become unstable. There will be flash fires across the skies affecting oxygen levels.

And in the end of days....Don Meredith will be singing in the background...."turn out the lights,... the parties over".


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Insurance companies know and are making adjustments in their policy coverage. Financial institutions and pension funds know and are making adjustments on the lending.


What a bonus for those institutions.



sags said:


> Hundreds of millions of people living along coastlines will have to move. Cities will be buried under sea water creating an environmental catastrophe.
> There will be droughts in areas that grow food and the world will starve. There will be fires, hurricanes, snowfalls beyond any previous in history.
> Pestilence, viruses, and pathogens will roam unchecked around the earth.
> Methane will be released into the atmosphere in rising amounts and become unstable. There will be flash fires across the skies affecting oxygen levels.


Please don't speak to my grandkids. They won't sleep at night. I just looked out the window and don't see any pestilence at all.

ltr


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> I don't think the message from the scientists needs much clarification.
> 
> They are saying .


But who are they? what are their names? what have you read that "they" wrote? 

You are so vague. Its like readers are supposed to just believe you even though you give no information so the reader can check for themselves.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> Hundreds of millions of people living along coastlines will have to move. Cities will be buried under sea water creating an environmental catastrophe.
> 
> There will be droughts in areas that grow food and the world will starve. There will be fires, hurricanes, snowfalls beyond any previous in history.
> 
> Pestilence, viruses, and pathogens will roam unchecked around the earth.
> 
> Methane will be released into the atmosphere in rising amounts and become unstable. There will be flash fires across the skies affecting oxygen levels.
> 
> And in the end of days....


You forgot to mention the swarm of locusts 

And remember folks...all you have to do to prevent the end of days is give the government more of your money and more control over every aspect of your life and you will earn a pass through the Gate of Climate Change. :biggrin:


----------



## sags

I_n the South Pacific Ocean east of New Zealand, satellite imagery shows a massive area of ocean water at well-above-average temperatures.

The water in the area is about 5 degrees Celsius (about 9 degrees Fahrenheit) "warmer than average for the latitude and time of year," said James Renwick, a professor and head of the School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences at Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand.

The hot blob on the Pacific surface is detectable from space and is the largest area of above-average water temperature on Earth right now.
The patch of sea is about a million square kilometers (400,000 square miles), covering an area of ocean larger than the size of Texas.

*"The ocean surface doesn't vary that wildly," Renwick said. "One degree (Celsius) is big. So, five degrees is huge."*
*It's especially rare to see over such a large area, but scientists say global climate change is making these phenomena more common.*
_

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/27/world/new-zealand-hot-ocean-water-trnd/index.html


----------



## Eder

/\
\/


----------



## sags

Warmest temperature in recorded history in Moscow. 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/25/europe/moscow-december-warm-weather-intl/index.html

Another heat wave and more wild fires in Australia.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/27/australia/australia-new-heat-wave-wildfire-intl-hnk-scli/index.html

Consequences and repercussions. The ugly side of climate change is rolling out sooner and more intense than expected.


----------



## cainvest

sags said:


> Warmest temperature in recorded history in Moscow.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/25/europe/moscow-december-warm-weather-intl/index.html
> 
> Consequences and repercussions. The ugly side of climate change is rolling out sooner and more intense than expected.


As you're pointing out above it can be really good too! I'm sure Moscow is enjoying the nice warm spell during winter.


----------



## Prairie Guy

"Australia has a long history of devastating bushfires, with fires on record before 2003 accounting for hundreds of deaths and thousands of properties being destroyed.

The Black Thursday fires burned through 5m hectares – almost a quarter of Victoria. It was one of the largest bushfires to occur in a heavily populated area in Australia’s history. Fifteen people died and 1300 buildings were destroyed."

https://www.theguardian.com/news/da...ec/01/history-bushfires-australia-interactive

Black Thursday was in February 1851. CNN chose not to provide the well documented history of Australian wild fires.


----------



## Eder

*A scientific paper entitled “An Overview of Scientific Debate of Global Warming and Climate Change” has recently come out of the University of Karachi, Pakistan. The paper’s author, Prof. Shamshad Akhtar delves into earth’s natural temperature variations of the past 1000 years, and concludes that any modern warming trend has been hijacked by political & environmental agendas, and that the science (tackled below) has been long-ignored and at times deliberately manipulated*.

Here's another peer reviewed paper that tries to calm the warming hysteria using science.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/69...JEvvcvkukOP1aIyBsUbs2jpjhM8FKkbliXnbmWoAcmrw8



Cliff notes link here...

https://electroverse.net/newly-publ...-tears-global-warming-and-the-ipcc-to-shreds/

OK ... carry on with the apocalypse


----------



## Eder

Prairie Guy said:


> "Australia has a long history of devastating bushfires, with fires on record before 2003 accounting for hundreds of deaths and thousands of properties being destroyed.
> 
> The Black Thursday fires burned through 5m hectares – almost a quarter of Victoria. It was one of the largest bushfires to occur in a heavily populated area in Australia’s history. Fifteen people died and 1300 buildings were destroyed."
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/news/da...ec/01/history-bushfires-australia-interactive
> 
> Black Thursday was in February 1851. CNN chose not to provide the well documented history of Australian wild fires.


The ‘once in a century drought’, which ran from 1891 to 1903, caused an ecosystem collapse affecting more than a third of the country.
The drought was one of the world’s worst recorded ‘megadroughts’, which at its peak saw much of the country receive less than 40 percent of its annual rainfall, with 1902 _remaining _the driest year on record.
CSIRO researcher Dr. Robert Godfree said: “In New South Wales, most rivers stopped flowing and dust storms filled dams, buried homesteads and created ghost towns as people fled.”
“Wildlife and stock starved or died of thirst. Native birds and mammals died under trees, in creeks, and on the plains.
“Tens of millions of sheep and cattle were killed, and hundreds of millions of rabbits died of starvation after stripping the landscape of its plant life,” Godfree said.


----------



## sags

Eder said:


> *A scientific paper entitled “An Overview of Scientific Debate of Global Warming and Climate Change” has recently come out of the University of Karachi, Pakistan. The paper’s author, Prof. Shamshad Akhtar delves into earth’s natural temperature variations of the past 1000 years, and concludes that any modern warming trend has been hijacked by political & environmental agendas, and that the science (tackled below) has been long-ignored and at times deliberately manipulated*.
> 
> Here's another peer reviewed paper that tries to calm the warming hysteria using science.
> 
> https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/69...JEvvcvkukOP1aIyBsUbs2jpjhM8FKkbliXnbmWoAcmrw8
> 
> 
> 
> Cliff notes link here...
> 
> https://electroverse.net/newly-publ...-tears-global-warming-and-the-ipcc-to-shreds/
> 
> OK ... carry on with the apocalypse


Published isn't peer reviewed.


----------



## sags

Prairie Guy said:


> "Australia has a long history of devastating bushfires, with fires on record before 2003 accounting for hundreds of deaths and thousands of properties being destroyed.
> 
> The Black Thursday fires burned through 5m hectares – almost a quarter of Victoria. It was one of the largest bushfires to occur in a heavily populated area in Australia’s history. Fifteen people died and 1300 buildings were destroyed."
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/news/da...ec/01/history-bushfires-australia-interactive
> 
> Black Thursday was in February 1851. CNN chose not to provide the well documented history of Australian wild fires.


Since you approve of Guardian reporting......

_“For the whole community this is a very stressful, long endurance episode for them; *it just goes on and on*,” he said on Friday.
_
_Morrison returned early last week, apologising for going away. *He continued to face criticism for his government’s failure to develop a credible climate change policy*._

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...as-heatwave-expected-to-peak-on-new-years-eve


----------



## Eder

sags said:


> Published isn't peer reviewed.




I'll bite



Scholarena publishes peer reviewed articles that cover a wide range of scientific and academic research in order to support the publication needs of the scientific community. It mainly focuses on fields such as Medical, Engineering, Agriculture, Food, Case Reports etc. We accept the publication of full length research article, review article, case reports, short communication, etc., with quality publication by our high standards and through the peer review process by our eminent editorial board members.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> Since you approve of Guardian reporting......


Someone who quotes CNN probably shouldn't criticize.


----------



## sags

_In an interview with BBC radio's Today programme guest-edited by Swedish teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg, Carney said the world of business needed to step up action, including on the disclosure of climate risk from their operations.

"A question for every company, every financial institution is: what's your plan? We now have $120 trillion of balance sheets of banks and asset managers wanting this type of disclosure."

But he stated that such action is "not moving fast enough".

Asked whether pension funds should divest from fossil fuels even if the returns are currently attractive, Carney said:

"Well, that hasn't been the case, but they could make that argument. They need to make the argument, to be clear about why is that going to be the case if a substantial proportion of those assets are going to be worthless."

*Carney noted that "up to 80 percent of coal assets will be stranded (and) up to half of developed oil reserves" if current climate targets are to be met. 
*
_
https://phys.org/news/2019-12-boe-chief-faster-action-climate.html


----------



## sags

_Mark Carney said the financial sector had begun to curb investment in fossil fuels – but far too slowly.

He said leading pension fund analysis "is that if you add up the policies of all of companies out there, they are consistent with warming of 3.7-3.8C".

Mr Carney made the comments in a pre-recorded BBC Radio 4 Today interview.

The interview, by presenter Mishal Husain, is one of several items on the programme which are focusing on climate change, on the day the show is guest edited by environmental campaigner Greta Thunberg.

*Mr Carney added that the rise of almost 4C was "far above the 1.5 degrees that the people say they want and governments are demanding”.*

*Scientists say the risks associated with an increase of 4C include a nine metre rise in sea levels - affecting up to 760 million people – searing heatwaves and droughts, and serious food supply problems.*_*
*

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50868717


----------



## sags

A reasonable question is how much the Canadian government should invest in time, money and effort in further development of the oil industry. 

There doesn't appear there will be much demand if the forecast is that much of the resources are destined to end up stranded.

Some people say it is Canadian government regulation that is affecting capital investments in oil resources. It looks like there are larger factors at play.


----------



## Eder

*





















*










*

Oops.

*


----------



## MrMatt

Glaciers melt? You mean like when an ice age ends, the ice goes away?

Good thing they're updating their predictions. The crazy thing is that anyone believed all the glaciers would melt in 3 years.

I guess we just need more entitled little rich kids to tell us what to do, that will certainly solve the problem.


----------



## cainvest

Guess the computer models need some work but of course they're still "suggesting" humans are playing a significant role in climate change lol.


----------



## sags

The pictures are about small alpine glaciers, which are different than the continental glaciers found at both poles.

Nevertheless, they are also melting at a faster pace each decade.

The researchers study the response of the glaciers to climate change.

_*I have spent 35 consecutive summers measuring mass balance on alpine glaciers, and more than 750 nights in a tent to record their response to climate change.* [/B]A decade ago I described what was happening to alpine glaciers here at RC, but *the continued signal of mass loss is inescapable and has been getting worse.* The decadal mean annual mass balance of WGMS reference alpine glaciers was -171 mm in the 1980’s, -460 mm in the 1990’s, -500 mm for 2000’s and – 850 mm for 2010-2018._

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/03/alpine-glaciers-another-decade-of-loss/


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> The pictures are about small alpine glaciers, which are different than the continental glaciers found at both poles.
> 
> Nevertheless, they are also melting at a faster pace each decade.
> 
> The researchers study the response of the glaciers to climate change.
> 
> _*I have spent 35 consecutive summers measuring mass balance on alpine glaciers, and more than 750 nights in a tent to record their response to climate change.* [/B]A decade ago I described what was happening to alpine glaciers here at RC, but *the continued signal of mass loss is inescapable and has been getting worse.* The decadal mean annual mass balance of WGMS reference alpine glaciers was -171 mm in the 1980’s, -460 mm in the 1990’s, -500 mm for 2000’s and – 850 mm for 2010-2018._
> 
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/03/alpine-glaciers-another-decade-of-loss/


It's _almost_ like the ice age is ending and the ice is melting.


----------



## Eder

The reality was a couple of the Glacier Ice Field ones are actually growing larger...so similar to the bogus polar bear count etc. real boots on the ground research is a bit better than the distance science applied so often to our oil sands, animals & geology.

Alarmist crap is dying a miserable death while real research seems to be sprouting some green shoots...thank God. (ooooh maybe thats still not appropriate to mention the big guy lol)


----------



## MrMatt

Eder said:


> The reality was a couple of the Glacier Ice Field ones are actually growing larger...so similar to the bogus polar bear count etc. real boots on the ground research is a bit better than the distance science applied so often to our oil sands, animals & geology.
> 
> Alarmist crap is dying a miserable death while real research seems to be sprouting some green shoots...thank God. (ooooh maybe thats still not appropriate to mention the big guy lol)


That is actually what concerns me.
There are real scientific concerns on the global environment, but with all these experts lying about climate change, I think it's destroying credibility in "science".
We all know that the climate change movement today has been hijacked for political power, which makes people even more skeptical.


----------



## cainvest

MrMatt said:


> It's _almost_ like the ice age is ending and the ice is melting.


Yes ... very weird, almost like the earth is somehow going through these warming and cooling cycles.


----------



## andrewf

Earth is naturally radioactive, what's a little extra nuclear waste?


----------



## MrMatt

cainvest said:


> Yes ... very weird, almost like the earth is somehow going through these warming and cooling cycles.


If only there was some science that the earths climate changes. 
Could you imagine if we were actually at historically low temperatures?
Could you imagine if we were actually several degrees below the global average temperatures? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png


Naw, the climate alarmists will likely just ignore the science like the climate change deniers they are.


----------



## sags

Anthropocene: The Human Epoch

https://theanthropocene.org/press/2...wal-nicholas-de-pencier-and-edward-burtynsky/

_In Questions, Stephen Hawking notes that in January 2018 the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists moved the Doomsday Clock forward two minutes to midnight. It’s the Journal’s measurement of the imminence of catastrophe—military or environmental—facing our planet.

*The clock’s ticking toward midnight means that the Holocene epoch, which correlates with the expansion and effects of the human species on Earth—including language, written history, technological growth, urban sprawl, all our modern functions—has ended.* The Anthropocene epoch has begun, as humans transform the planet and its functions to a greater degree than the totality of all natural systems. *In essence, where the Holocene is characterized by the growth of all things human, the Anthropocene is characterized by the destruction and trauma to the planet’s ecosystems as a result of human activity.* Humans have gone from being participants on Earth to being its dominate feature.

A fascinating and often stunning tour of our species’ immense reorganization of the Earth, Anthropocene: The Human Epoch—a new, award-winning documentary by Jennifer Baichwal, Nicholas de Pencier, and Edward Burtynsky—chronicles some of these devastating environmental consequences. It is the third in a trilogy that includes Manufactured Landscapes (2006) and Watermark (2013). By visiting countries around the globe, viewers experience the annihilation of natural landscapes from human exploitation._


----------



## sags

The news roundup for 2019 featured a segment on the growth of the climate change movement, since Greta Thunberg issued her famous "How dare you ?" words.

In 2019 there were many protests around the world and in Canada, even in the heart of oil country in Calgary. There were 500,000 people at the rally in Montreal.

Climate change is the biggest issue of this century. No political party can ignore or deny the issue. The question is if the response will be enough.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> The news roundup for 2019 featured a segment on the growth of the climate change movement, since Greta Thunberg issued her famous "How dare you ?" words.
> 
> In 2019 there were many protests around the world and in Canada, even in the heart of oil country in Calgary. There were 500,000 people at the rally in Montreal.
> 
> Climate change is the biggest issue of this century. No political party can ignore or deny the issue. The question is if the response will be enough.


It's a huge political issue, no doubt. 
How dare some rich kid come and lecture us on an issue she knows nothing about.

Travelling the world in luxury sailboats and cars, created by the very things she's protesting against.


----------



## sags

*Australia’s hellish heat wave and wildfires, explained:

Ocean circulation, years of drought, and climate change are fueling Australia’s record heat and deadly fires.*

A difficult number to comprehend.....it is estimated that 480 million animals have died in the fires. 

https://www.vox.com/2019/12/30/21039298/40-celsius-australia-fires-2019-heatwave-climate-change

_And as the climate changes, the underlying conditions for Australian bushfires will continue to amplify, namely heat and dryness. “Some cities in Australia will likely hit temperatures in the 50’s (Celsius) [more than 122 degrees Fahrenheit] by the end of the century,” Perkins-Kirkpatrick said.

As a result, scientists expect to see more extreme wildfires in Australia in the latter part of this century. That means history can no longer serve as a guide for cities coping with the heat or firefighters battling flames.

*“Events that are unprecedented in a given region, such as the 2018 [fire] event, reveal that firefighting preparation and training cannot rely on previous events as guidance for the most dangerous conditions they can expect in the current and future climate in which large-scale fires occur more regularly*,” researchers warned in a study published in December in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society looking back at the 2018 fires in Australia.

That’s why fire officials are growing anxious about the prospects of more extreme fires. A group of 23 fire chiefs requested a meeting with Prime Minister Scott Morrison in April to discuss the threat, a meeting that has yet to take place. 

The extreme heat in Australia this week is not just a fluke. There were unique patterns in rain, temperature, and wind that converged this year to scorch the continent, factors that scientists were able to detect in advance. But *Australia is also deep in the throes of the accelerating climate crisis*, facing not just extreme heat but changes in rainfall patterns. These shifts in turn stand to worsen other problems like drought and wildfires_


----------



## WGZ

There was a point in Earth's history where a lot more places in it were uninhabitable. The equator was an uninhabitable belt at one point with temperatures of 70 degrees C. Humans are rapidly multiplying and spreading to places they should not be in large numbers.

"The early Eocene (Ypresian) is thought to have had the highest mean annual temperatures of the entire Cenozoic Era, with temperatures about 30° C; relatively low temperature gradients from pole to pole; and high precipitation in a world that was essentially ice-free..."

"The Eocene period occurred far enough in the past that continents were in slightly different positions, with different mountain chains and shallow seas in some places that do not exist today."

"By the Late Eocene, the new ocean circulation resulted in a significantly lower mean annual temperature, with greater variability and seasonality worldwide. The lower temperatures and increased seasonality drove increased body size of mammals, and caused a shift towards increasingly open savanna-like vegetation, with a corresponding reduction in forests."

"The Early Eocene was characterized by high carbon dioxide levels, inferred to be between 1,000 and 2,000 parts per million. Scientists think that increased volcanic activity was an important cause of these high levels of carbon dioxide. Temperatures during the Eocene can be reconstructed from geochemical measurements of ocean sediments and from vegetation types preserved on land. The reconstructed global mean surface temperature for the Early Eocene is 9 to 14°C higher than today. As seen by proxy evidence and model simulations, this warming was widespread across the globe. There is good agreement between model simulations incorporating high CO2 concentrations and proxy evidence, providing strong support for the role of CO2 in maintaining the high temperatures of the Early Eocene."

etc. etc. this planet fascinates the hell out of me.


----------



## Eder

Bleh...you're from Alberta so most likely you made this up am I right?


----------



## Eder

More evidence warming is out of control...(where are all the headlines stating coldest temperature ever...or is only Australia news worthy?)


Summit Station, Greenland from Thursday, Jan 2, 2020 showed all-time record low temperature of -86°F.


----------



## Prairie Guy

A Facebook bug has revealed that Greta Thunberg's posts are written either by her father or a climate activist at the UN Climate Change organization.

She's just a puppet.


----------



## sags

A puppet for whom ? 

The worldwide conspiracy of thousands of scientists whose goal in life is to fool the public about climate change ? 

Wow.......who would have suspected such a thing ?


----------



## cainvest

sags said:


> The worldwide conspiracy of thousands of scientists whose goal in life is to fool the public about climate change ?


Nope it's -> The worldwide conspiracy by many politicians whose goal in life is to fool the public that these small CO2 changes will have a significant effect on climate change.


----------



## like_to_retire

cainvest said:


> Nope it's -> The worldwide conspiracy by many politicians whose goal in life is to fool the public that these small CO2 changes will have a significant effect on climate change.


Exactly, and once the public is convinced, they won't react when carbon dioxide is taxed. Can you imagine if they tried that twenty years ago.

ltr


----------



## peterk

sags said:


> A puppet for whom ?
> 
> The worldwide conspiracy of thousands of scientists whose goal in life is to fool the public about climate change ?
> 
> Wow.......who would have suspected such a thing ?


Uh... yes?

Why? Job security. It's your favourite subject. 

Why would that be such a surprise to you? The lead climate scientist is like the union boss, advocating for their department's critical usefulness and staff numbers, regardless of their validity or the truth of the matter. That _is_ their job.

Most science/engineering departments only barely stay functioning because there is some 10-20% of people, hopefully with positions of authority, who are committed to seeing things through properly and can resist taking shortcuts or succumbing to management's impossible demands. The other 80-90% just fumble through and will take shortcuts or omit facts whenever necessary to move things along and finish a project with minimal hassle, even if it's all in error. It's pretty clear that those 20% of dedicated people have long since abandoned or have been ejected from the climate science profession.


----------



## cainvest

peterk said:


> Why? Job security. It's your favourite subject.
> 
> Why would that be such a surprise to you? The lead climate scientist is like the union boss, advocating for their department's critical usefulness and staff numbers, regardless of their validity or the truth of the matter. That _is_ their job.


lol, that's just what they need, a union for climate scientists, politicians and their puppets!


----------



## sags

Oh I see.......I need to amend my description of the conspiracy ?

It is a worldwide conspiracy of thousands of scientists whose goal in life is to fool the public about cllimate change, because they are a lazy and incompetent group of scientists.


----------



## cainvest

sags said:


> It is a worldwide conspiracy of thousands of scientists whose goal in life is to fool the public about cllimate change, because they are a lazy and incompetent group of scientists.


Better but you need to "at least" include the politicians that are driving these people. You know the politicians need data to back them up, correct or not. Don't forget the scientists have the best scapegoat (already been used in the past BTW) that results in no loss of jobs and may actually increase their funding .. "Our computer model was wrong, we need to put more work into it!"


----------



## MrMatt

cainvest said:


> Better but you need to "at least" include the politicians that are driving these people. You know the politicians need data to back them up, correct or not. Don't forget the scientists have the best scapegoat (already been used in the past BTW) that results in no loss of jobs and may actually increase their funding .. "Our computer model was wrong, we need to put more work into it!"


Politicians are using "global warming" as their great enemy.
The idea of a war for political gain isn't new.


----------



## sags

Is there a secret website where all the scientists and politicians meet to coordinate their conspiracy ? Are there secret meetings ? Is there a secret handshake ? Who is their leader ?

Alas.....so many questions and so few answers.


----------



## cainvest

sags said:


> Alas.....so many questions and so few answers.


Indeed ....


----------



## sags

NASA and NOAA latest report on climate change. It isn't good news.

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/15/7966...est-year-on-record-according-to-nasa-and-noaa


----------



## MrMatt

The earth has been warming since the last ice age, and will continue warming for the next few thousand years.

It's almost like all these alarmists don't understand science.


----------



## sags

Are big business, insurance companies, central banks and investment funds on the list of conspirators now ?

Doubtful....big business is demanding Youtube remove all their ads on videos that present misinformation on climate change.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/16/...ate-change-denial-avaaz-samsung-uber-nintendo


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> The earth has been warming since the last ice age, and will continue warming for the next few thousand years.
> 
> It's almost like all these alarmists don't understand science.


But what is it? I thought the skeptics were arguing that temps are not rising, and in fact are actually falling. Look: it snowed!


----------



## like_to_retire

andrewf said:


> But what is it? I thought the skeptics were arguing that temps are not rising, and in fact are actually falling. Look: it snowed!







ltr


----------



## cainvest

sags said:


> Are big business, insurance companies, central banks and investment funds on the list of conspirators now ?
> 
> Doubtful....big business is demanding Youtube remove all their ads on videos that present misinformation on climate change.


I highly doubt they'll remove all the IPCC related videos.


----------



## dave2012

MrMatt said:


> The earth has been warming since the last ice age, and will continue warming for the next few thousand years.
> 
> It's almost like all these alarmists don't understand science.


The difference is the cycles last 90,000 to 100,000 years. Now we see noticable changes happening over mere decades.


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> NASA and NOAA latest report on climate change. It isn't good news.
> 
> https://www.npr.org/2020/01/15/7966...est-year-on-record-according-to-nasa-and-noaa


I guess it isn't good news. With more co2 in the atmosphere, and only the second highest, one needs to wonder why isn't it the highest? Something flawed in their simplistic models. This is just nature doing its thing.


----------



## sags

LOL.....Peter Temple

_International award-winning writer/producer/director for corporate and commercial television. Accounts included: McDonalds, Sears, the Bay) and *multinational energy companies (including Petro-Canada, Shell, Husky Energy, Fluor Canada, Alberta Government) to develop and produce internal and external video-based communication.*_*
*
https://www.facebook.com/peter.temple


----------



## sags

Times they are a'changing.........

_Projections from energy companies show demand for oil could peak and fall in the coming decades; some outside analyses suggest demand for oil could plateau as soon as 2025. *Markets are already jittery about the industry: energy was the worst-performing sector on the S&P 500 index in 2019. In 1980, the energy industry represented 28% of the index’s value, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA). Last year, it represented less than 5%.* The shift away from oil looms so large that Moody’s warned in 2018 that the energy transition represents “significant business and credit risk” for oil companies. The heads of the Banks of England and France said in an op-ed that any company that does not change strategically to the new energy reality “will fail to exist.” On Jan. 14, Larry Fink, founder and CEO of investment giant BlackRock, wrote in an open letter that *“climate change has become a defining factor in companies’ long-term prospects.”*_

https://time.com/5766188/shell-oil-companies-fossil-fuels-climate-change/


----------



## cainvest

sags said:


> Times they are a'changing.........


That they are ... just imagine in 10 years if most vehicles were PHEV, the drop in fuel usage will be significant.


----------



## MrMatt

dave2012 said:


> The difference is the cycles last 90,000 to 100,000 years. Now we see noticable changes happening over mere decades.


We don't have high resolution temperature data from thousands, let alone millions of years ago, so we actually don't know how quickly temperatures change and how much it swings.

My point is, the earth is unusually cold right now, and it should be warming up. This warming is projected to be GOOD for Canada.

Finally the impact on the youth about the disaster and emergency is bordering on abusive behaviour.
They think they've had their future stolen, and that the world will end in years.
They're suffereing serious stress anxiety and depression. This craziness is actually causing significant damage to people.

We need to step back and look at the science.

Years ago they said that the earths carrying capacity for life was a fraction of todays population, the reality is we keep getting btter and we've always solved these problems before.
We're making good progress at addressing what people think is influencing and accelerating the changes.
There is no emergency, or massive crisis. These are just buzzwords being thrown about to try and silence debate.

If Trudeau thought this was a real crisis, requiring urgent action, he wouldn't be jetting around the world doing more damage, he'd be trying to save the earth for his own children.
But he knows it isn't a real problem, which is why he acts like it isn't.

That's really the litmus test, the only major green celebrity who dramatically shrank their footprint was David Suzuki, and that might simply be because he simply got kind of old to travel so much.


----------



## lonewolf :)

Nice to see Alberta having had a deep freeze it should give Alberta more incentive to separate. People need to fight back against the oppressing man causing global warming BS


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> LOL.....Peter Temple
> 
> _International award-winning writer/producer/director for corporate and commercial television. Accounts included: McDonalds, Sears, the Bay) and *multinational energy companies (including Petro-Canada, Shell, Husky Energy, Fluor Canada, Alberta Government) to develop and produce internal and external video-based communication.*_*
> *


Exactly - he identifies areas and topics where insanity reigns supreme and shines a light on it. I notice you had no problem with the content, just the messenger..

ltr


----------



## Eder

dave2012 said:


> The difference is the cycles last 90,000 to 100,000 years. Now we see noticable changes happening over mere decades.


Well Canada removed all observed Canadian weather temperatures up to 1956 so a few decades is all we have left to refer to. I did see though that almost a century ago it was hotter and drier but that result might to be harder to find now that things are smoothed out with Ottawas pseudo temperatures during that period.


----------



## Prairie Guy

The 9th Circuit Court has dismissed the lawsuit brought against the government for climate damage.

A poll of Swedes has revealed that they think that climate policy was the worst waste of government money 2019.

Sanity is finally returning to the debate.


----------



## MrMatt

Prairie Guy said:


> The 9th Circuit Court has dismissed the lawsuit brought against the government for climate damage.
> 
> A poll of Swedes has revealed that they think that climate policy was the worst waste of government money 2019.
> 
> Sanity is finally returning to the debate.


Only because they're getting so ridiculous it's becoming increasingly hard to take them seriously.


What really troubles me is how far this is going to set back the publics trust.
As well as the serious damage we're doing to young people.


----------



## Userkare

MrMatt said:


> As well as the serious damage we're doing to young people.


Geez, growing up in NYC in the 50's, we were under constant fear of instant warming to 100,000,000C at any moment. Our big plan was to hide under our desks; yet somehow we survived.


----------



## like_to_retire

Userkare said:


> Geez, growing up in NYC in the 50's, we were under constant fear of instant warming to 100,000,000C at any moment. Our big plan was to hide under our desks; yet somehow we survived.


Yeah, but man it was scary. Those damn sirens would go off, and the teacher would tell us to all to get under our desks, and it scared the crap out of us. 

The only difference is that it was a real threat, unlike today where we terrorize our kids with stories about the weather.

ltr


----------



## cainvest

Userkare said:


> Our big plan was to hide under our desks; yet somehow we survived.


lol, maybe adding climate change drills like "duck and cover" would help their cause?


----------



## like_to_retire

cainvest said:


> lol, maybe adding climate change drills like "duck and cover" would help their cause?


No, to really strike fear you need those damn sirens. They were freaking loud.

I'm thinking something like every time it rains or the temperature is over 30 degrees we could fire up one of those sirens and have all the kids get under their desks. They won't forget that..

ltr


----------



## cainvest

like_to_retire said:


> No, to really strike fear you need those damn sirens. They were freaking loud.
> 
> I'm thinking something like every time it rains or the temperature is over 30 degrees we could fire up one of those sirens and have all the kids get under their desks. They won't forget that..
> 
> ltr


lol, or make them pretend to tread water because of the rising ocean levels?


----------



## like_to_retire

cainvest said:


> lol, or make them pretend to tread water because of the rising ocean levels?


Not a bad idea. It's certainly a shame we are scaring our children so badly. The teachers have fallen into the trap. Do we really need to frighten children with climate fears. We can easily teach them to take care of the planet, pollution, etc, without making them think they have no future.

Here's how to really frighten children.






















ltr


----------



## Userkare

cainvest said:


> lol, or make them pretend to tread water because of the rising ocean levels?


That might actually be a useful exercise. Hiding under a desk was futile when you would probably end up as a handful of ash in a hot cloud a mile up, above a 5 mi wide crater.

Each time the CD sirens went off, I wondered if this was the real thing. No wonder I'm so f***ed up.


----------



## sags

NASA explains the normal cycles of warming and cooling of the earth and current climate change facts.

_The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, *with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization*. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

*The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.*

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. *There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response*.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. *This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that **current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.*_

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


----------



## accord1999

sags said:


> Times they are a'changing.........


They sure are.

Preliminary data shows Chinese New Energy Vehicle sales fell year over year, well short of targets as China reduces subsidies:

https://chinaenergyportal.org/en/2019-electricity-other-energy-statistics-preliminary/

The US is down too, as Federal subsidies are gone for Tesla and GM:

https://www.electrive.com/2020/01/14/cam-study-finds-usa-and-china-ev-markets-in-decline/

The massive jump for the Netherlands, a relatively small car market, is almost all due to the ending of EV subsidies for the start of 2020, so it'll probably crash in Q1. We may see peak non-ICE vehicle sales before we see peak oil demand.

An interesting note to the Chinese data is its crude processing for 2019 is up 7.6%, suggesting Chinese oil demand is now over 13 million barrels/day.


----------



## MrMatt

My kids actually had an "emergency assembly" before Christmas.

They had a "speaker" come in and ask them how many use plastic water bottles, then berated them for several minutes how they're destroying the planet.
Several children ended up in tears.

The really unfortunate thing is that at the end, they mentioned that they should be using reusable water bottles instead.

The part that really pissed me off is the school has had a no disposable water bottle policy for years, they all have water bottles, but they're all refillalbes, per school policy.

They were pulled out of class, and admonished and upset, for an action they weren't even engaging in.
Secondly your typical 6 year old doesn't control family spending anyway.

The current plan for climate change extremists is to scare and abuse children.


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> NASA explains the normal cycles of warming and cooling of the earth and current climate change facts.
> 
> _The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, *with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization*. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.
> 
> *The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.*
> 
> Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.
> 
> The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. *There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response*.
> 
> Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. *This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that **current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.*_
> 
> https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


This isn't credible. They don't know, with accuracy, what the global temp was late 19th century. hence, they don't really know, with accuracy, what change has occurred since then.


----------



## sags

Yes they do. It is called paleoclimate science, and there are many ways they use to calculate past temperatures.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> Yes they do. It is called paleoclimate science, and there are many ways they use to calculate past temperatures.
> 
> https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/


I'm well aware of paleoclimate science. and no, paleoclimate science doesn't have the accuracy you are implying. there is a margin of error, a concept that seems to escape you. 
Too, paleoclimate science indicates the middle age warm period is about as warm or warmer than current temps. but I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge that.


----------



## Eder

Interesting read related to the bush fires...https://www.spectator.co.uk/2020/01...olled-burning-could-have-protected-australia/

But of course its easier to blame all our ills on climate change...


----------



## sags

A PHD in earth science answers the question of historic temperature accuracy for the past 400 years or so.

_The study of weather was one of the earliest fields of science, precisely because weather affects populations in so many ways. *

As early as the 1600s, weather observation networks were established in Europe.*

*In the 1800s, major scientific expeditions spread out around the world (European and American voyages of scientific exploration). Each and every one of these voyages had regular programs of temperature observations (Our Weather's Past, the Climate's Future). In addition, every warship of the Royal Navy and every American Navy ship would have an on-board meteorologist or weather officer, who would have recorded temperature and pressure at least. All of that data is available in the public domain.*

On top of that, there were literally tens of thousands of individual observation stations around the world. In the USA, the National Weather Services (National Weather Service) was established in 1870. Often, national services (e.g. UK, USA) established remote weather stations to improve their forecasting ability. For example, the USA ran a number of weather stations in the Canadian High Arctic (The JAWS Project - Introduction).

The results of all of these observations all available online (Average monthly temperatures across the world.).

Even little tiny stations in the middle of nowhere have been recorded for future generations, for example here (Page on dfo-mpo.gc.ca) is the data that was recorded when I lived in the Arctic (What is it like to live in the middle of nowhere?), some of it personally recorded by me. The weather station was at the top of the hill behind the camp, and it was the kids duty to hike up every morning and record the daily highs and lows, along with the anemometer readings. We also tracked hours of sunlight and precipitation.

Of course, that's just the direct observations. *We can also determine average temperature in a number of other ways by using "proxy" methods, including tree rings (Determining Past Climates), ice cores, mud cores, benthos cores, etc. By doing proxy sampling around the globe, we can accurately get a picture of local temperatures in disparate locations.*

So, in answer to your question, yes *we have a very accurate set of historical global temperature averages for the past several hundred years, and we have a reasonably accurate set for the past several millenia.*_


----------



## sags

The study of climate change is not a new concept. It has existed and evolved over many years.

https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> So, in answer to your question, yes we have a very accurate set of historical global temperature averages for the past several hundred years,...........


Several hundred years? This is a laughable drop in a bucket. You have to realize that the world is 4.5 billion years old and there have been five major ice ages throughout Earth's history. Currently, we are in a warm inter-glacial period that began about 11,000 years ago. 

Where you're sitting right now, was covered with about 3 kilometers of ice not that long ago. How do you think it all melted? How do you think it all accumulated? And remember, man and social media wasn't around during these occurrences. Climate change alters over thousands, even millions of years. 

Mankind has about 140 years of accurate weather data, that all the conclusions of climate change are being drawn from. Any reasonable person would say that 140 years of weather data is meaningless. This is what the climate change alarmists are hanging their hat on. It's the size of a head of a pin, and we've decided to destroy entire economies on this fallacy. 

Climate change has been happening for 4.5 billion years. The climate change community need not apply with their pitifully small sample size. Sorry, science is never settled.

Here's a link to a professor at MIT. A scientist in Meteorology as he explains his doubts about Global Warming.






ltr


----------



## sags

Classic climate change denial.

He starts with they got the data wrong, moves to the data is right but it doesn't matter, and finishes up with tropical weather will be better anyways.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> .... we have a reasonably accurate set for the past several millenia.[/B][/I]


And that data shows it has been both much warmer and much colder than today, with significant variation throughout history.
Quite simply we KNOW, climate change has been going on "forver", and we KNOW that we're in an unusually cold period right now.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Classic climate change denial.
> 
> He starts with they got the data wrong, moves to the data is right but it doesn't matter, and finishes up with tropical weather will be better anyways.


Yep, our financial forum resident socialist, knows more about the climate than a scientist, a meteorology professor at MIT.

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

like_to_retire said:


> Yep, our financial forum resident socialist, knows more about the climate than a scientist, a meteorology professor at MIT.
> 
> ltr


They can simultanously argue that the climate is changing, it's well within the bounds of historical data, yet there is somehow an emergency.

The current do nothing climate movement is simply a religion co-opted for political gain.


----------



## cainvest

sags said:


> Classic climate change denial.


Can you point out where in the video he says climate change doesn't happen?


----------



## Eder

Its pretty funny that 60 years of accurate weather is enough to formulate the hockey stick graph but 150 years of stock market data is not enough to convince us that the S&P is not going to zero.

At any rate a friend last night mentioned that it was strange that everyone believes some of our scientists when they tell us man is warming our planet but don't believe them when they tell us there are only 2 sexes of humans.


----------



## james4beach

Off topic but the problem with the stock market is that you are ignoring other relevant data. World historical data includes Russia/USSR (stock market goes to zero), Japan (30 years of zero return) as well as Finland and Italy, also many decades with zero return.

Additionally, there isn't really good data before about 1970. There is incomplete data, and estimates, but not reliable data before 1970. This means we really only have 50 years of high fidelity stock data, not 150 years.

So the world history of stock data shows a pretty huge range of potential outcomes. Many analysts only focus on US data, but the US happens to be the best outcome in world history.

A more proper analysis of world stock market data will show the more complete answer: the results can differ wildly, which is why stock investment is risky. Even staying invested for 20 or 30 years is not enough to assure you a good return.


----------



## andrewf

@Eder ^ Huh?

There are plenty of examples of stock markets going to zero, so it is doubtful to say you can guarantee that the S&P won't go to zero.


----------



## Eder

I thought the S&P (that I used in my analogy) has never gone to zero....I guess Micheal Mann could tell us it did and we'd believe it.


----------



## andrewf

By that logic, why would you think any car would get in a crash, until after it gets in a crash? After all, that particular car had never been in a crash.


----------



## james4beach

You know, Japan was the largest stock market by market cap for a while. There were times in the past that Japan and the Nikkei was the world standard for stock investment and growth.

But then they faltered and went 30 years with no stock gains, and now everyone conveniently forgets about Japan. I bring up the topic and people respond as if it's some odd ball example of no relevance.

Japan was THE biggest market in the past. You know how the US is currently a massive 50% weight in global funds like VT and XAW? How it's a big weight in the couch potato and Mawer Balanced? Well, a few decades ago, that would have been Japan instead. My point being

a) who is world leader (best stock market) does change over time
b) people have short memories and improperly ignore Japan's performance
c) the best looking market today could well turn out to be the worst market


----------



## cainvest

sags said:


> He starts with they got the data wrong, moves to the data is right but it doesn't matter, and finishes up with tropical weather will be better anyways.


Maybe the gov of Canada has better predictions for you?


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> You know, Japan was the largest stock market by market cap for a while. There were times in the past that Japan and the Nikkei was the world standard for stock investment and growth.
> 
> But then they faltered and went 30 years with no stock gains, and now everyone conveniently forgets about Japan. I bring up the topic and people respond as if it's some odd ball example of no relevance.
> 
> Japan was THE biggest market in the past. You know how the US is currently a massive 50% weight in global funds like VT and XAW? How it's a big weight in the couch potato and Mawer Balanced? Well, a few decades ago, that would have been Japan instead. My point being
> 
> a) who is world leader (best stock market) does change over time
> b) people have short memories and improperly ignore Japan's performance
> c) the best looking market today could well turn out to be the worst market


What about US performance, from 1930 -> 1959, or the 60's to the 90's?
It's almost like multi decade periods of poor performance aren't that unusual.

That's why the fears of a stock market collapse were such a big deal, and why they had massive bailouts. It's because they knew it was a real possibility.

The best investment or strategy changes over time.
But there is a simple one that I think is a good idea, invest in something that creates value, and looks likely to create more value than it costs.
Education is a good one.
Rental property.
Businesses that profitably provide something of value.


----------



## sags

John Robson isn't a climate change scientist. I am also not a climate change scientist. Neither of us have any education, experience or expertise in the field of climate change.

Therefore, I choose to accept the research and discovery of the aggregate opinions of the vast majority of scientists who have the prerequisite expertise to form expert opinions.

Climate change deniers form their opinions first and then seek out anyone who supports their hypothesis, including those with no relevant expertise.

I formed my opinion by accepting the opinions of the experts as the most likely to be accurate in their substance.


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> So, in answer to your question, yes *we have a very accurate set of historical global temperature averages for the past several hundred years, and we have a reasonably accurate set for the past several millenia.*[/I]


Again you sidestep the issue of margin of error in measurements. Stop being so superficial. Dig deeper.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> John Robson isn't a climate change scientist. I am also not a climate change scientist. Neither of us have any education, experience or expertise in the field of climate change.
> 
> Therefore, I choose to accept the research and discovery of the aggregate opinions of the vast majority of scientists who have the prerequisite expertise to form expert opinions.
> 
> Climate change deniers form their opinions first and then seek out anyone who supports their hypothesis, including those with no relevant expertise.
> 
> I formed my opinion by accepting the opinions of the experts as the most likely to be accurate in their substance.



And yet when an opinion is provided by a scientist, as I offered with the link below, you poopoo their findings. 

So let's get this straight. You accept only scientists who agree with your opinion?






From the John Robson post, he used all government data. Are you refuting that too?

ltr


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> Classic climate change denial.
> 
> He starts with they got the data wrong, moves to the data is right but it doesn't matter, and finishes up with tropical weather will be better anyways.


You are funny. He started by saying the climate changes. Then you say, "classic climate change denial". don't you get how foolish that makes you look?


----------



## cainvest

sags said:


> John Robson isn't a climate change scientist. I am also not a climate change scientist. Neither of us have any education, experience or expertise in the field of climate change.


Why do you need to be a climate scientist to check climate alarmist predictions? As he said, all the data is online so validate it yourself.

If climate alarmists keep on making predictions that do not come true how long do you plan to stay aligned with them? There is only so many times you can "cry wolf".

Of course the sad part is many people, like yourself, won't check their predictions and just listen to the government say "duck and cover" and "give me your carbon tax money".


----------



## Pluto

cainvest said:


> Maybe the gov of Canada has better predictions for you?


Excellent video.

I went to www.environment.ca cited in the video and checked a weather station near me. Recent temps for average January highs are lower than in 1900. the overall trend is flat. 

Not surprising.


----------



## sags

Pluto said:


> Again you sidestep the issue of margin of error in measurements. Stop being so superficial. Dig deeper.


Scientists account for the margin of error in their results.


----------



## accord1999

sags said:


> Scientists account for the margin of error in their results.


The problem is when the margin of error is far larger than the supposed change.


----------



## cainvest

sags said:


> Scientists account for the margin of error in their results.


They do but you can see from the actual real world results from their previous predictions they are wayyyyyy outside those margins. 
Of course they generate new models and say we should trust them to be right now, lol.


----------



## Eder

cainvest said:


> Maybe the gov of Canada has better predictions for you?
> 
> ]


You would think even the gov of Canada could get 1/2 their apocalypse predictions right.


----------



## potato69

cainvest said:


> They do but you can see from the actual real world results from their previous predictions they are wayyyyyy outside those margins.
> Of course they generate new models and say we should trust them to be right now, lol.


This doesnt make any sense. Science is an evolving process that gets better over time. Things are complicated. Accept that.


----------



## cainvest

potato69 said:


> This doesnt make any sense. Science is an evolving process that gets better over time. Things are complicated. Accept that.


This is generally true but no guarantee it will get better. Of course on the climate alarmist side is 90% political / 10% science.


----------



## Prairie Guy

cainvest said:


> This is generally true but no guarantee it will get better. Of course on the climate alarmist side is 90% political / 10% science.


The science is irrelevant. Those who believe are good little socialists who toe the party line just like they're told regardless of the facts.


----------



## potato69

Prairie Guy said:


> The science is irrelevant. Those who believe are good little socialists who toe the party line just like they're told regardless of the facts.


Ok boomer


----------



## Pluto

potato69 said:


> This doesnt make any sense. Science is an evolving process that gets better over time. Things are complicated. Accept that.


In this case, science will get better when it abandons its man made global warming alarmism. In the meantime, climate science is pretty bad.


----------



## sags

Events forecast by scientists years ago are coming to fruition today, so the science hasn't been all that bad.


----------



## cainvest

sags said:


> Events forecast by scientists years ago are coming to fruition today, so the science hasn't been all that bad.


Really? You didn't watch this video I gather.


----------



## sags

Robson says to check it out for yourselves and then lists a website that is sponsored by anti-climate change lobby groups.

Why not just visit the actual source of the data to see what they have to say ?

_Climate change is a global problem with global consequences. *In 2006, warmer-than-average temperatures were recorded across the world for the 30th consecutive year *(Chart 1.1).* Increasing average temperatures are melting glaciers and polar ice caps and raising sea levels, putting coastal areas at greater risk of flooding*. Mounting evidence indicates that these changes are not the result of the natural variability of climate. *The theory of human-induced climate change is supported by numerous respected scientific bodies, including the British Royal Society, the American National Academies and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
*
The IPCC, established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), released its fourth assessment report in 2007. *It declared that "warming of the climate's system is unequivocal" and that there is a "very high confidence" that human activity since 1750 has played a significant role in overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide (CO2).*

*The IPCC is arguably the world's foremost scientific authority on the subject of climate change*, and its role is to "assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation_

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/16-201-x/2007000/10542-eng.htm


----------



## cainvest

sags said:


> Robson says to check it out for yourselves and then lists a website that is sponsored by anti-climate change lobby groups.


Which site? Environment Canada weather and water data?


----------



## Eder

It is rather funny when we watch climate predictions from 20 years ago and see none of it being very accurate. It is definitely becoming a religion with the high priests predicting imminent doom each Sunday.


----------



## accord1999

sags said:


> Events forecast by scientists years ago are coming to fruition today, so the science hasn't been all that bad.


What predictions? The generic ones about how some places that regularly get hit by hurricanes get hit by hurricanes, some places will flood, some places will have droughts, some areas will have more fires but other places will have less fires. Or basically, what happens before human civilization arrived on scene.


----------



## sags

Yes, and all successively breaking historic records year after year.

Add to it.....changes to agriculture and fishing, migration and invasion of plants, insects and pathogens, thawing of the permafrost and a host of other symptoms.

People who say there is no scientific proof are burying their head in the sand and complaining that it is dark.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> _The IPCC is arguably the world's foremost scientific authority on the subject of climate change[/B], and its role is to "assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation_


Climate Models that Predicted Warming are Wrong






ltr


----------



## MrMatt

I think we should all do what Greta Says, not net zero, just zero.
No carbon at all, everyone stop breathing!!


----------



## Eder

like_to_retire said:


> Climate Models that Predicted Warming are Wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ltr


Flaws in the models??? Heresy!!! Burn him at the stake!


----------



## newfoundlander61

We live in Kingston and this year winter hasn't really come as it normally does by now. Another week and it will be Feb with not very cold temps or much snow. Could be just the position of the Jet Stream, who really knows for sure.


----------



## Pluto

^
Attached should be a graphic of Kingston historical temps since the late 1800's. No warming.


----------



## cainvest

Eder said:


> Flaws in the models??? Heresy!!! Burn him at the stake!


But he's a economics prof, does he have any training in reading a climate graph? lol

And yes, how dare he challenge the IPCC (International Puppets for Climate Coercion) on CO2 data!


----------



## sags

There is a better record of temperatures in Canada at the Government of Canada website.

_Temperatures have increased across Canada. The rate of warming in Canada is about double the global average, with warming occurring even faster in northern Canada.
_
[I*]The average (mean) annual temperature in Canada increased by 1.7 °C from 1948 to 2016, about double the global rate. Warming has been even stronger in the north. The average annual temperature in northern Canada (north of 60 degrees latitude) has risen by 2.3 °C over this same period, about triple the global rate.*

*Future changes in temperature will be determined mainly by the amount of greenhouse gases emitted*. There is a large range of possible futures. These are described by different emissions scenarios. In general, higher global emissions scenarios project greater warming.

Compared to the recent past (1986 to 2005), *average annual temperature in Canada is projected to increase between 1.8 °C and 6.3 °C by the end of the century*. However, projected temperature changes vary regionally and by season. Northern Canada is expected to continue experiencing stronger warming than the rest of Canada, especially in the winter.[/I]

https://www.canada.ca/en/environmen...s/trends-projections/changes-temperature.html


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> There is a better record of temperatures in Canada at the Government of Canada website.
> 
> _Temperatures have increased across Canada. The rate of warming in Canada is about double the global average, with warming occurring even faster in northern Canada.
> _
> [I*]The average (mean) annual temperature in Canada increased by 1.7 °C from 1948 to 2016, about double the global rate. Warming has been even stronger in the north. The average annual temperature in northern Canada (north of 60 degrees latitude) has risen by 2.3 °C over this same period, about triple the global rate.*
> 
> *Future changes in temperature will be determined mainly by the amount of greenhouse gases emitted*. There is a large range of possible futures. These are described by different emissions scenarios. In general, higher global emissions scenarios project greater warming.
> 
> Compared to the recent past (1986 to 2005), *average annual temperature in Canada is projected to increase between 1.8 °C and 6.3 °C by the end of the century*. However, projected temperature changes vary regionally and by season. Northern Canada is expected to continue experiencing stronger warming than the rest of Canada, especially in the winter.[/I]
> 
> https://www.canada.ca/en/environmen...s/trends-projections/changes-temperature.html


Excellent, this is great news for Canada!
Increase in arable land, lower heating requirements for housing, too bad I'm not likely to live long enough to get all the benefits, but at least my grandkids will!


----------



## cainvest

sags said:


> Compared to the recent past (1986 to 2005), *average annual temperature in Canada is projected to increase between 1.8 °C and 6.3 °C by the end of the century*.


And we all know how well their previous predictions worked out, wasn't the score 0/6 ? lol


----------



## like_to_retire

cainvest said:


> And we all know how well their previous predictions worked out, wasn't the score 0/6 ? lol


For sure, these sites love to tell you what's _going _to happen. Please trust our models now, we've got them all fixed up. Forget about all our previous predictions where we used those silly old models. We have new and improved models that are 100% accurate.

They have no idea what's going to happen. If they could, they'd tell me what the weather was going to be in three days. Nope, they still haven't figured that out yet.

ltr


----------



## Eder

sags said:


> There is a better record of temperatures in Canada at the Government of Canada website.
> 
> l


You do realize the Lib's removed the actual temperatures recorded prior 1957 & replaced the readings with computer smoothed results? Warmest Canadian temperatures were late 1800's & 1930's so not much new.


----------



## cainvest

Eder said:


> You do realize the Lib's removed the actual temperatures recorded prior 1957 & replaced the readings with computer smoothed results? Warmest Canadian temperatures were late 1800's & 1930's so not much new.


Yup, bad days ahead when the government washes real data away for their own agenda.


----------



## Prairie Guy

cainvest said:


> Yup, bad days ahead when the government washes real data away for their own agenda.


And the people here that talk about "science" all the time are silent. It's almost like they approve of erasing data.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> There is a better record of temperatures in Canada at the Government of Canada website.
> 
> _Temperatures have increased across Canada. The rate of warming in Canada is about double the global average, with warming occurring even faster in northern Canada.
> _
> [I*]The average (mean) annual temperature in Canada increased by 1.7 °C from 1948 to 2016, about double the global rate. Warming has been even stronger in the north. The average annual temperature in northern Canada (north of 60 degrees latitude) has risen by 2.3 °C over this same period, about triple the global rate.*
> 
> *Future changes in temperature will be determined mainly by the amount of greenhouse gases emitted*. There is a large range of possible futures. These are described by different emissions scenarios. In general, higher global emissions scenarios project greater warming.
> 
> Compared to the recent past (1986 to 2005), *average annual temperature in Canada is projected to increase between 1.8 °C and 6.3 °C by the end of the century*. However, projected temperature changes vary regionally and by season. Northern Canada is expected to continue experiencing stronger warming than the rest of Canada, especially in the winter.[/I]
> 
> https://www.canada.ca/en/environmen...s/trends-projections/changes-temperature.html


The real data was erased, therefore none of the numbers are accurate and none of the predictions are valid. That's how science works....it uses actual data, not made up numbers. 

You had no real argument before, but now you have no argument at all.


----------



## james4beach

Prairie Guy said:


> And the people here that talk about "science" all the time are silent. It's almost like they approve of erasing data.


Reminds me of when Harper threw out tons of original scientific material from libraries across Canada. He targeted the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which researches health of water bodies including contamination of water resources, plus climate change science. Harper had a large number of DFO libraries closed, and the contents thrown in the trash. There was just about no money saved for the taxpayer (the original rationale) which made many people suspect this was a pro-industry, anti-scientific agenda.


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> There is a better record of temperatures in Canada at the Government of Canada website.[/url]


https://www.yourenvironment.ca has links to government data. government data is their source. So why is yours "better".


----------



## MrMatt

james4beach said:


> Reminds me of when Harper threw out tons of original scientific material from libraries across Canada. He targeted the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which researches health of water bodies including contamination of water resources, plus climate change science. Harper had a large number of DFO libraries closed, and the contents thrown in the trash. There was just about no money saved for the taxpayer (the original rationale) which made many people suspect this was a pro-industry, anti-scientific agenda.


Depending what the data was, he likely shouldn't have done that either.

The point is that global warming hysteria isn't backed by science.
Sure we need to take better care of the environment, but making claims that aren't supported by good data is not scientific.


----------



## cainvest

MrMatt said:


> The point is that global warming hysteria isn't backed by science.


Actually it is, data does show natural waming and cooling trends for he planet. The part that is not proven (very exaggerated) is the how much effect green house gases play a roll in the temperature change.


----------



## MrMatt

cainvest said:


> Actually it is, data does show natural waming and cooling trends for he planet. The part that is not proven (very exaggerated) is the how much effect green house gases play a roll in the temperature change.


Not quite my point.
The HYSTERIA isn't supported. There are people who will literally tell the entire world that climate change has stolen their lives. This is a problem.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Excellent, this is great news for Canada!
> Increase in arable land, lower heating requirements for housing, too bad I'm not likely to live long enough to get all the benefits, but at least my grandkids will!


Nevermind that Victoria, Vancouver, Montreal, Halifax, St Johns, etc. will face serious sea-level rise. Including all of Canada's port infrastructure.


----------



## AltaRed

MrMatt said:


> Not quite my point.
> The HYSTERIA isn't supported. There are people who will literally tell the entire world that climate change has stolen their lives. This is a problem.


The hysteria is clearly out of hand. The group of what appear to be mostly impressionable teens and young 20somethings have had their lives irresponsibly troubled, deflected and derailed by the hype from vested interests and conspirators. There is no question in my mind that we are responsible for the acceleration in the rate of climate change but the excesses of alarmism are really over-the-top. Hopefully, saner voices will prevail in 5 years or so and more rational response policies to mitigate climate impacts can be developed.


----------



## sags

MrMatt said:


> Not quite my point.
> The HYSTERIA isn't supported. There are people who will literally tell the entire world that climate change has stolen their lives. This is a problem.


Greta Thunberg.........Time magazine's Person of the Year 2019. 

*“We can’t just continue living as if there was no tomorrow, because there is a tomorrow,*_” she says, tugging on the sleeve of her blue sweatshirt.* “That is all we are saying.*”_

_By September 2019, the climate strikes had spread beyond northern Europe. In New York City, 250,000 reportedly marched in Battery Park and outside City Hall. In London, 100,000 swarmed the streets near Westminster Abbey, in the shadow of Big Ben. In Germany, a total of 1.4 million people took to the streets, with thousands flooding the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin and marching in nearly 600 other cities and towns across the country. From Antarctica to Papua New Guinea, from Kabul to Johannesburg, an estimated 4 million people of all ages showed up to protest._

_Unless they agree on transformative action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the world’s temperature rise since the Industrial Revolution will hit the 1.5°C mark—an eventuality that scientists warn will expose some 350 million additional people to drought and push roughly 120 million people into extreme poverty by 2030. For every fraction of a degree that temperatures increase, these problems will worsen. *This is not fearmongering; this is science.* 
_
https://time.com/person-of-the-year-2019-greta-thunberg/


----------



## Eder

Lol @ fear of non existing sea level rise.


----------



## james4beach

MrMatt said:


> Not quite my point.
> The HYSTERIA isn't supported. There are people who will literally tell the entire world that climate change has stolen their lives. This is a problem.


And we can thank our excellent leadership, the Trudeau team, for taking a middle of the road approach. Instead of a more aggressive and impactful carbon strategul, Trudeau took the milder approach of rather low carbon taxes. This is good, because it means Canada is on track to pricing carbon without radical changes in the economy.

This even and moderate approach is the better way. The NDP and Greens criticized Trudeau for being ineffective, with environmental policies which aren't strong enough, but I think Trudeau has the right idea.

In fact, Canada's economy has diversified so well (also thanks to Trudeau) that the energy sector is no longer a key driver of GDP. Even our loonie has stopped correlating with oil! These are nice changes happening in the country... moderately enacting stronger environmental policies, without overreaction. Sufficient economic diversification so that the nation isn't just one story (energy).

Really good management from the Trudeau government on this. For years, the Conservatives let us down on all of these fronts and finally we are doing things right again. The Harper style of pro-oil, anti-environmental thinking would be disastrous to Canada.


----------



## AltaRed

Are you on the PMO payroll?


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed said:


> Are you on the PMO payroll?


Nope, I'm just a sensible person who tells it the way I see it. It's not my problem that the cranky conservatives on this board can't see or appreciate how well the country is being run.

If you were able to step out of the Alberta / rural mind set for a moment (which I realize you cannot do) and assess Canada from just about any other perspective, including from an international standpoint, you would see that our country is doing great, with a very effective and capable government.

This is worth appreciating and I make a point of appreciating it on this board.


----------



## AltaRed

I haven't been in Alberta for many years, and about 5 decades since I've been associated with a rural environment. I suggest your response is more typical of narrow views and mindset trying to 'characterize' people about things you don't like or don't agree with, or even understand. But we've been down this road before. Believe in your own delusions. It seems to make you happy.

P.S. I am quite happy in my own wine and lake country environment in one of the most temperate climates in the country, which by the way can swing red or blue. Nothing y'all want to fret about has much impact for us here.


----------



## Eder

AltaRed said:


> Are you on the PMO payroll?


Don't need to pay members of the congregation lol.


----------



## AltaRed

The issue is James has bought in to the hype and propaganda as delivered by the spin artists in the PMO. I do believe carbon taxes will make a difference and I am supportive of behavioural change, but that is the glossy image part of current policy.

What is really needed is major policy development and movement in infrastructure spend to mitigate the impacts of inevitable climate change before the impacts hit in a significant way. But there is nothing sexy about that, so we shall blunder on not having a long term plan for mitigation and adaptation measures. 

The PMO talks about planting trees forgetting the forestry industry has been planting way more trees on an ongoing basis for years. Nor is there any acknowledgement that forest renewal is one of the best carbon sinks we can actually have. It is important to harvest older growing trees to discourage decay and rot which releases carbon into the air, and plant new seedlings of which higher growth rates takes carbon out of the system. All those west coast old growth forests need to be harvested in order to actually have a net positive in carbon removal, rather than carbon negative due to decay and rot. Imagine a policy advocating that! Also, build way more construction out of lumber which sequesters carbon for a long time rather than build with concrete which is carbon intensive. BC is leading edge on building to 12 storeys now using wood products and it has attracted Asian interest. I have not heard any hype or policy support coming out of Ottawa on any of this.....

Those are just examples of current PMO behaviour. A lot of shine and gloss and political expediency rather than enough truly effective measures to reduce carbon footprint.


----------



## accord1999

andrewf said:


> Nevermind that Victoria, Vancouver, Montreal, Halifax, St Johns, etc. will face serious sea-level rise. Including all of Canada's port infrastructure.


Canada ports' sea level trends have remain essentially the same, the current year local rate of rise is the same as it was 100 years ago. There has been no acceleration, and certainly nothing close to the acceleration needed for the most sky is falling predictions.

Victoria:









Vancouver:









No data series close to Montreal, but the Quebec City area has minimal sea rise:









Halifax:









St Johns:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/970-121_meantrend.png


----------



## Eder

We also need to start replacing our (and USA) thermal coal exports with oil & LNG exports, probably the one thing Canada could do to move the needle on world wide CO2 levels. Domestic initiatives are pretty meaningless but play well to a receptive audience.


----------



## james4beach

AltaRed said:


> The issue is James has bought in to the hype and propaganda as delivered by the spin artists in the PMO. I do believe carbon taxes will make a difference and I am supportive of behavioural change, but that is the glossy image part of current policy.


I guess you are not a fan of Canada's implementation of carbon taxes. I am open to improving our current policy, but I think all things considered we are on a good path. These are great first steps and we should constantly try to improve policy.


----------



## sags

james4beach said:


> Nope, I'm just a sensible person who tells it the way I see it. It's not my problem that the cranky conservatives on this board can't see or appreciate how well the country is being run.
> 
> If you were able to step out of the Alberta / rural mind set for a moment (which I realize you cannot do) and assess Canada from just about any other perspective, including from an international standpoint, you would see that our country is doing great, with a very effective and capable government.
> 
> This is worth appreciating and I make a point of appreciating it on this board.


The accomplishments the Trudeau government have attained while having to repair the damage left by the divisive Harper has been very impressive indeed.

The Conservatives have an unacceptable policy on climate change that Canadians have rejected twice in Federal elections.

We shall see if Peter McKay is able to upgrade the Conservative policy away from the blind support of the fossil fuel industry.


----------



## accord1999

sags said:


> an eventuality that scientists warn will expose some 350 million additional people to drought and push roughly 120 million people into extreme poverty by 2030.


I fully expect extreme poverty levels to continue declining, though at this rate of decline there soon won't be any people left in extreme poverty. 



> According to the most recent estimates, in 2015, 10 percent of the world’s population lived on less than US$1.90 a day, compared to 11 percent in 2013. That’s down from nearly 36 percent in 1990.
> 
> Nearly 1.1 billion fewer people are living in extreme poverty than in 1990. In 2015, 736 million people lived on less than $1.90 a day, down from 1.85 billion in 1990.


https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview

If 120 million people are pushed into extreme poverty, it will probably be caused by environmentalists and governments making energy unaffordable.


----------



## AltaRed

james4beach said:


> I guess you are not a fan of Canada's implementation of carbon taxes. I am open to improving our current policy, but I think all things considered we are on a good path. These are great first steps and we should constantly try to improve policy.


Am somewhat agnostic about whether there could have been a better plan given resistance from some provinces. I am concerned about what Ottawa is siphoning off (tax on a tax) and where that is going. But had to start somewhere and progress will be made. I am okay with what is in place for now.

I do very much disagree with the way it was announced, and especially the incredible and blatantly false comments from the most incompetent Environment Minister Canada probably has ever had. Was speechless what came out of her mouth much of the time and a good part of the reason I resisted the concept. I can support credible and logical policy AND intelligent articulation of a policy even if I don't agree initially, but heaven help us, Catherine was a disaster. I think she brought on some of the vitriol thrown her way, but not to the extent that was hurled at her. That was unconscionable. Regardless, I do thank Junior for purging her out of that Ministry.


----------



## cainvest

MrMatt said:


> Not quite my point.
> The HYSTERIA isn't supported. There are people who will literally tell the entire world that climate change has stolen their lives. This is a problem.





sags said:


> Greta Thunberg.........Time magazine's Person of the Year 2019.
> 
> *“We can’t just continue living as if there was no tomorrow, because there is a tomorrow,*_” she says, tugging on the sleeve of her blue sweatshirt.* “That is all we are saying.*”_


Exactly sags, this is just one of the sources of the hysteria that is causing the problem.


----------



## MrMatt

cainvest said:


> Exactly sags, this is just one of the sources of the hysteria that is causing the problem.


“But I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. I want you to act. I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if the house is on fire, because it is.”

There is data mounting that all this climate hysteria is actually increasing suicide rates.
Their exaggerations and hysteria are hurting people. People are dying, lives are being ended.

And all you can do is live your priviledged life of luxury and complain about it.


----------



## sags

_"We are going in the wrong direction"_, says Calgary council member Druh Farrell. It is good to see some people out west understand climate change is a big problem.

Her words are a lot like Greta's words. 

_*“I just want all of us to feel the pressure and feel the sense of urgency,*” she explained.
_
https://calgaryherald.com/news/loca...updates-to-track-citys-climate-change-targets


----------



## humble_pie

accord1999 said:


> Canada ports' sea level trends have remain essentially the same, the current year local rate of rise is the same as it was 100 years ago. There has been no acceleration, and certainly nothing close to the acceleration needed for the most sky is falling predictions.



on the contrary, *all* of your graphs without exception show a sea-level rise in canadian ports

the Halifax rise is alarming

st-francois quebec is a tiny isolated village on the far eastern tip of ile d'Orleans, some 100 km east of quebec city. It has nothing whatsoever to do with historical sea level data for the port of montreal.






> Victoria:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vancouver:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No data series close to Montreal, but the Quebec City area has minimal sea rise:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Halifax:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> St Johns:
> https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/plots/970-121_meantrend.png


----------



## accord1999

humble_pie said:


> on the contrary, *all* of your graphs without exception show a sea-level rise in canadian ports


Which I stated but the important part is the trend. The sea level has been rising at the same rate as a hundred years ago from the warming that started before the industrial age began. The alarmist predictions require a steep acceleration in the sea level rise, something that has yet to happen.



> st-francois quebec is a tiny isolated village on the far eastern tip of ile d'Orleans, some 100 km east of quebec city. It has nothing whatsoever to do with historical sea level data for the port of montreal.


Yes, as I noted in my comment that it is in the Quebec City area because there aren't any stations in the Montreal area.

If Canadian ports are in trouble, it's because they never bothered to look into their past.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

I find it impressive that sea levels are rising so much faster in Halifax than Quebec City. If this keeps up it will soon be possible to water ski from Halifax to Quebec without a boat.


----------



## Eder

Sea levels are also falling in places...the earth is a pretty dynamic planet and constantly re arranging itself. Not much will happen unless Greenland land mass starts to melt but this winter it set new all time record lows (-76C) so pretty frozen.

_disclaimer:
Of course we all still die in 11.5 years unless we can add more gas to our present end of times virus and get to croak sooner._


----------



## AltaRed

Too many don't understand that land masses rise or fall all around the planet and hence the variances in sea level changes. Of course, the climate alarmists data mine and use such data erroneously to suit their bias. Those islands in the Pacific are not really getting flooded by sea level rise. The main cause is land masses are submerging.


----------



## sags

For the scientifically challenged, NASA's Climate Kids explains to children how they measure sea levels from space.

https://climatekids.nasa.gov/sea-level/

_NASA's Jason-3 satellite carries an instrument called a radar altimeter. It uses radio waves instead of a ruler to measure distances.

Here's how it works. Jason-3 bounces radio waves off the ocean surface. The satellite then times how long it takes for these signals to return. Scientists can use this measurement to calculate the distance between the satellite and the ocean surface in that particular location.

Jason-3 orbits about 800 miles (1,300 kilometers) above Earth. Even from that far away, Jason-3 can measure the distance from itself to the ocean surface to within about one inch (about three centimeters)._

_Jason-3 also has instruments that allow scientists to measure the distance from the satellite to the center of Earth._

_By subtracting the first distance (between the satellite and ocean surface) from the second distance (between the satellite and Earth's center), we can calculate the distance from the ocean surface to Earth's center._

_The satellite constantly zips over new portions of the planet. In about 10 days, it measures ocean height over the entire Earth. Finding an average of all those measurements gives an average sea level for the whole planet.

During the next 10 days, Jason-3 does it all over again – and again and again, year after year! By seeing how the average distance from the top of the ocean to the center of the Earth increases over time, we can measure how much and how quickly sea level is rising._


----------



## accord1999

sags said:


> For the scientifically challenged, NASA's Climate Kids explains to children how they measure sea levels from space.
> Jason-3 orbits about 800 miles (1,300 kilometers) above Earth. Even from that far away, Jason-3 can measure the distance from itself to the ocean surface to within about one inch (about three centimeters).[/I]


An error that is far larger than the rate of change, making it effectively useless compared to the much more accurate readings at ports.


----------



## MrMatt

The world is changing, we can yell and scream that we don't want it to change.

The earth is changing, we have to adapt.


----------



## sags

accord1999 said:


> An error that is far larger than the rate of change, making it effectively useless compared to the much more accurate readings at ports.


If there was an error produced by the 1 inch margin of error, it would be reflected consistently in all the historical trending data and would be irrelevant.


----------



## accord1999

sags said:


> If there was an error produced by the 1 inch margin of error, it would be reflected consistently in all the historical trending data and would be irrelevant.


That depends on the nature of the error distribution, its very like that a significant percentage of the readings are much more than 3 cm away.


----------



## Eder

A high-level global group of more than 700 prominent climate scientists and professionals (‘Global CLINTEL Group’) has submitted a declaration that there is no climate emergency. 

https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/WCD-A4versionMADRIDscience.pdf



We see an interesting and relevant example in IPCC’s report of 2018. If the CO2 sensitivity is set to zero, the modeled global warming is zero. This means that: “In IPCC’s models the modelers have set the global warming from natural sources to zero”. This is completely ignoring the past, where warming was always natural. In other words, the model-ers have explicitly assumed that any global warming must come exclusively from anthropogenic (human-made) CO2.  


 The title ‘climate scientist’ was invented ±30 years ago, but it does not exist as a profession. 


But true scientific research is dispassionate. The aim of the IPCC program should have been to collect and analyze all relevant information, especially that which contradicts the CO2-driven models.


----------



## MrMatt

Eder said:


> A high-level global group of more than 700 prominent climate scientists and professionals (‘Global CLINTEL Group’) has submitted a declaration that there is no climate emergency.
> 
> https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/WCD-A4versionMADRIDscience.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> We see an interesting and relevant example in IPCC’s report of 2018. If the CO2 sensitivity is set to zero, the modeled global warming is zero. This means that: “In IPCC’s models the modelers have set the global warming from natural sources to zero”. This is completely ignoring the past, where warming was always natural. In other words, the model-ers have explicitly assumed that any global warming must come exclusively from anthropogenic (human-made) CO2.
> 
> 
> The title ‘climate scientist’ was invented ±30 years ago, but it does not exist as a profession.
> 
> 
> But true scientific research is dispassionate. The aim of the IPCC program should have been to collect and analyze all relevant information, especially that which contradicts the CO2-driven models.


It's IPCC, they even took the phrasing.
It could have been soemthing about Global Environment or soemthing
if they focused on REAL pollution or at least stayed ab it more science based they'd have some credibility.


----------



## sags

The Global CINTEL organization is founded by a past executive of the Shell oil company.


----------



## sags

accord1999 said:


> That depends on the nature of the error distribution, its very like that a significant percentage of the readings are much more than 3 cm away.


It would still be consistent within all the historical data. The variation has always been present or it hasn't.


----------



## accord1999

sags said:


> It would still be consistent within all the historical data. The variation has always been present or it hasn't.


No it won't, as the variation can change in unpredictable ways.


----------



## Beaver101

Not sure this has been posted in this thread:

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/news/article/dozens-of-previously-unknown-viruses-discovered-in-15-000-year-old-glaciers



> ... Analysis of the microbes indicates that three viral populations were abundant, which suggests that these viruses may be active in the ice. Many of the bacteria that were found in the samples are psychrophilic, which means that they grow and reproduce in low temperatures that range from −20°C to 10°C and are found in several regions on Earth that are permanently cold, such as the deep sea, glaciers and ice sheets. These active bacteria indicate that glacier ice could just be a temporary storage unit and that the bacteria could one day be revived and present in ecosystems if glaciers melt in the future.
> 
> *Other tests in the study found that 18 of the 33 viruses were linked to a host at some point time, meaning that they were infectious either before and/or after the ice formed and likely influenced the populations of other microbes.* ...


just imagine, global warming and ancient unknown viruses release .. hand-in-hand, the havoc ... no need to see any zombies movie then.


----------



## lonewolf :)

Obama did not even believe in all his climate gloom & rising sea levels as he bought a place on the beach


----------



## sags

Why would Obama buy a place when he can live in so many people's heads rent free ?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

All the big Climate Change pimps have big beach houses, some have 2 of them. It's so their pimp friends will know what big pimps they are, and that they are too smart to be sucked in by their own bullshit.


----------



## Prairie Guy

Rusty O'Toole said:


> All the big Climate Change pimps have big beach houses, some have 2 of them. It's so their pimp friends will know what big pimps they are, and that they are too smart to be sucked in by their own bullshit.


Climate is big business but the true believers are too brainwashed to see it.


----------



## sags

Mitigation of the damage from climate change is certainly going to be big business.

Doing nothing to avert worsening climate change effects has a very high price tag of it's own.


----------



## Prairie Guy

In the ongoing attempt to control the message, Wikipedia has now deleted the list of scientist who disagree with the chosen agenda:

https://www.thegwpf.com/wikipedia-d...h-the-scientific-consensus-on-global-warming/


----------



## sags

The discussion if climate change is real and caused by human activity has been closed for a long time.

The questions now are which alternative energy sources will replace fossil fuels and how long will it take.

Satellite images show air over Northern China has cleared since the coronavirus shut down much of China's industry. People can actually see the sky again and breathe the air.

Airborne nitrogen dioxide has plummeted over China.

Even if climate change wasn't affected by fossil fuels, people's health certainly is. Clean air......clean water......eliminate toxic waste.......all good things.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/146362/airborne-nitrogen-dioxide-plummets-over-china


----------



## cainvest

With so many not travelling by plane or car plus factories and businesses going idle, I guess this will put off the CO2 related global warming for a few decades.


----------



## Prairie Guy

sags said:


> The discussion if climate change is real and caused by human activity has been closed for a long time.


If facts were on the warming side they'd welcome any and all discussions. And they would do it publicly so that everyone could listen.

You only try to close a discussion if you're afraid of facts and don't want your BS exposed.


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> If facts were on the warming side they'd welcome any and all discussions. And they would do it publicly so that everyone could listen.
> 
> You only try to close a discussion if you're afraid of facts and don't want your BS exposed.


You mean like the Trump impeachment proceedings? 

Couldn't resist.


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> You mean like the Trump impeachment proceedings?
> 
> Couldn't resist.


Well, the impeachment did expose the Democrat's BS. They were so scared of inconvenient questions that they refused to bring their main witness forward to be questioned.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

"The discussion if climate change is real and caused by human activity has been closed for a long time. "
What an interesting statement. Let's look at it for a minute. Einstein's theories are still open to criticism. Darwin's theories are still debated. Even Sir Isaac Newton's theories are scrutinized in the light of new knowledge. But Al Gore says "the science is settled" when it comes to global warming.
Science is never settled. It is always advancing as new information is discovered. To say the science is settled, or the discussion is closed, is the statement of a Pope not a scientist. History is littered with scientists, usually elderly, who made fools of themselves with statements like "there is nothing new to be discovered in physics" "man will never make a heavier than air flying machine" " an alternating current electric motor is perpetual motion and impossible". There are new discoveries in climate science as well. For example the work of Svensmark and others show that solar radiation and interstellar radiation interact with the atmosphere, and affect the climate, in ways that were not previously known and that the role of CO2 may be less than was believed 50 years ago. There may well be some breakthrough on the horizon that will allow us to bring climate change under control but it will never be found if scientists are forbidden to look for it or discuss it.


----------



## sags

Nope....drop an egg and it will fall to the floor. It will never float around or rise up to the ceiling. It will never dance across the room on the air currents.

That is settled science........just like climate change.


----------



## sags

What we don't know is if there is anything we can do to change the consequences of climate change and the outcome for humanity.

Just like the coronavirus, we are unprepared and unwilling to get prepared. We will wait until the candy floss hits the fan and then worry about it.


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> Well, the impeachment did expose the Democrat's BS. They were so scared of inconvenient questions that they refused to bring their main witness forward to be questioned.


GOP didn't allow witnesses to be called.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

*18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started*:

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of _Mademoiselle_. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of _The Living Wilderness_.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, _Life_ reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told _Time_ that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of _Audubon_ that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in _Scientific American_ that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in _Look_ that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

The science is settled eh?


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> GOP didn't allow witnesses to be called.


No. They chose not to call witnesses because no crime was committed and nothing was proven. 

On the other hand, the Democrats initiated the impeachment and then refused to call the one witness that was their sole and entire reason for the impeachment hearing.


----------



## MrMatt

Rusty O'Toole said:


> The science is settled eh?


Absolutely, like many you misunderstand the science at play.
This is POLITICAL science, they're just hijacking other causes to push their agenda.

It doesn't matter that the science of the issue they are riding is flawed, it is just a tool to push their political agenda.

When that Laurier prof said, more than a decade ago, we can easily go low carbon, by turning off the economy he was lambasted. I've already seen articles on how the COVID shutdown has been great for the environment.
My prediction is that they will show how the COVID shutdown is not only good for the environment, but also good for all the social and political programs they want to push.
Just wait till this blows over, there is a wonderful dataset for massive interventions into every aspect of our lives, and the extremists won't hesitate to use it.


----------



## andrewf

^ Rather circular to not call witnesses because they would have nothing to say. Sounds like people who are... afraid of information being spread.

No need to relitigate to Trump impeachment. My only point is that you are being hypocritical, and nothing but an uncritical partisan. Trump=good.. We got it.


----------



## Eder

andrewf said:


> No need to relitigate to Trump impeachment.


OK back on topic...still no real ice loss in Antarctica...how soon before this graph gets "adjusted" lol.


----------



## andrewf

Cherry picking? Arctic sea ice extent, from the same source (recent years significantly lower than historical).


----------



## Eder

I posted about Antarctica because the graph shows that media again is incorrect. No idea about the Arctic other than theres more polar bears & research ships were still stuck in the ice up there.


----------



## like_to_retire

Even with this pandemic, I try and keep to some semblance of normal by planting my garden as I do every year. 

I ordered my seeds and sets online from the local nursery and picked them up curb-side after a lengthy wait. Everyone else had the same idea I guess.

I have turned over my garden soil and am ready to go.

I thought today would be a good day to get the radishes and onions and potatoes planted, but instead I am presented with zero degree temperatures and quite a nice little snow storm.

It actually made me think back to 2006 when Al Gore made the documentary called "The Inconvenient Truth" that relied on precepts that global warming were well known and accepted by science at that time.

I also remembered in 2009, when Al Gore warned us that polar ice may be gone in five years . So it was basically suppose to be gone six years ago as of today. That just didn't happen.

He also said there will be no snow by 2016 and explains with a straight face that Global Warming Means Bitter Cold. OK, so maybe that explains the snow today when I wanted to plant my garden.

I have to be honest, I was really looking forward to this global warming thing. As a Canadian, the concept is very attractive. It just hasn't worked out - it's still freaking cold.

I guess I have to wait to plant my garden. Maybe some time in June when sea levels flood the entire world?

ltr


----------



## Eder

Hey...only 1 end of the world at a time please...


----------



## like_to_retire

My daily bike ride has been horrible lately. 

At 8 or 9 degrees the wind is enough to end this 70 year old's life.

OK, so what happened to global warming? I was so looking forward to it and it just hasn't happened. You said the science was settled. 

Where's the warming part? I'm waiting?

ltr


----------



## m3s

like_to_retire said:


> Where's the warming part? I'm waiting?


Move south a bit

We had a record warm winter slightly south of the border. Like to a Canadian it was basically September all winter. We also got snow for about 5 minutes this week.

If the most extreme cold regions warm or if the ocean warms even slightly it has far greater impact on global average than say your local region. People struggle with the concept.

My spring onions are doing great but it does get nippy at night. Not sure if I can move herbs outside yet


----------



## MrMatt

like_to_retire said:


> My daily bike ride has been horrible lately.
> 
> At 8 or 9 degrees the wind is enough to end this 70 year old's life.
> 
> OK, so what happened to global warming? I was so looking forward to it and it just hasn't happened. You said the science was settled.
> 
> Where's the warming part? I'm waiting?
> 
> ltr


They forgot about the imaginary emergency when a real one showed up.


----------



## andrewf

m3s said:


> People struggle with the concept.


People are willfully stupid, I think is what you meant to say.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> They forgot about the imaginary emergency when a real one showed up.


Kind of like how a person with a brain tumor stops worrying about that when he is in a burning building. If you struggle to grasp that, I'm not sure I can help you.


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> People are willfully stupid, I think is what you meant to say.


They sure are...they let people convince them that a little warmer is bad when the exact opposite is true.

The global warming hoax is collapsing, Russian collusion collapsed, the impeachment only made the Dems look petty and inept, Obama has been identified as the most corrupt president in history...your entire world is falling apart and you can't do a thing about it.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Kind of like how a person with a brain tumor stops worrying about that when he is in a burning building. If you struggle to grasp that, I'm not sure I can help you.


I understand your point.
however it's more like people worrying their grass isn't the right shade of green, then their house catching on fire, and realizing that their silly little distraction wasn't a problem at all.
Global warming is an invented first world problem, because people don't have real problems to deal with, or they don't want to confront the real problems in society. They'll sit there drinking on their wasteful first world lifestyles, eating avacado toast drinking starbucks with almond milk (ignoring the environmental damage there), but complaining about the carbon that brought them such environmentally expensive products. (Look at the water required to grow an almond or avacado, and these are in drought areas)

I do think pollution is a serious problem.
I do not think that slight increase in global temperatures is a catastrophy.

We're below the long run average temperature.
A small raise in temperature should be particularly beneficial to Canada, particularly in food production, and access to natural resources.

It's actually comically hilarious how quickly the no plastic lobby backtracked.
Many stores banned reusable bags, they've installed plastic shields everywhere, and everyone is using single use gloves.
It's almost like they agree that plastic is an excellent product to ensure personal safety.

I think global warming is a successful political movement, it necesitates dramatic regulation and government control, but


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> Cherry picking? Arctic sea ice extent, from the same source (recent years significantly lower than historical).


I don't think it is really cherry picking. The lack of ice loss in the south is something that "global" warming folks need to explain. "Global" means everywhere. If it isn't happening everywhere, it isn't global.


----------



## Pluto

Historical Toronto temps. Upward trajectory is missing.


----------



## Spudd

Pluto said:


> Historical Toronto temps. Upward trajectory is missing.
> View attachment 20163


No idea where you get that idea. Just look at the chart. 1840-1880 (guessing, since I don't have the original dataset) don't have any points over 20C. As you move to the right on the chart, more and more points are over 20C and the lower bound is also moving upwards. It is clearly an upward trend.


----------



## Eder

I think most cities have become warmer from 1800's to the 2000's....pave it...built tall people containers, drive around blowing smoke.


----------



## MrMatt

Spudd said:


> No idea where you get that idea. Just look at the chart. 1840-1880 (guessing, since I don't have the original dataset) don't have any points over 20C. As you move to the right on the chart, more and more points are over 20C and the lower bound is also moving upwards. It is clearly an upward trend.


Wrong timescale for climate change.
Look a the geological record, we've always had swings.

Also, since we're still coming out of an ice age, the global temperature should rise, because the ice age is ending.


----------



## like_to_retire

MrMatt said:


> Also, since we're still coming out of an ice age, the global temperature should rise, because the ice age is ending.


Yeah, for sure, and really, 100 years? It's the head of a pin. 

ltr


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> Historical Toronto temps. Upward trajectory is missing.
> View attachment 20163


You sure? Just eyeballing it, a regression would show positive coefficient.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Wrong timescale for climate change.
> Look a the geological record, we've always had swings.
> 
> Also, since we're still coming out of an ice age, the global temperature should rise, because the ice age is ending.


So which is it? Temps are rising or they aren't?


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> So which is it? Temps are rising or they aren't?


Both, depending on the timescale selected.
Generally we're warming, and ice is melting, as you'd expect as you approach the end of an ice age.

This is grade 2 science. As the end of the ice age approaches, the glaciers will retreat.


----------



## like_to_retire

MrMatt said:


> This is grade 2 science.



Yeah, I'm surprised andrewf doesn't know this - it's readily available on Google search.

ltr


----------



## sags

How do you know it is the end of the ice age ? Did some of those "fake" climate change scientists tell you that ?

It's all fake. There is no climate change. There was no past ice age and we aren't here.


----------



## andrewf

like_to_retire said:


> Yeah, I'm surprised andrewf doesn't know this - it's readily available on Google search.
> 
> ltr


I'm not the one claiming otherwise. Climate change "skeptics" argue against each other:
-that the climate is not warming/actually cooling, or
-that the climate is warming, but humans have absolutely nothing to do with it, or
-that the climate is warming, and it's a Good Thing

The only thing they agree on is that we should keep burning fossil fuels with abandon.


----------



## sags

And a little child shall lead them.......


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> I'm not the one claiming otherwise. Climate change "skeptics" argue against each other:
> -that the climate is not warming/actually cooling, or
> -that the climate is warming, but humans have absolutely nothing to do with it, or
> -that the climate is warming, and it's a Good Thing
> 
> The only thing they agree on is that we should keep burning fossil fuels with abandon.


I assume you consider me a "climate change skeptic".

Climate change is inevitable. It happened for millions of years before people, and it will continue long after we're gone.

The climate has never been static.
Humans influence everything on the planet (and beyond).
I thought the "consensus" was that it was warming.

it's a mix of good and bad, like all things.
For Canada it turns out it's a net benefit

Of course we shouldn't burn with abandon, but if they're the most effective resource, and the benefit is greater than the cost, of we should use it.

Can you explain the opposite view?
Because apparently I don't understand it. It seems to be.

1. Even though we're at historic low temperatures, an increase is really bad, for everyone everywhere, with no upside at all.
2. We should never use fossil fuels, even if such usage would result in a greater benefit than harm?


----------



## Pluto

Spudd said:


> No idea where you get that idea. Just look at the chart. 1840-1880 (guessing, since I don't have the original dataset) don't have any points over 20C. As you move to the right on the chart, more and more points are over 20C and the lower bound is also moving upwards. It is clearly an upward trend.


Well if you check, the highest is May 1911 - 23.1. 
The trend you speak of is probably due to the heat island effect. 
Plus if you check other smaller cities where the heat island effect is presumably less or non existent, you don't get the effect you speak of. Moreover, I have been presented with graphs by alarmists that show temps going up at something like a 45 degree angle. 

Check some other cities across Canada. www.yourenvironment.ca/


----------



## Spudd

Pluto said:


> Well if you check, the highest is May 1911 - 23.1.
> The trend you speak of is probably due to the heat island effect.
> Plus if you check other smaller cities where the heat island effect is presumably less or non existent, you don't get the effect you speak of.


LOL. All I did was tell you that there was a trend after you said there was no trend. Now you admit there's a trend and try to explain it away.


----------



## Pluto

Spudd said:


> LOL. All I did was tell you that there was a trend after you said there was no trend. Now you admit there's a trend and try to explain it away.


 The "trend" you speak of hasn't breached the 1911 temperature, so actually I see no clear upward trend. 

Where do alarmists get these graphs from which show the temps going up at a 45 degree angle?


----------



## like_to_retire

Pluto said:


> The "trend" you speak of hasn't breached the 1911 temperature, so actually I see no clear upward trend.
> 
> Where do alarmists get these graphs from which show the temps going up at a 45 degree angle?



Draw a straight line and tilt it 45 degrees - easy. Doesn't take much convincing - the alarmists eat that stuff up.

ltr


----------



## sags

........everything checks out.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> ........everything checks out.


You see! even sag's ROFL emoji is at a 45 degree angle. I rest my case (at a 45 degree angle of course).

ltr


----------



## sags

Climate change has already made parts of the world too hot for the human body to withstand.

It is estimated that 3 billion people will have to move to other areas. One of the effects of climate change will be mass migrations of people.









Climate change has already made parts of the world too hot for humans


Global warming has already made parts of the world – including cities in Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates – hotter than the human body can withstand




www.newscientist.com


----------



## Spudd

I'm not saying there's a 45-degree angle. Just that the trend is upwards. I can't seem to find the dataset that your graph is referring to, but here's a similar graph for Canada-wide temps from 1948-2019:








Link for the above: Climate Trends and Variations Bulletin - Annual 2019 - Canada.ca

You can see that in 1948 the trend line was around -0.5 degrees and now it is around +1.3 degrees. 

It doesn't bother me if people have a different opinion about global warming but it does bother me when they present "evidence" that's it's not taking place and just by looking at the evidence you can see that it is not "evidence" at all.


----------



## Mukhang pera

sags said:


> Climate change has already made parts of the world too hot for the human body to withstand.
> 
> It is estimated that 3 billion people will have to move to other areas. One of the effects of climate change will be mass migrations of people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Climate change has already made parts of the world too hot for humans
> 
> 
> Global warming has already made parts of the world – including cities in Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates – hotter than the human body can withstand
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newscientist.com


Trudeau is already preparing a plan to bring them all here. Free transportation to Canada. Free accommodation and medical care for at least the first year, etc. Might be the salvation of an otherwise moribund real estate market and give Air Canada something to do for awhile.


----------



## Pluto

Spudd said:


> I'm not saying there's a 45-degree angle. Just that the trend is upwards. I can't seem to find the dataset that your graph is referring to, but here's a similar graph for Canada-wide temps from 1948-2019:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link for the above: Climate Trends and Variations Bulletin - Annual 2019 - Canada.ca
> 
> You can see that in 1948 the trend line was around -0.5 degrees and now it is around +1.3 degrees.
> 
> It doesn't bother me if people have a different opinion about global warming but it does bother me when they present "evidence" that's it's not taking place and just by looking at the evidence you can see that it is not "evidence" at all.


1) I wonder why they start at 1948? Are they cherry picking?
2)


Spudd said:


> I'm not saying there's a 45-degree angle. Just that the trend is upwards. I can't seem to find the dataset that your graph is referring to, but here's a similar graph for Canada-wide temps from 1948-2019:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link for the above: Climate Trends and Variations Bulletin - Annual 2019 - Canada.ca
> 
> You can see that in 1948 the trend line was around -0.5 degrees and now it is around +1.3 degrees.
> 
> It doesn't bother me if people have a different opinion about global warming but it does bother me when they present "evidence" that's it's not taking place and just by looking at the evidence you can see that it is not "evidence" at all.


They don't explain where they are getting their raw data from. Weather station data doesn't show such a dramatic rise since 1948. They do say, however, that the warming they see is mostly in the north, and not along the southern border. In that case it seems like a regional phenomenon, not a global one.


----------



## Eder

Spudd said:


> I'm not saying there's a 45-degree angle. Just that the trend is upwards. I can't seem to find the dataset that your graph is referring to, but here's a similar graph for Canada-wide temps from 1948-2019:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link for the above: Climate Trends and Variations Bulletin - Annual 2019 - Canada.ca
> 
> You can see that in 1948 the trend line was around -0.5 degrees and now it is around +1.3 degrees.
> 
> It doesn't bother me if people have a different opinion about global warming but it does bother me when they present "evidence" that's it's not taking place and just by looking at the evidence you can see that it is not "evidence" at all.


Environment Canada just recently was caught _adjusting _historic temperatures...


----------



## Longtimeago

Some people just love to provide 'graphic evidence' that something is or is not correct. Of course the problem with that is that often it is all to easy to find 'graphic evidence' that will support any contention.

I prefer to rely on what I can see with my own eyes. So when for example, I see the glaciers receeding everywhere or I hear people who have lived in places like Alaska, the NWT, etc. for generations telling us that there is no doubt in their minds about what they are seeing just in their own lifetime in terms of climate change, I tend to place more trust in that kind of evidence.https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/yukon-first-nations-climate-change-1.5468701

Those people do not care about statistics or graphs, they care about what is happening with their traditional subsistence lifestyle that is being highly impacted by the changes in climate they are experiencing.


----------



## cainvest

We can certainly discuss temperature graphs, as in, generally the climate is warming on a global level but I think the biggest question is still ... What impact do humans (GHG production) have in this role?

So it could be that we spend all this time and effort on quick elimination of GHG and then the global temps keep on rising ... then what? Has anyone suggested a plan if that occurs?


----------



## MrMatt

cainvest said:


> We can certainly discuss temperature graphs, as in, generally the climate is warming on a global level but I think the biggest question is still ... What impact do humans (GHG production) have in this role?
> 
> So it could be that we spend all this time and effort on quick elimination of GHG and then the global temps keep on rising ... then what? Has anyone suggested a plan if that occurs?


That's really the point.
1. This is going to happen.
2. What are we going to do?

Pretending we can stop an ice age from ending, well that's just silly.


----------



## andrewf

The idea of a 45 degree angle on a chart is meaningless. Anything with a trend can be scaled to look like a 45 degree line.


----------



## kcowan

MrMatt said:


> That's really the point.
> 1. This is going to happen.
> 2. What are we going to do?
> 
> Pretending we can stop an ice age from ending, well that's just silly.


Yes that has been my concern all along. Global warming is occurring so stop pretending we can stop it by eliminating CO2 emissions and start doing something productive about mitigation. Forget about GHG in Canada. Get a leader that can think logically.


----------



## sags

India and Pakistan brace for the most powerful storm ever recorded in the Bay of Bengal. Super cyclone Amphan has speeds of 270 kmh (165 mph).

It serves as a reminder that climate change continues on during the COVID pandemic and can't be ignored forever.









India and Bangladesh brace for the strongest storm ever recorded in the Bay of Bengal


Millions of people in India and Bangladesh are in the path of a cyclone which is due to make landfall in less than 36 hours, bringing damaging winds and heavy rain to a region already struggling with the coronavirus pandemic.




www.cnn.com


----------



## Prairie Guy

The most powerful storm ever recorded is meaningless when the prior 99.99999% of the planet's weather history has no recorded data.


----------



## andrewf

kcowan said:


> Yes that has been my concern all along. Global warming is occurring so stop pretending we can stop it by eliminating CO2 emissions and start doing something productive about mitigation. Forget about GHG in Canada. Get a leader that can think logically.


This is a non sequitur. To say we can't "stop" it (as in immediately arrest global warming) is not argument for giving up on doing anything about carbon emissions and continuing to blissfully burn fossil fuels. That's like saying, "the house is on fire, we can't stop it immediately and it is going to burn more. Better look on realtor.ca for a new house instead of calling the fire dept."


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> This is a non sequitur. To say we can't "stop" it (as in immediately arrest global warming) is not argument for giving up on doing anything about carbon emissions and continuing to blissfully burn fossil fuels.


Pollution reduction is a good thing but they shouldn't be selling it as "it will definitely save the planet" when they don't know if it will have any significant impact.


----------



## andrewf

^ The argument is usually raised with the conclusion that we shouldn't do anything to disincentivize burning fossil fuels. Climate impacts are only one reason why we should reduce fossil fuel use. They kill and maim millions of people per year.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> ^ The argument is usually raised with the conclusion that we shouldn't do anything to disincentivize burning fossil fuels. Climate impacts are only one reason why we should reduce fossil fuel use. They kill and maim millions of people per year.


Yup, usually the argument swings that way. Of course in the years ahead when ocean levels and/or temps are still on the rise all the current CO2 activists will just throw up their hands and say "guess we were too late" with no further plans to save lives.


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> ^ The argument is usually raised with the conclusion that we shouldn't do anything to disincentivize burning fossil fuels. Climate impacts are only one reason why we should reduce fossil fuel use. They kill and maim millions of people per year.


Fossil fuels also increased life expectancy by decades. But the alarmists ignore every single benefit that they have provided and key on a small percentage of negatives. 

Give up fossil fuels and immediately 40% of all farmland (food for the world) would have to convert to food for the working animals...which don't exist yet. Of course, the very rich would secure the supply for themselves and let you starve. Then all the forests of the world would be cut down within a year to provide heating fuel.

There's a very good reason why alarmists, tree huggers, or environmentalists don't live off the land...it's far too hard. If it was such a wonderful life of Utopia they'd all do it. But none of them do it, or even want to try it. They just want to tell you how to live.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> This is a non sequitur. To say we can't "stop" it (as in immediately arrest global warming) is not argument for giving up on doing anything about carbon emissions and continuing to blissfully burn fossil fuels. That's like saying, "the house is on fire, we can't stop it immediately and it is going to burn more. Better look on realtor.ca for a new house instead of calling the fire dept."


The house isn't on fire, and you're not going to put it out.

It's more like winter (ie the ice age) is ending, it's springtime, and things are warming up. Sure things will change, but it opens up new growth.

Even if you accept the argument that burning fossil fuels is bad, how many people should we kill to stop burning fossil fuels? Of course this won't get an answer, because someone will argue the argument is absurd.

Lets not truck some people food, or not drive them to the hospital, or use the electricity to run their ventilator.

Just like COVID19 lockdown forever people, they pretend that their actions don't kill anyone.


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> Fossil fuels also increased life expectancy by decades. But the alarmists ignore every single benefit that they have provided and key on a small percentage of negatives.
> 
> Give up fossil fuels and immediately 40% of all farmland (food for the world) would have to convert to food for the working animals...which don't exist yet. Of course, the very rich would secure the supply for themselves and let you starve. Then all the forests of the world would be cut down within a year to provide heating fuel.
> 
> There's a very good reason why alarmists, tree huggers, or environmentalists don't live off the land...it's far too hard. If it was such a wonderful life of Utopia they'd all do it. But none of them do it, or even want to try it. They just want to tell you how to live.


No one is proposing banning fossil fuels. Just incentivizing replacement with non-/less-polluting alternatives. Do you think it will only ever be possible to farm with diesel? Even in say, 500 years, we'll still be powering our agriculture system with diesel for tractors and natural gas for fertilizer? 

Where there is an economically viable alternative to using fossil fuels that is less polluting, I think we should be embracing it. Coal is largely being eliminated for power by natural gas and renewables. Batteries are getting better and EVs are eventually going to conquer the passenger vehicle market. Banning diesel for farm equipment would be irresponsible as there is no practical replacement yet. But diesel is just a necessary evil, not a good. If we can find a better way to power farm equipment that should be embraced as a good thing, no?

Most of the opposition seems to be rationalizations for people whose income is derived from the continued exploitation of fossil fuels. Kind of like how many residents of Asbestos, Qc refused to acknowledge the downsides of that material for decades.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Even if you accept the argument that burning fossil fuels is bad, how many people should we kill to stop burning fossil fuels? Of course this won't get an answer, because someone will argue the argument is absurd.


You need to weigh that against the very real number of people killed by fossil fuels. You seem to be pretending that they are benign. They have heretofore made industrial civilization possible, but that does not mean that we should forsake any alternatives that could play the same role in a less polluting way.

You're not asking how many people died of exposure because we don't use asbestos for insulation anymore. Maybe at one time it made that difference and was worth its downsides. But it was definitely worthwhile to find better solutions to fit that need. Fossil fuels are always just a means to an end. We shouldn't be worshiping them as a end in themselves.


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> You need to weigh that against the very real number of people killed by fossil fuels.


You demand others do that but you refuse to consider how many lives have been saved.


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> You demand others do that but you refuse to consider how many lives have been saved.


Try reading it again. I said you had to consider both against each other. That's why it is a silly strawman argument to say it's either maximum oil or bringing back draft horses. You refuse to engage in discussions evenhandedly.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> You need to weigh that against the very real number of people killed by fossil fuels. You seem to be pretending that they are benign. They have heretofore made industrial civilization possible, but that does not mean that we should forsake any alternatives that could play the same role in a less polluting way.
> 
> You're not asking how many people died of exposure because we don't use asbestos for insulation anymore. Maybe at one time it made that difference and was worth its downsides. But it was definitely worthwhile to find better solutions to fit that need. Fossil fuels are always just a means to an end. We shouldn't be worshiping them as a end in themselves.


I'm not pretending fossil fuels are benign.
I'm just pointing out that the alternatives aren't benign either. 
And cutting off our current system before we have a better replacement will cost lives.


Which is worse, a bit of CO2 from natural gas, or toxic pollution from the production of a solar cell?
I'd say that it's very hard to say, but both are bad.


----------



## kcowan

MrMatt said:


> I'm not pretending fossil fuels are benign.
> I'm just pointing out that the alternatives aren't benign either.
> And cutting off our current system before we have a better replacement will cost lives.
> 
> 
> Which is worse, a bit of CO2 from natural gas, or toxic pollution from the production of a solar cell?
> I'd say that it's very hard to say, but both are bad.


You get my vote! Proponents of alternative solutions are quick to say that all alternatives need to be evaluated equally but then proceed to recommend solutions that have not been adequately studied. The is how we embraced corn-based biofuels, now known to be an environmental disaster! Same with biomass for electric generation!


----------



## andrewf

Are you counting the toxic pollution from natural gas extraction (the millions of gallons of fracking fluid) that are often poorly controlled?


----------



## andrewf

kcowan said:


> You get my vote! Proponents of alternative solutions are quick to say that all alternatives need to be evaluated equally but then proceed to recommend solutions that have not been adequately studied. The is how we embraced corn-based biofuels, now known to be an environmental disaster! Same with biomass for electric generation!


Corn-based biofuels were embraced because politicians wanted to buy votes in Iowa. It was always a bad idea.

Interesting that the people who say 'wait until all the facts are in, preferably decades' on environmental issues are also often the proponents of using untested drugs/treatments for COVID-19 treatment. Not accusing you, kcowan. Just a pattern that your comment made me think of.


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> Are you counting the toxic pollution from natural gas extraction (the millions of gallons of fracking fluid) that are often poorly controlled?


The net gain from fossil fuels outweighs the negative by a wide margin. New York was overrun with horse manure and urine before motor vehicle arrived. Fossil fuels solved a serious environmental problem.

If you want to argue the negatives you must also acknowledge the huge net gains.


----------



## like_to_retire

Prairie Guy said:


> The net gain from fossil fuels outweighs the negative by a wide margin. New York was overrun with horse manure and urine before motor vehicle arrived. Fossil fuels solved a serious environmental problem.
> 
> If you want to argue the negatives you must also acknowledge the huge net gains.


.
Just think about how plastic has revolutionized the world. Look around where you're sitting right now and see all the materials made of plastic. Plastic is made from oil.

ltr


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Are you counting the toxic pollution from natural gas extraction (the millions of gallons of fracking fluid) that are often poorly controlled?


Yes, I would consider that.
The lithium & other material mine poisoning, the huge algae blooms and water pollution due to fertilizer run off, displacement due to hydro power dams. Oil spills, particulate emissions.

All of that needs to be considered. I NEVER said fossil fuels were best.
I'm just saying we need balance.

Currently I think that fossil fuels offer a net benefit, and the arguments against them all seem wishy washy with little data.
Or they're just point to "global warming" as if it's some infinite cost argument that is worth ANY sacrifice.
We could go all Thanos, and that would really have an impact on the environment, but based on the massive environmental damage they're inflicting for COVID19, I don't think that will fly.


----------



## Prairie Guy

like_to_retire said:


> .
> Just think about how plastic has revolutionized the world. Look around where you're sitting right now and see all the materials made of plastic. Plastic is made from oil.
> 
> ltr


Considering how many things are made of plastic and how revolutionary it is, plastic the best reason to conserve oil. Far better of a reason than some minor warming that may or may not happen.


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> The net gain from fossil fuels outweighs the negative by a wide margin. New York was overrun with horse manure and urine before motor vehicle arrived. Fossil fuels solved a serious environmental problem.
> 
> If you want to argue the negatives you must also acknowledge the huge net gains.


Of course. You must also acknowledge that there are other ways to achieve those gains. Your logic is akin to arguing that leaded fuel was so awesome (better than horses), so why should we consider unleaded fuel?


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Yes, I would consider that.
> The lithium & other material mine poisoning, the huge algae blooms and water pollution due to fertilizer run off, displacement due to hydro power dams. Oil spills, particulate emissions.
> 
> All of that needs to be considered. I NEVER said fossil fuels were best.
> I'm just saying we need balance.
> 
> Currently I think that fossil fuels offer a net benefit, and the arguments against them all seem wishy washy with little data.
> Or they're just point to "global warming" as if it's some infinite cost argument that is worth ANY sacrifice.
> We could go all Thanos, and that would really have an impact on the environment, but based on the massive environmental damage they're inflicting for COVID19, I don't think that will fly.


The choice is not between continuing to burn fossil fuels forever and a return to pre-industrial technology. Fossil fuels can offer a net benefit yet still have a terrible price in terms of deaths from pollution (and there are lots of deaths and negative health outcomes). If there are other technologies that could produce those benefits at less of a cost to health, life and the environment, that should be celebrated and not fought tooth and nail. Even if your bread is buttered by those deaths. 

Reminds me of the scare mongering about electric vehicle batteries need for cobalt, which is dirty for extraction and a conflict resource. Turns out you need cobalt in similar amounts as a catalyst to refine the gasoline to power an ICE car.


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> Of course. You must also acknowledge that there are other ways to achieve those gains. Your logic is akin to arguing that leaded fuel was so awesome (better than horses), so why should we consider unleaded fuel?


What other ways are there that are as successful as fossil fuels? Please back your claim up with facts this time. So far all you've done is admit that unleaded fuel is better than leaded...something that everyone already knows.


----------



## kcowan

andrewf said:


> Corn-based biofuels were embraced because politicians wanted to buy votes in Iowa. It was always a bad idea.
> 
> Interesting that the people who say 'wait until all the facts are in, preferably decades' on environmental issues are also often the proponents of using untested drugs/treatments for COVID-19 treatment. Not accusing you, kcowan. Just a pattern that your comment made me think of.


Yes every proponent of a new technology focuses on the benefits without any consideration of the downside.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> The choice is not between continuing to burn fossil fuels forever and a return to pre-industrial technology. Fossil fuels can offer a net benefit yet still have a terrible price in terms of deaths from pollution (and there are lots of deaths and negative health outcomes). If there are other technologies that could produce those benefits at less of a cost to health, life and the environment, that should be celebrated and not fought tooth and nail. Even if your bread is buttered by those deaths.
> 
> Reminds me of the scare mongering about electric vehicle batteries need for cobalt, which is dirty for extraction and a conflict resource. Turns out you need cobalt in similar amounts as a catalyst to refine the gasoline to power an ICE car.


I agree, if there were other technologies that could produce those benefits at lower cost we should switch.

So since, those other technologies aren't available at scale, you must agree that continued use of fossil fuels is prudent.


----------



## Spudd

MrMatt said:


> I agree, if there were other technologies that could produce those benefits at lower cost we should switch.
> 
> So since, those other technologies aren't available at scale, you must agree that continued use of fossil fuels is prudent.


I would agree but would change it to lower/equal cost. And also continue to incentivize reduced usage where it's not necessary, and incentivize research into cleaner technologies to ensure that there will be a future where cleaner tech makes sense.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> I agree, if there were other technologies that could produce those benefits at lower cost we should switch.
> 
> So since, those other technologies aren't available at scale, you must agree that continued use of fossil fuels is prudent.


We should be substituting where practical, and making incentives that align with that. All else equal or nearly equal, we should be choosing the non-fossil fuel solution vs the fossil fuel solution. Tilt the balance a bit to nudge people to switch. 

This is all happening anyway, but we could accelerate it with the right incentives. And lives would be saved. Think about the lives saved in Ontario since we eliminated coal from our power mix. Nevermind the quality of life impact. I distinctly remember having a smog day in February! Smog warnings have dropped dramatically since we eliminated coal, despite our up-wind neighbours (Michigan, etc.) still using it.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> We should be substituting where practical, and making incentives that align with that. All else equal or nearly equal, we should be choosing the non-fossil fuel solution vs the fossil fuel solution. Tilt the balance a bit to nudge people to switch.
> 
> This is all happening anyway, but we could accelerate it with the right incentives. And lives would be saved. Think about the lives saved in Ontario since we eliminated coal from our power mix. Nevermind the quality of life impact. I distinctly remember having a smog day in February! Smog warnings have dropped dramatically since we eliminated coal, despite our up-wind neighbours (Michigan, etc.) still using it.


On this " All else equal or nearly equal, we should be choosing the non-fossil fuel solution vs the fossil fuel solution", my response is simple. "no"
If it's equal, it literally doesn't matter. If one is less harmful, it's less harmful.

That's what I don't get about the anti-oil lobby.
If the fossil fuel solution causes less harm, by what logic would you choose the more harmful solution?

Are you concerned about people and the environment, or do you just hate fossil fuels for no logical reason.

I think there is something seriously wrong with you if you're willing to hurt people more, just to not use oil.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> On this " All else equal or nearly equal, we should be choosing the non-fossil fuel solution vs the fossil fuel solution", my response is simple. "no"
> If it's equal, it literally doesn't matter. If one is less harmful, it's less harmful.


You're familiar with how the phrase 'all else being equal' works right?


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> I think there is something seriously wrong with you if you're willing to hurt people more, just to not use oil.


I think there is something seriously wrong with you if you are actively supporting the ongoing use of fuels that kill and maim millions when reasonable alternatives exist. Finding alternatives to powering civilization by burning stuff should be a high priority. Anyone who struggles with this idea should spend some time understanding all the ways air pollution is deleterious to human health.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> You're familiar with how the phrase 'all else being equal' works right?


Are you?
if all else is truly equal, there is literally no reason to choose one over the other.

Also you said "nearly equal", we should go to the balance with less harm.




andrewf said:


> I think there is something seriously wrong with you if you are actively supporting the ongoing use of fuels that kill and maim millions when reasonable alternatives exist. Finding alternatives to powering civilization by burning stuff should be a high priority. Anyone who struggles with this idea should spend some time understanding all the ways air pollution is deleterious to human health.


I agree, there is something wrong with you if you are actively supporting the ongoing use of something harmful when reasonable alternatives exist.

I think the issue is that you refuse to accept any legitimate argument for burning stuff.
Clean burning propane and natural gas only releases CO2, no pollution.

Why would you want to pollute with nasty toxic chemicals when relatively safe and pollution free alternatives exist?



I think we actually agree on the fundamental principle, do the least harm. However you're blinded to think that even if the harm is "equal", or even slightly less, that fossil fuels are somehow still more equal.

Lets say burning propane causes no pollution. Lets say burning wood causes some particulate pollution, and ethanol from corn causes only CO2, but massive fertilizer runoff and algae blooms from growing it.
I'd say burn propane.
Then if possible, filter the wood particulate and burn that.

Avoid corn based ethanol, it's just bad.


----------



## sags

CO2 emissions are a big problem and they are rising, but that doesn't fit with the narrative that climate change is a natural phenomena.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Clean burning propane and natural gas only releases CO2, no pollution.


They result in NOx, a precursor to smog. Better than other fuels, but not as good as not burning anything at all.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> They result in NOx, a precursor to smog. Better than other fuels, but not as good as not burning anything at all.


Yawn, Scrubbers.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Yawn, Scrubbers.


Sure. But that applies to power plants, not vehicles, and adds to the capital and operating cost. And nat gas still produces a lot of pollution in extraction. I don't argue that strenuously against nat gas power plants as they are reasonably clean compared to other fossil fuel options. And even if EVs are powered by 100% natural gas, it is much cleaner than ICE vehicles because of the pollution control measures in place for centralized power plants. There are even secondary factors like regenerative braking drastically reducing friction brake use and thus fine particles. We should celebrate the conversion of the vehicle fleet to EVs as there is going to be a massive step-change in air quality, particularly in urban areas. The COVID-19 shutdown was a bit of a preview of the dramatic change in air quality, and that is still having many essential services plying the roads with filthy diesels belching particulates.

Coal is dead. Natural gas for power will be backed into a niche of medium-term power production (it's going to lose daily peaking and frequency regulation to batteries and day-to-day generation to nuclear/hydro/renewables). Gas will be useful for 3-4 day lulls in renewable generation until storage technology catches up to longer term storage. Nat gas will also be used in chemical processes and process heat, at least until alternatives can be found. But I'm not sure we should be celebrating that we have to rely on that industry. Fracking is nasty business (not in my backyard, please) and seems to result in a lot of methane leaking into the atmosphere.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Sure. But that applies to power plants, not vehicles, and adds to the capital and operating cost. And nat gas still produces a lot of pollution in extraction. I don't argue that strenuously against nat gas power plants as they are reasonably clean compared to other fossil fuel options. And even if EVs are powered by 100% natural gas, it is much cleaner than ICE vehicles because of the pollution control measures in place for centralized power plants. There are even secondary factors like regenerative braking drastically reducing friction brake use and thus fine particles. We should celebrate the conversion of the vehicle fleet to EVs as there is going to be a massive step-change in air quality, particularly in urban areas. The COVID-19 shutdown was a bit of a preview of the dramatic change in air quality, and that is still having many essential services plying the roads with filthy diesels belching particulates.
> 
> Coal is dead. Natural gas for power will be backed into a niche of medium-term power production (it's going to lose daily peaking and frequency regulation to batteries and day-to-day generation to nuclear/hydro/renewables). Gas will be useful for 3-4 day lulls in renewable generation until storage technology catches up to longer term storage. Nat gas will also be used in chemical processes and process heat, at least until alternatives can be found. But I'm not sure we should be celebrating that we have to rely on that industry. Fracking is nasty business (not in my backyard, please) and seems to result in a lot of methane leaking into the atmosphere.


They use urea to reduce vehicle NOX.

Coal is dead?
They're still building new coal power plants, I would argue that it's still quite alive.

I'm not saying that there isn't a place for new technology, or even that we shouldn't use it, or develop it.

I AM saying that we should not hurt people to pursue these new endeavours. That's it.

I'm all for reducing pollution.
Global warming, I'm not convinced that anyone has a workable plan to address it
1. We have no plan to stop it.
We will not have a plan to stop it.
The "Plans" are basically massive wealth transfer schemes to fund big government.

2. Any talk of adjusting to adapt or mitigate the impacts is met with scorn that we're not focusing on prevention.
I don't think prevention will happen, because quite honestly there is no political will.
China isn't going to kill their economy just to make Greta happy. That's just not happening.


People aren't serious about climate change science, it's just a modern religion and sin tax to achieve other goals.


----------



## sags

You might not be serious about it, but most Canadians are. It is one of the reasons Andrew Scheer isn't PM.


----------



## Eder

Well I guess the narrative didn't fit the brain washing agenda

*Michael Moore film Planet of the Humans removed from YouTube*








Michael Moore film Planet of the Humans removed from YouTube


British environmental photographer’s copyright claim prompts website to remove film that has been condemned by climate scientists




www.theguardian.com


----------



## Prairie Guy

Google, YouTube, and Mark Zuckerberg now control almost all of what you can watch or read. None of them were elected by the people. In addition, in Canada Trudeau bribes some of the media and bans those who don't accept bribes from attending press conferences.

And some people here still think Trump is a worse threat.


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> Well I guess the narrative didn't fit the brain washing agenda
> 
> *Michael Moore film Planet of the Humans removed from YouTube*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Moore film Planet of the Humans removed from YouTube
> 
> 
> British environmental photographer’s copyright claim prompts website to remove film that has been condemned by climate scientists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com


Youtube complies with copyright claims. They are liable if they don't remove content that violates copyright when requested. You can complain about copyright, but this is not censorship.

By all accounts, like most Moore docs, this was high on emotion, low on information. I don't know why you would be celebrating this film because its conclusion is that we should fire up the gas chambers and reduce the population. No thanks,


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> Google, YouTube, and Mark Zuckerberg now control almost all of what you can watch or read. None of them were elected by the people. In addition, in Canada Trudeau bribes some of the media and bans those who don't accept bribes from attending press conferences.
> 
> And some people here still think Trump is a worse threat.


You should blame the House of Mouse if you are upset about copyright insanity.


----------



## Eder

andrewf said:


> Youtube complies with copyright claims. They are liable if they don't remove content that violates copyright when requested. You can complain about copyright, but this is not censorship.
> 
> By all accounts, like most Moore docs, this was high on emotion, low on information. I don't know why you would be celebrating this film because its conclusion is that we should fire up the gas chambers and reduce the population. No thanks,


I haven't watched this film...not a fan of morons. I posted as it does show that critical comment on climate religion is suppressed. Nothing new and to be expected. As for uTube...copyright...lol.


----------



## andrewf

I don't think it is critical on climate change per se. It is more trying to make the case that (1) all the other alternatives to oil are equally horrendous for the environment (using very old or very wrong justifications) and (2) humans are having a disastrous impact on the environment so (3) fire up the gas chambers (they don't say it explicitly, but say that the only solution is reduced population).

There is absolutely no reason to give any credence to this film just because Moore produced it for a buddy of his. It is similar to the vegan propaganda films about how meat is satan and is poisoning you. You can consume those uncritically as well, but I wouldn't recommend it. It is a bad film that was removed from YouTube because the guy, a filmmaker, stole intellectual property from someone else and included it. Youtube had the choice of removing the video or taking on legal responsibility under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Not hard for them to make the choice. All moaning about censorship should be directed elsewhere as the content of the film was completely irrelevant. It could have been about how YouTube is awesome and lefties are always right and the result would have been the same.


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> I haven't watched this film...not a fan of morons. I posted as it does show that critical comment on climate religion is suppressed. Nothing new and to be expected. As for uTube...copyright...lol.


Your complete ignorance of how strictly Youtube enforces copyright is your problem. Do some cursory investigation and you will discover the Youtube is ruthless about enforcing copyright. They have a very sophisticated algorithm for detecting registered rights held content (Content ID) that automatically flags music, film, TV, etc. and rights holders can issue takedown notices if their copyright is violated (what happened in this case). This is a legal requirement of the DMCA. When a copyright claim is issued, the video comes down immediately, pending appeal. Youtube is so ruthless about copyright because they were threatened with being sued into oblivion for rampant copyright violation that was prevalent on the site ~10 years ago. It is a matter of survival for Youtube, and no political affiliation will save you from copyright enforcement.


----------



## sags

Yup, I watch some people on Youtube playing high limit slots in the casinos, and they have to overlay music sometimes due to copyright of the music the casino is playing in the background. The Youtubers get flagged pretty quickly and if they don't follow the rules........bye, bye.


----------



## Prairie Guy

The little fascists on this site love censorship and gleefully defend anyone that does it. Useful idiots.


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> The little fascists on this site love censorship and gleefully defend anyone that does it. Useful idiots.


Conservatives have a well-developed persecution complex. Garden variety idiots.

Also, same people who loved JB Peterson's stand against compelled speech want to compel Youtube to host a video that exposes them to legal jeopardy.


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> Conservatives have a well-developed persecution complex. Garden variety idiots.
> 
> Also, same people who loved JB Peterson's stand against compelled speech want to compel Youtube to host a video that exposes them to legal jeopardy.


You're suggesting that anyone who disagrees with official government stance on global warming will face legal jeopardy. 

In other words, I was 100% correct. You approve of censorship or the use of government power to silence opposing opinion. And you have the arrogance to call people opposed to censorship idiots.

Andrew, it's time for you to take a step back and realize what you've become. You should be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Conservatives have a well-developed persecution complex. Garden variety idiots.
> 
> Also, same people who loved JB Peterson's stand against compelled speech want to compel Youtube to host a video that exposes them to legal jeopardy.


You do realize that the University of Toronto actually told him, in writing, that not using the pronouns dictated by people was in violation of University policy, and could be considered violation under Ontario law.

The layman translation is very simple, I can tell you what pronoun to use to address me. If you don't, it's discrimination and you'll face reprecussions. Also he can't choose to not interact with someone because of their crazy demands, that would also be discrimination.

So if I insist on being called something ridiculous, and you don't, it's arguably against Ontario Human Rights law. That's a problem.

Just like "it's okay to be white" being a hate crime. It's ridiculous.


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> You're suggesting that anyone who disagrees with official government stance on global warming will face legal jeopardy.


No idea where you got that idea. It's fine to fantasize, just don't mistake those fantasies with reality.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> You do realize that the University of Toronto actually told him, in writing, that not using the pronouns dictated by people was in violation of University policy, and could be considered violation under Ontario law.
> 
> The layman translation is very simple, I can tell you what pronoun to use to address me. If you don't, it's discrimination and you'll face reprecussions. Also he can't choose to not interact with someone because of their crazy demands, that would also be discrimination.
> 
> So if I insist on being called something ridiculous, and you don't, it's arguably against Ontario Human Rights law. That's a problem.
> 
> Just like "it's okay to be white" being a hate crime. It's ridiculous.


The idea that mispronouning someone is against Ontario law, is not correct. One could use neutral gender pronouns (ie, they/them). A person cannot be compelled to refer to someone as zhe and xim or apache attack helicopter. I am on Peterson's side here. He has also said that he would generally use a trans person's preferred pronouns--he was just objecting to the perception of compelled speech.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> The idea that mispronouning someone is against Ontario law, is not correct. One could use neutral gender pronouns (ie, they/them). A person cannot be compelled to refer to someone as zhe and xim or apache attack helicopter. I am on Peterson's side here. He has also said that he would generally use a trans person's preferred pronouns--he was just objecting to the perception of compelled speech.


You can say that, but the official position of the University of Toronto is that using the wrong pronoun is discrimination, and potentially in violation of Canadian Human Rights law. 

So the University lawyers, and many others think it is likely illegal, and the government has not offered any clarification at this time.


----------



## andrewf

I think the spirit of the rule is a bit wrongheaded. The idea is to avoid creating a hostile social environment, which involves some demonstration of malicious intent. English usage is already evolving to use neutral pronouns in many contexts (not uncommon for a younger person to refer to a single other person as 'them' which would make older grammar nazis cringe). I always found the style guide of using 'he or she' to be incredibly clunky, same with alternating between using he or she to refer to people of indeterminate gender. I am fine with using they/them, but would tend to use he/she in contexts where the person's gender is clear.

I also think it is not unreasonable to to refer to trans people by the gender they identify with or neutral (either he, or she or they). I think the SJWs will lose everyone if they start insisting on people using obscure pronouns that people will never have heard outside of a gender studies department like hir and zhe. Those people, in my books, are getting one of he, she or they. Those are your options.

The idea that every conversation has to begin with an interrogation of your interlocutor's preferred pronouns is also absurd. I think the important point, and where we are really trying to get to, is reasonable attempts to not given offense, and an expectation also not to take offense unreasonably. The policy is rather hamfisted and is ripe for abuse.


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> No idea where you got that idea. It's fine to fantasize, just don't mistake those fantasies with reality.


Work on your comprehension. You claimed that YouTube would face legal action for showing a video that opposes the government position (unproven) on climate change. When I responded with facts you immediately play dumb/dumber but refused to provide evidence to support your argument.

Defend your comment or apologize for misleading the forum.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> I think the spirit of the rule is a bit wrongheaded. The idea is to avoid creating a hostile social environment, which involves some demonstration of malicious intent. English usage is already evolving to use neutral pronouns in many contexts (not uncommon for a younger person to refer to a single other person as 'them' which would make older grammar nazis cringe). I always found the style guide of using 'he or she' to be incredibly clunky, same with alternating between using he or she to refer to people of indeterminate gender. I am fine with using they/them, but would tend to use he/she in contexts where the person's gender is clear.
> 
> I also think it is not unreasonable to to refer to trans people by the gender they identify with or neutral (either he, or she or they). I think the SJWs will lose everyone if they start insisting on people using obscure pronouns that people will never have heard outside of a gender studies department like hir and zhe. Those people, in my books, are getting one of he, she or they. Those are your options.
> 
> The idea that every conversation has to begin with an interrogation of your interlocutor's preferred pronouns is also absurd. I think the important point, and where we are really trying to get to, is reasonable attempts to not given offense, and an expectation also not to take offense unreasonably. The policy is rather hamfisted and is ripe for abuse.


Pretty much everyone agrees that it would be generally polite and proper to refer to people in the way they want to be referred to.

But it shouldn't be considered a crime, or a human rights violation, to call someone he or she, irrespective of what they want to be called. It might be rude, but it isn't a crime and it is not a violation of their human rights.


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> Work on your comprehension. You claimed that YouTube would face legal action for showing a video that opposes the government position (unproven) on climate change. When I responded with facts you immediately play dumb/dumber but refused to provide evidence to support your argument.
> 
> Defend your comment or apologize for misleading the forum.


You invented that. I claimed that YouTube would face legal action if they failed to comply with a DMCA takedown request by the copyright holder. Government policy is irrelevant (except on copyright/DMCA) and a figment of your fantastical imagination.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Pretty much everyone agrees that it would be generally polite and proper to refer to people in the way they want to be referred to.
> 
> But it shouldn't be considered a crime, or a human rights violation, to call someone he or she, irrespective of what they want to be called. It might be rude, but it isn't a crime and it is not a violation of their human rights.


It stems from this country's position on hate speech. Reasonable people can disagree on whether that policy strikes the right balance with freedom of speech. I am still waiting for all the pronoun misgendering martyrs. This seems like mostly a hypothetical discussion.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> It stems from this country's position on hate speech. Reasonable people can disagree on whether that policy strikes the right balance with freedom of speech. I am still waiting for all the pronoun misgendering martyrs. This seems like mostly a hypothetical discussion.


Refering to a male as he isn't hate speech. Refering to a male as "she" isn't hate speech either, at worst it's simply rude.

Saying All lives matter in response to someone saying Black lives matter isn't hate speech either.
It's just stating a simple truth.

Crazy people think saying "all lives matter" is somehow racist.


----------



## sags

Why make the conscious effort to mock "black lives matter" when they could use a less similar phrase like "be nice" or something ?

The whole purpose of the "all lives matter" motto was to mock and belittle a valid sentiment, and as such it has no justifiable merit.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> Refering to a male as he isn't hate speech. Refering to a male as "she" isn't hate speech either, at worst it's simply rude.
> 
> Saying All lives matter in response to someone saying Black lives matter isn't hate speech either.
> It's just stating a simple truth.
> 
> Crazy people think saying "all lives matter" is somehow racist.


It would probably qualify as creating a hostile work environment.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> It would probably qualify as creating a hostile work environment.


If you don't believe that "all lives matter", that means you think some lives don't matter.
I'd say that's a pretty hostile position.


----------



## Prairie Guy

No one would have batted an eye at the phrase "all lives matter" a few short years ago, but The Outrage Olympics reach a new level every day.

Some people are so foolish that they even fell for the deliberately false claim that the okay sign was racist. That was done to prove a point and the always predicatable left fell for it like the losers they are. Then once they bought it, people started posting pics of Obama and other Democrats showing the okay sign.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> If you don't believe that "all lives matter", that means you think some lives don't matter.
> I'd say that's a pretty hostile position.


Sorry, was referring to the original pronoun conversation for trans people. The black/all lives matter thing is pure dog-whistle. The vast majority would agree with both statements literally and absent baggage. But the US has tonnes of baggage. 'All lives matter' is for many code for 'shut up, boy'. I don't have a dog in that fight, other than to say that US policing is an utter catastrophe. Even as a white Canadian, you want to stay far away from American cops. They are poorly trained, poorly paid, inappropriately equipped, badly managed and have poor oversight.


----------



## sags

As the summer approaches and the temperature rises, people should be aware of the increased health problems due to climate change.

Increases in Lyme disease, asthma and respiratory diseases are on the increase due to climate change, especially in children.









Get the Facts - OPHA


Science has shown that our health, and our children’s health, is being directly and seriously impacted by the changing climate. The Make It Better campaign was developed by the Ontario Public Health Association (OPHA) in partnership with leading health and …




makeitbetterontario.ca


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Sorry, was referring to the original pronoun conversation for trans people. The black/all lives matter thing is pure dog-whistle. The vast majority would agree with both statements literally and absent baggage. But the US has tonnes of baggage. 'All lives matter' is for many code for 'shut up, boy'. I don't have a dog in that fight, other than to say that US policing is an utter catastrophe. Even as a white Canadian, you want to stay far away from American cops. They are poorly trained, poorly paid, inappropriately equipped, badly managed and have poor oversight.


Yes US cops have a problem.
Canadian cops are well trained, and very well paid.

As for All lives matter, it's a response to the racist and insulting slogan "Black lives matter". 
As if anyone really thinks they don't.
The slogan implies that non Blacks don't think Black lives matter, which is simply not true.
Most murders are intraracial. If Blacks don't want black people to die, they should stop killing them.


As far as pronouns.
1. It might be rude to call someone "he" or "she". This may make them feel uncomfortable.
I, and most people, in personal reactions would typically be polite.

2. However I also understand that people may feel uncomfortable, even extremely so, if someone of the opposite gender was in their genders washroom, or at a rape shelter.
Particularly since there have been cases of people claiming to be trans, then raping women.

I think peoples physical safety is more important than feelings.
The claim "words are violence" is, today, being argued that hurt feelings are a form of violence, and should be treated as such. It's simply an attempt to shut down debates.

Trying to treat legitimate expression and discussion of ideas as criminal hate speech, is wrong.


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> 'All lives matter' is for many code for 'shut up, boy'.


Only to the left who deliberately look for reasons to be offended.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> As for All lives matter, it's a response to the racist and insulting slogan "Black lives matter".
> As if anyone really thinks they don't.
> The slogan implies that non Blacks don't think Black lives matter, which is simply not true.
> Most murders are intraracial. If Blacks don't want black people to die, they should stop killing them.


Whether it is a function of socioeconomic status or race, blacks are much more likely to be victims of high levels of pollution, poor access to public services, police violence, disenfranchisement, unequal treatment by the justice system etc. Canada has a similar problem with its native population.

There was the recent incident of a Karen in Central Park calling the police after a black man (a rather genial bird-watching nerd) asked her to leash her dog as is the rule for the park. She told 911 that she was afraid for her life in a rather pathetic bout of theatricality. She knew what it means to call the police to intimidate a black person: she was threatening him with death by police.

All this to say that people may _say_ they believe black lives, like all lives, matter. But do they _behave_ as if that were true? Distressingly often it seems like they do not. There are not many avowed racists who will cop to it if asked. But there are still plenty of people like the father/son who murdered Ahmaud Arbery for jogging while black who behave as if they are racist. 

That is why this issue is complex. I don't support people on either side who use the black/all lives matter dogwhistle. Reasonable people would say 'black lives, like all lives, matter'. The other statements seem bland but are dogwhistles (same as 'pro choice' vs 'pro life'. All reasonable people are generally in favour of life and generally in favour of choice. This statements are inbued with meaning beyond their literal meaning.


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> Only to the left who deliberately look for reasons to be offended.


Tell that to the people who get buthurt about 'happy holidays' instead of 'merry christmas'. You have absolutely zero perspective.


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> 1. It might be rude to call someone "he" or "she". This may make them feel uncomfortable.
> I, and most people, in personal reactions would typically be polite.
> 
> 2. However I also understand that people may feel uncomfortable, even extremely so, if someone of the opposite gender was in their genders washroom, or at a rape shelter.
> Particularly since there have been cases of people claiming to be trans, then raping women.
> 
> I think peoples physical safety is more important than feelings.
> The claim "words are violence" is, today, being argued that hurt feelings are a form of violence, and should be treated as such. It's simply an attempt to shut down debates.
> 
> Trying to treat legitimate expression and discussion of ideas as criminal hate speech, is wrong.


I have seen much fretting, and not much evidence of this enormous problem of pervs falsely claiming to be trans so they can enter women's washrooms. Other than maybe a bunch of right wing **** disturbers, maybe?

You seem to care about people's safety but implicitly not the safety of trans people, who are much more likely to be the victims of violence and murder. Shouldn't the crime be to be a perv in washrooms and not about having the wrong genitals (or wrong chromosome if post-op). What could go wrong if a trans woman was forced to use a men's washroom? Or what could go wrong if a trans man was forced to use a women's washroom? I have heard from a lesbian woman speak on this issue because she has repeatedly had police called on her for using the women's washroom (resulting in having to prove her gender). Maybe, just maybe this issue is more complex than sorting people by chromosomes into which washroom they should use. 

I agree that words are generally not violence and tend to come down on the freedom of speech side of that debate. But I am not sure I disagree with Canada's laws on hate speech. I think the price of not being able to deny the holocaust or express support for genocide or identify based violence is a worth paying the for the safety of people who are the subjects on that speech. Freedom of speech is never absolute. The US has plenty of limits as well.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> I have seen much fretting, and not much evidence of this enormous problem of pervs falsely claiming to be trans so they can enter women's washrooms. Other than maybe a bunch of right wing **** disturbers, maybe?
> 
> You seem to care about people's safety but implicitly not the safety of trans people, who are much more likely to be the victims of violence and murder. Shouldn't the crime be to be a perv in washrooms and not about having the wrong genitals (or wrong chromosome if post-op). What could go wrong if a trans woman was forced to use a men's washroom? Or what could go wrong if a trans man was forced to use a women's washroom? I have heard from a lesbian woman speak on this issue because she has repeatedly had police called on her for using the women's washroom (resulting in having to prove her gender). Maybe, just maybe this issue is more complex than sorting people by chromosomes into which washroom they should use.
> 
> I agree that words are generally not violence and tend to come down on the freedom of speech side of that debate. But I am not sure I disagree with Canada's laws on hate speech. I think the price of not being able to deny the holocaust or express support for genocide or identify based violence is a worth paying the for the safety of people who are the subjects on that speech. Freedom of speech is never absolute. The US has plenty of limits as well.


How many cases of pervs in womens washrooms do we need to have before it's a problem?
I say 1 is too many.

Please show a stat that trans people are more likely to be victims of violence and murder.
I think you don't have that data


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> How many cases of pervs in womens washrooms do we need to have before it's a problem?
> I say 1 is too many.
> 
> Please show a stat that trans people are more likely to be victims of violence and murder.
> I think you don't have that data


Were you not decrying that kind of pearl clutching when it came to COVID lockdown? 

Stats are not great, due to underreporting (many trans victims are recorded as their birth gender and not flagged as trans, making counting difficult).


https://www.washingtonblade.com/content/files/2019/11/Anti-TransViolenceReport_111519final.pdf


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Were you not decrying that kind of pearl clutching when it came to COVID lockdown?
> 
> Stats are not great, due to underreporting (many trans victims are recorded as their birth gender and not flagged as trans, making counting difficult).
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonblade.com/content/files/2019/11/Anti-TransViolenceReport_111519final.pdf


No, I said we should be careful such that the lockdown causes less harm than not having a lockdown.
Saying we should choose the least harmful option isn't "pearl clutching"

As far as trans violence,
22 out of 0.5% of 328 million = 22 out of 16 million trans = 1.3/million or 0.13/100k
Vs the overall US murder rate of 5/100k people.
Looks like it's safer to be trans than not, and that's your data.
For trans men, or non black trans it's astonishingly low, like at least 2 orders of magnitude lower than the general population.

And from your report, it looks like Black trans in the south are mostly at risk.
I'm just guessing that southern black men don't like trans women. Though I don't have that data.


As far as "misgendering" that's often a political term with no agreed definition, because people don't agree on the definition of "gender".


----------



## andrewf

MrMatt said:


> No, I said we should be careful such that the lockdown causes less harm than not having a lockdown.
> Saying we should choose the least harmful option isn't "pearl clutching"


No harm has been demonstrated, and you are not counting any harm to trans people. Astonishing that people want the government to be inspecting genitals/chromosomes to decide which washroom people should be using.



> As far as trans violence,
> 22 out of 0.5% of 328 million = 22 out of 16 million trans = 1.3/million or 0.13/100k
> Vs the overall US murder rate of 5/100k people.
> Looks like it's safer to be trans than not, and that's your data.
> For trans men, or non black trans it's astonishingly low, like at least 2 orders of magnitude lower than the general population.
> 
> And from your report, it looks like Black trans in the south are mostly at risk.
> I'm just guessing that southern black men don't like trans women. Though I don't have that data.


As I said, the data is not great, and no one is effectively gathering it to be able to say it is lower than baseline.



> As far as "misgendering" that's often a political term with no agreed definition, because people don't agree on the definition of "gender".


I don't really agree. It's like saying 'child molestation' is a political term because pedophiles don't see it as wrong.


----------



## sags

An informative article about the pyschology of climate change denialism.









Climate Change Denial


Facing a reality too big to believe.




www.psychologytoday.com


----------



## MrMatt

> As far as "misgendering" that's often a political term with no agreed definition, because people don't agree on the definition of "gender".





andrewf said:


> I don't really agree. It's like saying 'child molestation' is a political term because pedophiles don't see it as wrong.


Not even close, most people agree on the definition of child.

There are several definitions of "gender".
One definition is whatever you feel like at that instant in time.
One definition of gender is your social cultural presentation.
One definition is biological.


----------



## andrewf

Misgendering is a thing even outside of trans people. Everyone has met someone who they were unsure of gender and many may have addressed a person as sir who is really a madam or vice versa, usually to the embarrassment of both parties. Or telling a parent they have a beautiful baby girl/boy when it is actually the opposite. Mostly it is innocent mistakes (where embarassment is punishment enough), sometimes it is malicious. How do we deal with the malevolent jerks? It is a form of dehumanization, not all that dissimilar to referring to an ethnic group as 'vermin'. Dehumanization is the first step to violence. Like our GOP friend in Texas who said that the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat. Whether or not it is/should be illegal, it is wrong and it is disgusting.


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> Misgendering is a thing even outside of trans people. Everyone has met someone who they were unsure of gender and many may have addressed a person as sir who is really a madam or vice versa, usually to the embarrassment of both parties. Or telling a parent they have a beautiful baby girl/boy when it is actually the opposite. Mostly it is innocent mistakes (where embarassment is punishment enough), sometimes it is malicious. How do we deal with the malevolent jerks? It is a form of dehumanization, not all that dissimilar to referring to an ethnic group as 'vermin'. Dehumanization is the first step to violence. Like our GOP friend in Texas who said that the only good Democrat is a dead Democrat. Whether or not it is/should be illegal, it is wrong and it is disgusting.


I agree dehumanization is bad.

However it isn't dehumanizing to simply disagree with your opinion.


----------



## andrewf

What do you mean by simply disagree? Insisting on calling a trans man 'she/her'? That is not merely a polite disagreement anymore than the term 'Libtard', 'deplorable' etc. It is explicitly hostile. Would it not be dehumanizing for me to start referring to Trump as 'the vermin'?

You can simply disagree that a trans man is exactly the same as a cis man. I happen to believe share that disagreement.


----------



## :) lonewolf

andrewf said:


> What do you mean by simply disagree? Insisting on calling a trans man 'she/her'? That is not merely a polite disagreement anymore than the term 'Libtard', 'deplorable' etc. It is explicitly hostile. Would it not be dehumanizing for me to start referring to Trump as 'the vermin'?
> 
> You can simply disagree that a trans man is exactly the same as a cis man. I happen to believe share that disagreement.


 Sticks & stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me.


----------



## andrewf

Names can lead to gas chambers. I thought you were worried about evil Gates stealing the poor's poop with his toilets of global domination?


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> What do you mean by simply disagree? Insisting on calling a trans man 'she/her'? That is not merely a polite disagreement anymore than the term 'Libtard', 'deplorable' etc. It is explicitly hostile. Would it not be dehumanizing for me to start referring to Trump as 'the vermin'?
> 
> You can simply disagree that a trans man is exactly the same as a cis man. I happen to believe share that disagreement.


If you're female, and I refer to you as she, that should not be a crime.
It might be rude or antagonistic, but it isn't dehumanizing.
He, she, it, they, Xe, Xer, are all arguably "human appropriate" terms.

Calling Trump vermin, while arguably an accurate description in some contexts, is dehumanizing, as vermin, BY DEFINITION is not human.

The point is, that some "Conservatives" are persecuted for their beliefs.

I would also tend to use the socially polite pronouns, I have nothing against trans people, however in a free society, I should have the right to be rude, on purpose or by accident.


----------



## andrewf

You're conflating whether something is dehumanizing and whether it is/ought to be illegal. I don't think it should be illegal, but I don't think it should be protected either. You are free to be an *** and to receive all social punishments due as a result (loss of employment, etc.). Racists are free to think racist thoughts, but if they start using racial slurs at work, they shouldn't be surprised to find themselves summarily fired. 









Dehumanization - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Jimmy

I think the so called 'climate change' has the cause and effect relationship between co2 and warming backwards. Many articles pt to a poor correlation between co2 levels and warming. In the early 20th century the climate warmed while c02 levels were relatively low. Then after 1940 in the post war industrial period, co2 levels were rising but there was a 30 yr cooling period in fact.










The only time c02 and temp rose together was really from 1980 onward. Recently since the 1997/1998 actually there has been on a cooling trend yet co2 levels are now over 400ppm and their highest ever














There is a strong relationship btw the temp rise anomaly though and then c02 production A study: The temperature rise has caused the CO2 Increase, not the other way around










In fact warming oceans release much more c02 than man made sources.


> Raising the temperature of the ocean one degree reduces the solubility of CO2 in the ocean by about 4% (Solubility of Gases in Water) This releases about 1440 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. This release would roughly triple the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.


That could explain the recent rise in co2 after el nino to the now record levels. Yet the temperature anomaly has been declining ever since. So it appears warming is causing the c02 increase and not the other way around as the alarmists and politicians like to claim. This is also supported through history where there would be temperature increases followed by a co2 increase after a 9 month lag.


----------



## andrewf

To say that there has been a cooling trend since 1997 is deliberate misreading of the data. That year was an exceptionally hot year, essentially an outlier on the continuing upward trend. The second chart you posted makes that clear.


----------



## andrewf

If atmospheric CO2 concentration tripled, that would put it into the range that has direct adverse impacts on human health (feeling unwell/fatigued). That should be very concerning!


----------



## andrewf

Jimmy said:


> That could explain the recent rise in co2 after el nino to the now record levels. Yet the temperature anomaly has been declining ever since. So it appears warming is causing the c02 increase and not the other way around as the alarmists and politicians like to claim. This is also supported through history where there would be temperature increases followed by a co2 increase after a 9 month lag.


That just makes it a positive feedback loop. That warming causes CO2 to be released from solution in the ocean does not mean that COs does not cause warming. Positive feedback loops are dangerous and unstable. It is nuts to say that CO2 does not have a warming effect--that can trivially be demonstrated in a lab.


----------



## Jimmy

andrewf said:


> To say that there has been a cooling trend since 1997 is deliberate misreading of the data. That year was an exceptionally hot year, essentially an outlier on the continuing upward trend. The second chart you posted makes that clear.


Nope El nino yr But that was the trend sorry it doesn't' suit your world view




andrewf said:


> That just makes it a positive feedback loop. That warming causes CO2 to be released from solution in the ocean does not mean that COs does not cause warming. Positive feedback loops are dangerous and unstable. It is nuts to say that CO2 does not have a warming effect--that can trivially be demonstrated in a lab.


It is clear warming came first then the c02. You can see too warming and co2 have little correaltion. Most of greenhouse warming in fact is from h2o C02 is a small % of the green house effect


----------



## andrewf

More warming means more water vapour in the atmosphere, also part of the positive feedback loop.

Out of curiosity, why do you think Venus is hot?


----------



## MrMatt

andrewf said:


> If atmospheric CO2 concentration tripled, that would put it into the range that has direct adverse impacts on human health (feeling unwell/fatigued). That should be very concerning!


Yes it is.
I say we invade China and destroy all their Coal powerplants immediately.


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> Out of curiosity, why do you think Venus is hot?


Maybe because it's 42 million miles closer?

Here's an experiment you can do...find something hot then hold your hand closer and see what happens.


----------



## Jimmy

andrewf said:


> More warming means more water vapour in the atmosphere, also part of the positive feedback loop.
> 
> Out of curiosity, why do you think Venus is hot?


The pt is water vapor is a larger part of the atmosphere. So they should be more worried about it then c02. The warming appears to come first though then the c02


----------



## MrMatt

Prairie Guy said:


> Maybe because it's 42 million miles closer?
> 
> Here's an experiment you can do...find something hot then hold your hand closer and see what happens.


Closer, substantially thicker atmosphere, and different composition.


----------



## Eder

At any rate climate modeling has been a bust and climate scientists have caused their own derision.


----------



## Prairie Guy

MrMatt said:


> Closer, substantially thicker atmosphere, and different composition.


Of course. I just simplified it for those who need it dumbed down


----------



## MrMatt

Eder said:


> At any rate climate modeling has been a bust and climate scientists have caused their own derision.


To create a sense of urgency they exaggerated and lied about the claims, to he point that they have no credibility.


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> Of course. I just simplified it for those who need it dumbed down


You are not all that concerned with facts, in other words.


----------



## sags

TORONTO -- A group of medical associations* representing more than 40 million health professionals from around the world* is urging the G20 governments to focus on addressing* public health and climate change* when it comes to economic recovery packages for COVID-19.

* More than 350 medical groups*, including the World Medical Association, the Canadian Federation of Medical Students, the Canadian Medical Association and the Conseil des medecins, dentistes et pharmaciens are asking the governments to prioritize clean air, fresh water and public health when considering stimulus packages for their economies.









Medical groups urge G20 to focus on climate change with COVID-19 aid packages


A group of medical associations representing more than 40 million health professionals from around the world is urging the G20 governments to focus on addressing public health and climate change when it comes to economic recovery packages for COVID-19.




www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> You are not all that concerned with facts, in other words.


So what exactly are the facts then to why Venus is hotter?


----------



## andrewf

Mostly because it has a very thick atmosphere (100x Earth) that is mostly CO2, but also because it receives about double the irradiance as Earth. Notably little water vapour!


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> You are not all that concerned with facts, in other words.


I was factually accurate. Venus is closer to the Sun and that contributes to its higher temperature.

If you have scientific evidence contrary to that please provide it.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> Mostly because it has a very thick atmosphere (100x Earth) that is mostly CO2, but also because it receives about double the irradiance as Earth. Notably little water vapour!


The mostly should be related to the distance to the sun and not the CO2 as you state. Not sure about the point of "Notably little water vapour!" which is pretty much a given at those temperatures, again due to the distance from the sun.


----------



## MrMatt

cainvest said:


> The mostly should be related to the distance to the sun and not the CO2 as you state. Not sure about the point of "Notably little water vapour!" which is pretty much a given at those temperatures, again due to the distance from the sun.


What does temperature have to do with it?
Venus doesn't have much water, therefore there isn't much in the atmosphere. 

If it did have water, it would have boiled and would be mostly water vapor, even at the higher pressure it's still well above boiling.


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> The mostly should be related to the distance to the sun and not the CO2 as you state. Not sure about the point of "Notably little water vapour!" which is pretty much a given at those temperatures, again due to the distance from the sun.


If it was driven by high irradiance, you would expect the night side of Venus to be far colder, as well as the poles. Venus has very long days (116 Earth days). However, the temperature is quite consistently hot day or night, equator or polar regions.

Further evidence: Mercury gets 6.6x solar irradiance as earth, and roughly 3x that of Venus. It has a lower max temperature than Venus during the day, and goes down to -170C at night. Venus is always around 465C, even after a 60 day night. Explain how Mercury is cooler.


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> I was factually accurate. Venus is closer to the Sun and that contributes to its higher temperature.
> 
> If you have scientific evidence contrary to that please provide it.


Doublespeak.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> If it was driven by high irradiance, you would expect the night side of Venus to be far colder, as well as the poles. Venus has very long days (116 Earth days). However, the temperature is quite consistently hot day or night, equator or polar regions.
> 
> Further evidence: Mercury gets 6.6x solar irradiance as earth, and roughly 3x that of Venus. It has a lower max temperature than Venus during the day, and goes down to -170C at night. Venus is always around 465C, even after a 60 day night. Explain how Mercury is cooler.


I'm not sure where you're going with this or your comment about "Notably little water vapour!" Are you trying to make a useless comparison between earth and venus?


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> As the summer approaches and the temperature rises, people should be aware of the increased health problems due to climate change.



Woke up this morning - June 1st - and my furnace is on. 

Damn that global warming, when will it ever arrive - I'm so looking forward to it, but nothing so far.

ltr


----------



## kcowan

like_to_retire said:


> Woke up this morning - June 1st - and my furnace is on.
> 
> Damn that global warming, when will it ever arrive - I'm so looking forward to it, but nothing so far.
> 
> ltr


Just wait a couple of weeks and you will need AC.


----------



## andrewf

cainvest said:


> I'm not sure where you're going with this or your comment about "Notably little water vapour!" Are you trying to make a useless comparison between earth and venus?


Trying to stoke some cognitive dissonance for those who start with conclusion that 'global warming is a hoax' and select rationalization 'atmospheric CO2 is not causitive--it's all about that water vapour!' That view of reality is not consistent with what we know about Venus, Mercury and the Earth. A more direct thing would be to talk about the energy flows of a planet and how that drives temperature, but people who just say that Big Chemistry is lying about basic chemical attributes of CO2 for that sweet sweet grant money in a conspiracy that goes back almost a century. Present them with some more basic facts that they can reason on without having to do the math and maybe it helps sow some doubt in their preconceived notions.


----------



## cainvest

andrewf said:


> Trying to stoke some cognitive dissonance for those who start with conclusion that 'global warming is a hoax' and select rationalization 'atmospheric CO2 is not causitive--it's all about that water vapour!' That view of reality is not consistent with what we know about Venus, Mercury and the Earth. A more direct thing would be to talk about the energy flows of a planet and how that drives temperature, but people who just say that Big Chemistry is lying about basic chemical attributes of CO2 for that sweet sweet grant money in a conspiracy that goes back almost a century. Present them with some more basic facts that they can reason on without having to do the math and maybe it helps sow some doubt in their preconceived notions.


I think we have enough trouble understanding our own planet where we have a fair amount of data available. Discussing CO2 issues for other planets really doesn't tell us anything useful. Both venus and mars have very high CO2 levels (> 95% vs earths 0.04%) yet one is hotter and the other is colder. There is no simple comparison or understanding there, it'll just add more useless data points to the discussion.

What to really help? Find a way to separate science from greed and politics.


----------



## andrewf

Well, there are similar amounts of CO2 in earth and mars respective atmospheres when you look at absolute amount.


----------



## Prairie Guy

Naomi Seibt is threatened with prison for not following the party line on global warming:


----------



## andrewf

What crime is she being charged with? I'm guessing there is not a German offense called "offending the climate orthodoxy". Perhaps knowing what the actual charges are may shed additional light. Perhaps it may turn out to have something to do with foreign cash...


----------



## Spudd

andrewf said:


> What crime is she being charged with? I'm guessing there is not a German offense called "offending the climate orthodoxy". Perhaps knowing what the actual charges are may shed additional light. Perhaps it may turn out to have something to do with foreign cash...


Apparently it was doing sponsored videos but not disclosing it?









Fact check: Climate change skeptic Naomi Seibt was not banned from social media for her views and she is appealing a regulator’s order to remove two videos


This article has been updated to include a response from Naomi Seibt, who is appealing the ruling made by the Landesanstalt für Medien NRW (Nordrhein-Westfalen) that ordered the removal of two of her YouTube videos. The headline and verdict of this article have been updated...




www.reuters.com





“Ms. Seibt was requested to delete two YouTube videos because they violate German law. The basis of our decision is the prohibition of third party influence on the editorial content in audiovisual media according to articles 7 para. 7 sentence 1 in connection with 58 para. 3 sentence 1 of the Interstate Broadcasting Treaty (Rundfunkstaatsvertrag-RStV). 

“Ms. Seibt was heard on the facts of the case. Her statement was not able to invalidate the accusation of illegal thematic placement (in German „Themenplatzierung”). Unlike in America, in Germany it is prohibited by law to provide media content, if a third party has exerted influence on it and if the cooperation is based on a compensation. Unlike in America, in Germany Freedom of speech is not touched by this ban.”

If you translate article 7 paragraph 7 of the treaty they mentioned, it comes out as:
Surreptitious advertising, product and topic placement and corresponding practices are not permitted.
(and then goes into more detail but that's the gist.)


----------



## andrewf

So, much like the Michael Moore video, you still have to obey the law, even if you are a climate denial martyr?


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> So, much like the Michael Moore video, you still have to obey the law, even if you are a climate denial martyr?


The law is being selectively applied to censor a child who disagrees with the agenda. I'm sure if it wasn't that violation they would have found some other technicality.

But it's not all bad...Antifa videos promoting violence are still allowed. 🤣


----------



## MrMatt

Prairie Guy said:


> The law is being selectively applied to censor a child who disagrees with the agenda. I'm sure if it wasn't that violation they would have found some other technicality.
> 
> But it's not all bad...Antifa videos promoting violence are still allowed. 🤣


Of course promoting violence, lies, racial division and climate change denial, all approved.

Promoting debate, the truth, unity, and climate change, they'll block, smear and attack you.


----------



## sags

Where do you draw the line on unfettered free speech ?


----------



## andrewf

Prairie Guy said:


> The law is being selectively applied to censor a child who disagrees with the agenda. I'm sure if it wasn't that violation they would have found some other technicality.
> 
> But it's not all bad...Antifa videos promoting violence are still allowed. 🤣


She's 19. A little patronizing to call her a child.


----------



## Prairie Guy

andrewf said:


> She's 19. A little patronizing to call her a child.


Greta the Great is 17 and the Almighty Left says she's off limits.

So what's the cut-off...18? Or does their stance on the issue matter?


----------



## Eder




----------



## sags

Scientists are now studying the effects of climate change on novel viruses like the coronavirus.

As the northern tundra warms it is releasing methane gas and possible new pathogens.

The COVID virus has heightened the concern about the situation.


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> View attachment 20245



Moving the goal posts, much? I think the focus on localized Midieval Warm Period (in Europe) is highly motivated reasoning. Why focus on just Europe? The two charts could be 100% consistent--the second one could be irrelevant. In fact, Europe could catastrophically cool as a result of general global warming as melting glacial waters weaken the gulf stream. Europe could start looking a lot more like northern Quebec.









Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org







> The warm period became known as the Medieval Warm Period, and the cold period was called the Little Ice Age (LIA). However, that view was questioned by other researchers; the IPCC First Assessment Report of 1990 discussed the "Medieval Warm Period around 1000 AD (which may not have been global) and the Little Ice Age which ended only in the middle to late nineteenth century." It said temperatures in the "late tenth to early thirteenth centuries (about AD 950-1250) appear to have been exceptionally warm in western Europe, Iceland and Greenland".[12] The IPCC Third Assessment Report from 2001 summarized newer research: "*evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries."[13] Global temperature records taken from ice cores, tree rings, and lake deposits, have shown that the Earth may have been slightly cooler globally (by 0.03 °C) than in the early and mid-20th century.[14]**[15]*


----------



## sags

Not to mention that Tim Ball misrepresented his educational background and was deemed by a judge to be too loony to be taken seriously.


----------



## Prairie Guy

Michael Mann fabricated his graph. I don't care what a left wing judge decided about Tim Ball, this is supposed to be about science and the data, isn't it? Michael Mann can't prove his data and that's all that matters.


----------



## Eder

I guess that's my point...celebrity climate guys should be accountable....sound byte science at its finest.
Oh...and BLM...so I'm serious here.


----------



## sags

A historic Saharan dust cloud has moved to the Caribbean and will enter into the US.









The historic Saharan dust plume is darkening skies in the Caribbean and will soon stretch into the US


The current Saharan dust episode is leading to the worst dust storm in the Caribbean in decades.




www.cnn.com





The heat in Grand Canyon is melting the soles off shoes.









It is so hot at the Grand Canyon National Park that your shoes could melt | CNN


The National Park Service is warning visitors to the Grand Canyon that Wednesday's extreme heat could pose an unusual danger: melted shoes. Much of the West is under a heat advisory this week as high temperatures bake the region.




www.cnn.com





Climate change continues unabated, as the world focuses on COVID....which may also be caused by climate change.

The rebuilding of the global economy after COVID must be a green economy.


----------



## Eder

Some fun climate predictions & their outcomes from The Street.









Let's Review 50 Years of Dire Climate Forecasts and What Actually Happened


Here are 21 headlines from various news sources regarding dire climate predictions over the last 50 years. Many of the predictions are outrageously funny.




www.thestreet.com





Once we run out of reasons to lock people down I'm sure we'll have a new list from these tools.


----------



## gibor365

Eder said:


> Some fun climate predictions & their outcomes from The Street.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's Review 50 Years of Dire Climate Forecasts and What Actually Happened
> 
> 
> Here are 21 headlines from various news sources regarding dire climate predictions over the last 50 years. Many of the predictions are outrageously funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thestreet.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once we run out of reasons to lock people down I'm sure we'll have a new list from these tools.


Scam that spread out by politicians!

And this is what a real scientist is talking:
_ "I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate," and, "There is no need to dramatize the anthropogenic impact, because the climate has always been subject to change under Nature's influence, even when humanity did not even exist. "_

Quote of *Yuri Izrael* who was a vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) until September 2008, when the new bureau was elected. He was the "most influential scientific adviser" for Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, according to CNN.

Izrael was former chairman of the Committee for Hydrometeorology. He also served as director of the Institute of Global Climate and Ecology, which is a part of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He was a first vice-president of the World Meteorological Organization and helped develop the World Weather Watch.

In 1992, Izrael won the International Meteorological Organization Prize and the UNEP Sasakawa Environment Prize for, among other accomplishments, contributing to the "success of Working Group I I" of the IPCC.


----------



## sags

Any scientist who believes that pumping decades of carbon into the atmosphere has no consequences.......has their own agenda or is delusional.

Climate change that happened before mankind existed......is of no consequence to us. We need to change if humanity is to live on.


----------



## sags

Instead of returning a piddly amount in carbon taxes to taxpayers every year, I would prefer they use the money to combat the effects of climate change.

I believe the scientists who say we have already passed the tipping point and whatever is going to happen.........is going to happen.

I talked to my brother in law in rural Saskatchewan and he says it doesn't look good for the crops, so hopefully they will get some rain and cooler temperatures.

The experts are also talking about the tinder dry forests and prairie grass. Wild fires are a big concern everywhere now.

They also mentioned that some water reservoirs that are used to generate hydro power are becoming depleted and may not be of use if water levels continue to drop. The vast underground acquifers in the western US are also suffering from the inability to keep up with demand and the levels are falling.

The effects of climate change go well beyond hot temperatures.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> I believe the scientists who say we have already passed the tipping point and whatever is going to happen.........is going to happen.


We've got another 10C to go if past interglacial periods are any guide.

You keep acting like this isn't the expected typical swings we've had for the entire history of the earth.


----------



## like_to_retire

MrMatt said:


> We've got another 10C to go if past interglacial periods are any guide.
> 
> You keep acting like this isn't the expected typical swings we've had for the entire history of the earth.


I wonder what they blamed the heat wave on during the last record in 1937 when it was around the same temperatures it is today. I don't think they had invented the bogus term climate change at that time. No air conditioning either.

ltr


----------



## AltaRed

There is considerable bogus misuse of 'climate change' phraseology in the media. Some of it is intentional misleading due to personal agendas of the individuals, but much of it is naivety and ignorance by those who should not otherwise open their mouths. Nothing is going to change now that misuse is mainstream but there is still value in misuse, if for no other reason than to increase public awareness of what is a critical global issue (and upcoming crisis). 

There is no doubt in my mind extreme weather events are being driven by more 'energy' in the system and there will be consequences but I have concerns that we Canadians will disproportionately respond to what is really a global crisis and disadvantage ourselves economically in a very significant way while making no measurable dent in the global problem. Problem is the key emitters do not have the 'conscience' to do their part, e.g. China, Vietnam et al which are still increasing their use of thermal coal. Being a sacrificial lamb/martyr doesn't sit well with my competitive self.


----------



## Ukrainiandude

AltaRed said:


> Problem is the key emitters do not have the 'conscience' to do their part, e.g. China, Vietnam et al


 You got it all wrong.
Australia has an average *per capita footprint* of 16.8 tonnes, followed by the US at 16.1 tonnes, and *Canada* at 16.1 tonnes. This is more than 3 times higher than the global average, which in 2017 was 4.8 tonnes *per person*.


----------



## MrMatt

Ukrainiandude said:


> You got it all wrong.
> Australia has an average *per capita footprint* of 16.8 tonnes, followed by the US at 16.1 tonnes, and *Canada* at 16.1 tonnes. This is more than 3 times higher than the global average, which in 2017 was 4.8 tonnes *per person*.


I assume you're talking about CO2.
This single minded focus on CO2 is the problem, the smog and other pollutants are a much bigger problem.


----------



## AltaRed

All resource (commodity) producers, particularly those with smaller populations, will have higher per capita emissions. So what? Coal, oil and gas have to come from somewhere to meet demand. Supply is not the carbon issue. Demand is the issue. Decrease demand and supply goes away. Folks really need to understand how economics really work.

If Canada and Australia do not produce carbon intensive products, others will, e.g. Russia, Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Iraq, Iran, Norway, etc. It does not change the global equation of GHG emissions one bit.

Lastly, industrial (mostly exporting) nations will have a higher carbon intensity footprint.

Added: Posts like #24 are typical of those with an agenda.


----------



## AltaRed

This somewhat dated NRCan document puts much of this into perspective. It is readily apparent industrial/exporting nations will have a carbon footprint.


----------



## Ukrainiandude

AltaRed said:


> If Canada and Australia do not produce carbon intensive products


You got it wrong again.
The United States has one of the highest road transportation emissions per capita worldwide. The average American emitted roughly 4,500 kilograms of CO2 from road transport in 2018, which was slightly more than in neighboring Canada 4,120 kilograms. The U.S. emits the largest volume of CO2 emissions from road transportation worldwide, followed by China. However, China's emissions per capita are considerably lower than in the U.S.. 

Low income countries, such as those is South Asia and Africa, have far lower road transportation emissions per capita than in higher income countries. For example, per capita road transportation emissions in Eritrea averaged 63 kg CO2/capita in 2018. This was approximately 70 times less than the per capita emissions in the U.S..


----------



## AltaRed

I think we all know that on a global scale between 60-70% of global GHG emissions are from transportation. That is old news and why there are some strong national expressions among a number of OECD countries of zero sales of ICEs by 2035.

What exactly is your point of using AU, USA and Canada emissions per capita? That is what happens with high GDP/capita countries and will always be the case. I don't think any of us want to live in a low GDP country like Eritrea. Eritreans don't either if they could live better.

The challenge is to reduce intensity in OECD nations, which if you read the NRCan link, is what Canada and a number of European countries are in progress doing. The USA will belatedly make a difference too if Trump nation does not get back in in 2024 to arrest the rate of change.

Maybe we can get back to the subject of this thread eventually?


----------



## Ukrainiandude

This is 2017 article
Think global warming is bad now? It is going to get much worse, even if governments act quickly, researchers predicted Monday.

According to a new report, half the world’s population will swelter through a month of killer-level heat every year by the year 2100 even if all the world’s countries acted aggressively to reverse climate change right now.
The key temperature is 104 degrees. The human body is designed to function at 98.6 degrees and once body temperature goes above 104 degrees, organ damage starts.
We found that by 2100, even under the most aggressive mitigation scenario around 26.9 percent of the world’s land area will be exposed to temperature and humidity conditions exceeding the deadly threshold by more than 20 days per year, exposing around 47.6 percent of the world’s human population to deadly climates,” they wrote.


----------



## MrMatt

Ukrainiandude said:


> This is 2017 article
> Think global warming is bad now? It is going to get much worse, even if governments act quickly, researchers predicted Monday.
> 
> According to a new report, half the world’s population will swelter through a month of killer-level heat every year by the year 2100 even if all the world’s countries acted aggressively to reverse climate change right now.
> https://mobile.twitter.com/_Smithchenko
> The key temperature is 104 degrees. The human body is designed to function at 98.6 degrees and once body temperature goes above 104 degrees, organ damage starts.
> We found that by 2100, even under the most aggressive mitigation scenario around 26.9 percent of the world’s land area will be exposed to temperature and humidity conditions exceeding the deadly threshold by more than 20 days per year, exposing around 47.6 percent of the world’s human population to deadly climates,” they wrote.


According to geological record this was going to happen anyway.
Best we just figure out how to cope with it.

I understand the focus on bad Rich country CO2, but China is still burning coal and filling the air with massive amounts of pollution, not just CO2.

I think the focus on CO2 to the exclusion of everything else is bad for the environment.


----------



## Ukrainiandude

AltaRed said:


> What exactly is your point of using AU, USA and Canada emissions per capita? That is what happens with high GDP/capita countries and will always be the case.


 Now recalculate the emission as if all countries were polluting on the same level as Canada or the USA. The planet would have been long gone. 
Do you really need that huge pickup of yours, do you really need to be driving or you could walk or cycle? This the question everyone should be asking.


----------



## MrMatt

Ukrainiandude said:


> Now recalculate the emission as if all countries were polluting on the same level as Canada or the USA. The planet would have been long gone.
> Do you really need that huge pickup of yours, do you really need to be driving or you could walk or cycle? This the question everyone should be asking.


The thing is we're cutting back, and other countries are polluting more than they ever had.
What we do is going to be insignificant.
We should focus on mitigation and dealing with the problem, that should be our #1 priority.

Cutting back is nice, but really it's not going to change much anyway.


----------



## AltaRed

@Ukrainiandude: Except CO2 is not a true pollutant which may have ultimately sent the 'come across dumb Catherine McKenna packing' away from the Ministry. Inappropriate labeling reduces the credibility of good intentions. CO2 is essential to life and it is only in large quantities that it becomes a GHG heating issue, or in too low quantities, potential ice age material. There are many true pollutants with dire consequences that fallen below the radar due to hyperventilation around GHG.

Regardless, the underdeveloped world wants to be the developed world so their emissions per capita are going to grow regardless of what anyone else says. They do get the opportunity to be less impactful due to recent technologies (just like they went straight to cell phones instead of going through the land line phase) but make no mistake, their carbon footprint will increase by at least an order of magnitude, perhaps 5-10 times as much for some countries. The best that will happen is for OECD countries to reduce their per capita emissions and that is what has been in progress for some years, and is only accelerating.

No point 'waving one's arms at a frenetic rate'. GHG levels will continue to increase. Get used to mitigation and adaptation.

P.S. We all know body temps of 104 can become fatal, e.g. the onset of heat stroke. Continued exposure to those ambient temperatures is not a a good idea if one's body cannot cool itself efficiently at those temps. It was 45.7 here yesterday and most of the time we were either indoors or in the swimming pool. It is also why it is a good idea not to have hot tub water temps above 102. Nothing new there.


----------



## AltaRed

Ukrainiandude said:


> Now recalculate the emission as if all countries were polluting on the same level as Canada or the USA. The planet would have been long gone.
> Do you really need that huge pickup of yours, do you really need to be driving or you could walk or cycle? This the question everyone should be asking.


None of that will occur. Underdeveloped countries will increase their carbon intensities by some order of magnitude (2-5-10 times?) while I expect OECD countries will halve their intensity over the next 20 years.

I don't think you need to try and lecture what you think everyone should be doing to reduce their footprint. While I agree very few need a big pickup (commercial reasons aside) and I would ban them for personal use myself, most of us outside dense urban areas will continue to drive a vehicle out of necessity. They may well be mostly EVs by 2035 but they won't all be, no matter the price of carbon.


----------



## MrMatt

AltaRed said:


> None of that will occur. Underdeveloped countries will increase their carbon intensities by some order of magnitude (2-5-10 times?) while I expect OECD countries will halve their intensity over the next 20 years.
> 
> I don't think you need to try and lecture what you think everyone should be doing to reduce their footprint. While I agree very few need a big pickup (commercial reasons aside) and I would ban them for personal use myself, most of us outside dense urban areas will continue to drive a vehicle out of necessity. They may well be mostly EVs by 2035 but they won't all be, no matter the price of carbon.


Once the range problem gets solved, and for most private vehicles it is, electric will become the majority.
Really electric is "better" in a lot of ways, I think that they'll win out because soon they will be better for most use cases.

I think a lot of the electric vehicle push is that they're sexy and cool vote getters, people love these highly paid and big factories.


----------



## sags

The Senate passed legislation committing Canada to zero net emissions by 2050.

It is part of the Liberal plan for a more sustainable future.

Of course, the Conservatives voted against the bill and also the budget which funds the research and development of the alternative solutions.


----------



## AltaRed

I'd like to see a lot more EVs today but Ottawa (and a host of other countries) need to put money to work where it counts, e.g. subsidizing civil service fleets change outs, and incentivizing conversion of school buses, garbage trucks, transit buses and commercial delivery vehicles rather than granting Loblaws big bucks to change out their freezers. There is no better advertising that seeing 'zero emission' on the side of such vehicles.


----------



## andrewf

Maybe all this climate discussion can get moved to a/the climate change thread?


----------



## sags

GM in Canada is producing fleets of new electric delivery vehicles for Fed Ex. Ottawa supplied some funding for the research.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> GM in Canada is producing fleets of new electric delivery vehicles for Fed Ex. Ottawa supplied some funding for the research.


Ford is also producing these vehicles.

Why are my tax dollars funding this?
There is a business need, they'll be making profit on these vehicles, why do they have to take my money to fund this?

I say this as someone who spent half their career working in Automotive, and holds stock in these companies.
Funding private company research is a misappropriation of taxpayer dollars.


----------



## bgc_fan

Well, maybe we can blame COVID and the reduced pollution.








Drop in pollution may bring hotter weather and heavier monsoons


Scientists say fewer particles and polluting gases means more sunlight can reach Earth’s surface




www.theguardian.com


----------



## MrMatt

bgc_fan said:


> Well, maybe we can blame COVID and the reduced pollution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Drop in pollution may bring hotter weather and heavier monsoons
> 
> 
> Scientists say fewer particles and polluting gases means more sunlight can reach Earth’s surface
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com


A good decade ago a professor at Laurier said that to achieve the CO2 reductions we simply need to kill off a substantial portion of our economy.
COVID is a great test case, we shut down the economy and emissions dropped.


----------



## bgc_fan

MrMatt said:


> A good decade ago a professor at Laurier said that to achieve the CO2 reductions we simply need to kill off a substantial portion of our economy.
> COVID is a great test case, we shut down the economy and emissions dropped.


It wasn't CO2 reductions. It was the reduction of particulates from pollution which would reflect sunlight.


----------



## damian13ster

Misappropriation of taxpayer dollars is the job description of government.

I constantly have a feeling we are looking at the problem completely backwards.
Like someone mentioned before, we are tackling supply rather than demand side.
Not building pipelines is idiotic. Not increasing production in Canada and USA is idiotic.
Ultimately, if consumer needs a product, the product will be supplied.
Unfortunately now it will be supplied by rail. It will be supplied by tankers. Instead of Canadian oil it now will be blood oil from Africa, and oil from Middle East. 
Basically developed countries are shooting themselves in the foot to virtue signal. They are actively working to worsen the carbon intensity of supply chain.
The solution is to look at demand, and the best way to do it is development of technology. 
Unfortunately our tax codes are created to discourage research, and to discourage investment. The way depreciation is accounted for in taxes is criminal. Simples, cheapest way to incentivize companies to invest in R&D is to decrease regulation, and provide flexibility in using depreciation.
The Canadian government in the meantime is doing exactly opposite.
It is no wonder that real estate commissions are higher than entire R&D spending in Canada.


----------



## MrMatt

bgc_fan said:


> It wasn't CO2 reductions. It was the reduction of particulates from pollution which would reflect sunlight.


I think we're talking about 2 different things.
I'm specifically talking about a specific controversy regarding CO2 emissions correlation to economic activity.
Then with COVID when we stopped large amounts of economic activity, CO2 emissions dropped.


----------



## bgc_fan

MrMatt said:


> I think we're talking about 2 different things.
> I'm specifically talking about a specific controversy regarding CO2 emissions correlation to economic activity.
> Then with COVID when we stopped large amounts of economic activity, CO2 emissions dropped.


We are. The article refers to particulate pollution only, nothing about CO2. The particulate matter usually reflects some of the sunlight from reaching Earth's surface, so keeps it cooler than expected. Without the particulate matter, we may end up with more sunlight and hotter surface. This is NOT related to climate change. Rather it's a temporary situation and once the economies pick up, we'll be back to normal.

CO2 is a different matter and it'll take years of reduced emissions to make a dent in the greenhouse gases.

@moderator2 Got it that you think this should be in the global warming, but that's not why I brought up the article. It's more of a temporary situation not really related.


----------



## gibor365

james4beach said:


> After the last few hot days, today we got cloud, and it's very cool out suddenly. It feels heavenly.


Yeahhhhhhhh! "Global warming is gone"!!!! Thanks to "climate Barbie" and Justin LOL


----------



## :) lonewolf

Jets are spraying us with chemtrails while we are pay carbon tax


----------



## sags

What caused the extreme heat ?

_These extreme weather events will be back stronger and more often._



https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1916388419943


----------



## Beaver101

^ Ie. the "future".


----------



## MrMatt

bgc_fan said:


> We are. The article refers to particulate pollution only, nothing about CO2. The particulate matter usually reflects some of the sunlight from reaching Earth's surface, so keeps it cooler than expected. Without the particulate matter, we may end up with more sunlight and hotter surface. This is NOT related to climate change. Rather it's a temporary situation and once the economies pick up, we'll be back to normal.
> 
> CO2 is a different matter and it'll take years of reduced emissions to make a dent in the greenhouse gases.
> 
> @moderator2 Got it that you think this should be in the global warming, but that's not why I brought up the article. It's more of a temporary situation not really related.


You're missing my point. CO2 emissions dropped because we stopped a lot of the economy. 
If we keep the economy off, CO2 emissions will remain low. 

I understand the particulate pollution to aid in global cooling, we know this from volcanic eruptions, that's also why some people are suggesting seeding the atmosphere with particulate pollution to cool the earth.
I don't think more pollution is necessarily the answer.


----------



## sags

The canary in the coal mine is laying on it's back with it's feet up in the air, but some people say it is "just resting".


----------



## Mukhang pera

sags said:


> The canary in the coal mine is laying on it's back with it's feet up in the air, but some people say it is "just resting".


Pining for the fjords.


----------



## damian13ster

So additional taxes didn't save us?! Shocking


----------



## sags

Taxes won't stop climate change.

They would provide funds to re-locate people in harm's way, strengthen infrastructure we depend on, and mitigate damage before or after it occurs.


----------



## damian13ster

They aren't doing absolutely anything to help. all improvements come from private sector, vast majority from abroad, from countries where investment is actually encouraged.

All they are doing so far is increasing administrative costs by 18bln. We are just giving them more money to waste and they are doing incredible job wasting it.
Carbon tax, same as inflation tax hurts the lower and middle class. They are literally using it to give more money to rich friends. Granted, I don't know if it is on purpose or through sheer stupidity, but it doesn't matter. What counts is the outcome
I don't understand the fascination of governments with the idea of taking money from the poor to give it to the rich.
The wealth transfer from the poor to the rich over last couple of years have been going on at ridiculous pace. Fastest in history in fact, and it is driven by the government.


----------



## sags

Private industry created the problem and have no inherent financial interest in providing a solution.

If government seizes tax dollars and doesn't spend them to address the problems, then we need to change the government.

Thus far, the accusations against the current government are based on giving taxpayers too much support.

That is odd, considering that support for individuals and businesses was the intention of the spending.


----------



## damian13ster

Oh no. The accusations against this government are

higher taxes for low income people
doubling administrative costs
highest deficit among developed countries, worst unemployment, 2nd worst GDP drop (shows money was wasted)
corruption
cover up for sexual assaults
stopping government in middle of the pandemic to stop investigation into corruption
request to introduce dictatorship for 2 years
breaking human rights
racism
worse record on climate change than Donald freaking Trump
(Trudeau's 1st term: 0.13% increase in greenhouse gas emissions)
(Trump's 1st term: 2.4% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions).


Those are just quick examples. I am sure others can come up with more
Trudeau is corrupt, has highest deficit in civilized world, worst unemployment, and climate record worse than Donald Trump. Those are all facts.
I understand it might be hard for you to put away the pompons and actually look at facts, but they are pretty damning. The current government is absolute failure by all known metrics.

Private industry has monetary incentive to decrease emissions. Investors provide them, customers provide them. Pure supply-demand equation provides them.
If that is not the case then Trudeau should be fired on the spot for having his government perform worse than Donald Trump on climate.


----------



## sags

PM Trudeau will be remembered as a great leader and PM. Another election win will move him up the list of long standing PMs.

The Conservatives threw Larry, Curly and Moe at Trudeau, and he already dispatched two of them to the hinterland and will add another this summer.

The Conservative Party doesn't even believe climate change is real and is still up for discussion, but that debate was closed a long time ago.


----------



## :) lonewolf

a argument could be made that we should increase CO2 to help crops grow


sags said:


> PM Trudeau will be remembered as a great leader and PM. Another election win will move him up the list of long standing PMs.
> 
> The Conservatives threw Larry, Curly and Moe at Trudeau, and he already dispatched two of them to the hinterland and will add another this summer.
> 
> The Conservative Party doesn't even believe climate change is real and is still up for discussion, but that debate was closed a long time ago.


 Trudeau will be charged with crimes against humanity  trump could have had 100% of the votes & the corruption would still give the vote to Biden. Do you really think Canada is any different ?


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> PM Trudeau will be remembered as a great leader and PM. Another election win will move him up the list of long standing PMs.


and the most racist PM in recent history.

I don't know how you can call a white supremacist a "great leader".


----------



## damian13ster

He can do that easily.
Still can't let go of the pompons.
Just look at his response. There was zero actual arguments. 
There was zero facts.
He can't refute the information given, because the information is accurate and correct.
Canadian government had worst economic response to the pandemic among civilized world
Trudeau has worse record on climate change than Trump does.
There are no facts that show Trudeau is anything other than inept, so he just has to stick to empty words.

Canada under Trudeau: 0.1% rise in greenhouse gases emission
USA under Trump: 2.5% reduction in greenhouse gases emission


----------



## KaeJS

sags said:


> PM Trudeau will be remembered as a great leader and PM. Another election win will move him up the list of long standing PMs.
> 
> The Conservatives threw Larry, Curly and Moe at Trudeau, and he already dispatched two of them to the hinterland and will add another this summer.
> 
> The Conservative Party doesn't even believe climate change is real and is still up for discussion, but that debate was closed a long time ago.


Trudeau is a cuck.
And he has f(u)cked up this country.
I am embarrassed to be Canadian.

The whole world laughs at us. America thinks we are a bunch of pussies (solid facts). Britain/UK laughs that we just follow in their footsteps and will soon have CCTV everywhere. The eastern countries like India just use us and take advantage of how "nice" we are. And the other countries? They just watch and laugh at how horribly bad and B-rated this sh!tshow is =)

Trudeau may go down as a great PM, but not because he actually was. But because Canadians are cucked and brainwashed into believing he actually is.

How he even won a second term, I will never understand.

I assume Canada is liberal from this point forward. I can't ever see the conservatives winning again. We are bringing in more and more liberals and the conservatives are leaving. If only I could hitch a ride on one of those trains to get out of here...

Please, someone tell me exactly what makes Justin such a great PM?

And as it relates to the thread.... Lol.
I couldn't give 2 sh!ts about CO2, pollution or greenhouse gasses. China and other countries pollute more than we do and we have lots of trees. And they want me to pay for it? They want corps to pay for it who in turn reduce wages and cut costs or produce inferior product to make up for the expense? Lol, give me a break.

That's a future generation problem. Let them worry about it. After all, isn't that what the boomer politicians are doing about real estate?


----------



## Eder

I'd reply but there's a statue pulling down ceremony scheduled for tonite followed by a church we want to light up.I don't want to miss it or I'd be terrified of being cancelled.
Good luck with common sense though!


----------



## Beaver101

^^


> *... *
> And as it relates to the thread.... Lol.
> *I couldn't give 2 sh!ts about CO2, pollution or greenhouse gasses.* China and other countries pollute more than we do and we have lots of trees. *And they want me to pay for it? They want corps to pay for it who in turn reduce wages and cut costs or produce inferior product to make up for the expense? Lol, give me a break.
> 
> That's a future generation problem.* Let them worry about it.* After all, isn't that what the boomer politicians are doing about real estate?*


 ... sounds like someone ain't gonna to have kids or couldn't care less to have one.


----------



## KaeJS

Beaver101 said:


> ^^ ... sounds like someone ain't gonna to have kids or couldn't care less to have one.


Even if that were true,

Does that somehow lower my value as a person?

What exactly are you trying to say here? =)


----------



## Beaver101

^ That you may be insulting alot of "boomer" parents here??? Then of course, you don't give a crxp.


----------



## KaeJS

Do you think the boomers cared much about the climate or the future generation?

I don't think so.

In fact, boomers usually put their kids to work and those kids were on their own at 18. Not the case anymore...


----------



## Beaver101

^ And that's why there is no humanity for the future with this kind (yours) of thinking.


----------



## KaeJS

Interesting that you think my way of thinking is the reason for no future of humanity.

I wonder what would have made me this way? 

Nurture vs. Nature, my friend.
I'm a product of my environment.
I am the way I am because of what I experienced, felt, learned, was taught and shown.

Look around you.
Only a fool thinks there is a future for humanity.

You've been to zerohedge or watched Fight Club before, no? I'm sure you know that on a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero.


----------



## MrMatt

KaeJS said:


> Look around you.
> Only a fool thinks there is a future for humanity.


The widespread support of communism by the worlds entitled rich is proof enough for me.

They want to repeat the mistakes of the past, even while watching those mistakes play out in real time around the globe.


----------



## bgc_fan

It was pretty much predicted with increased heat would start melting ice caps and permafrost. Looks like they have found some ancient viruses in the Tibetan glaciers. 28 new viruses... perhaps we will see another epidemic sooner rather than later. But then they are plant based and not animal, maybe not an issue, unless they start to combine with other viruses. Viruses over 15,000 years old found in melting Tibetan glacier


----------



## Eder

I don't think theres any glaciers left.


----------



## sags

bgc_fan said:


> It was pretty much predicted with increased heat would start melting ice caps and permafrost. Looks like they have found some ancient viruses in the Tibetan glaciers. 28 new viruses... perhaps we will see another epidemic sooner rather than later. But then they are plant based and not animal, maybe not an issue, unless they start to combine with other viruses. Viruses over 15,000 years old found in melting Tibetan glacier


I heard one of the scientists on the news. Some of those viruses could still be activated after 15,000 years.

As I posted before on climate change threads, as the tundra thaws we have no idea what is lurking there waiting to be released.

It was also estimated that if there was a sudden release of the stored methane in the tundra.........a fireball would circle the earth.

Great.........and it looks like the evidence is clear with everything that is going on around the world.

We are in the soup now and can only fix what nature's fury destroys. Problem is we are already falling behind in that category.


----------



## bgc_fan

sags said:


> I heard one of the scientists on the news. Some of those viruses could still be activated after 15,000 years.
> 
> As I posted before on climate change threads, as the tundra thaws we have no idea what is lurking there waiting to be released.
> 
> It was also estimated that if there was a sudden release of the stored methane in the tundra.........a fireball would circle the earth.
> 
> Great.........and it looks like the evidence is clear with everything that is going on around the world.
> 
> We are in the soup now and can only fix what nature's fury destroys. Problem is we are already falling behind in that category.


Could be activated... The danger would be to see them combine with other viruses and jump to become a human virus. But something to worry about for another day.


----------



## sags

Fire tornados....exploding clouds.....yikes !........heard a reference to it on CNN radio today.

There doesn't appear to be any end in sight for the forest fires raging all over North America.

The firefighters are saying the fires are outpacing them regardless of what they do. The fires are moving faster than they can run.

Now the "burnt" areas are likely to cause flooding in the torrential rainfalls predicted to be coming. Massive flooding all over the world from Europe to China.

Droughts all over the world. Fish and sea animals being "cooked" in the water.

If creating climate change isn't enough we are also hell bent on destroying the environment.

Researchers are finding microscopic traces of plastics mixed into the sand and soil all over Vancouver Island.

The beads are being found in the flesh of fish and whales. Are we then ingesting it when we eat the fish ?

Ontario is searching for a suitable place to store all the radioactive rods from the nuclear plants.

We send our "recycled" garbage and electronics to other countries for storage.......out of sight....out of mind.

Why are we so self destructive ?


----------



## sags

I got a call on the phone this morning.........Jehovah Witness. I guess they get their door to door canvassing quota by phone these days.

So they start with the covid, add in climate change, mix in "everything that is wrong with the world today", and then start into the "end of the world" stuff.

Sometimes I think........maybe they are on to something there.


----------



## Beaver101

Provincial state of emergency possible in B.C. after historic flooding and mudslides

Thoughts and prayers for our western fellowmen/women out there in B.C. That weather change (rainfall, flooding, mud/land-slides altogether) is really bad.


----------



## like_to_retire

Yes, they say this was the "worst weather storm in a century". I wonder what they blamed it on back then.

ltr


----------



## Beaver101

^ A weather change since they didn't have the word(s)-of-the-day of climate change?


----------



## sags

Doubtful it will be a century until the next one though.

Maybe a year or five.......and then there are the summer wildfires. I doubt they were a one year problem.

Climate change is just "bad weather"......more often and more severe.

Property insurance is likely going to cost a lot more, if it is offered at all.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Property insurance is likely going to cost a lot more, if it is offered at all.


For sure, and the insurance companies love this climate change nonsense, as it allows them to charge extra for something that won't cost them in the future. Follow the money.

ltr


----------



## HappilyRetired

like_to_retire said:


> Yes, they say this was the "worst weather storm in a century". I wonder what they blamed it on back then.
> 
> ltr


Saying "the worst storm in a century" suggests that weather was worse 100 years ago than it is now. Why is better weather a bad thing?


----------



## Eder

like_to_retire said:


> Yes, they say this was the "worst weather storm in a century". I wonder what they blamed it on back then.
> 
> ltr


They only have records on rainfall going back to 2008 so storm of a century is pure BS propaganda for the lower mainland.. I was driving thru Hope just before the highway closed...had some big puddles...I lived out there back in the 70's...highway under water was not unusual....or adjacent houses . Of course today we can even blame earthquakes on CO2 emissions.


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> They only have records on rainfall going back to 2008 so storm of a century is pure BS propaganda for the lower mainland.. I was driving thru Hope just before the highway closed...had some big puddles...I lived out there back in the 70's...highway under water was not unusual....or adjacent houses . Of course today we can even blame earthquakes on CO2 emissions.


They weren't measuring rainfall before 2008? That sounds wrong...


----------



## Eder

I can't find the reference article but its not hard to find older daily precipitation records....


----------



## damian13ster

“Canada was once a leader in the fight against climate change,” DeMarco said. “However, after a series of missed opportunities, it has become the *worst performer of all G7 nations since the landmark Paris Agreement on climate change was adopted in 2015*. We can’t continue to go from failure to failure; we need action and results, not just more targets and plans.”

Empty words and incompetence don't have any positive results?......Shocking........


----------



## sags

Scientists say they discovered the Arctic has been melting long before instruments were recording it.

The current climate change model overestimated the time we had left to mitigate climate change.

So here we are.....and it looks like climate change is upon us, with increasingly violent weather and repercussions.

California is on a wildfire alert, while BC is being flooded. All around the world the effects of climate change is becoming more apparent.

As I posted before.......it is too late now. We have to deal with the cost of the damage. Millions of people will have to move.

It doesn't look like Canada is going to be a tropical paradise because of climate change, except perhaps for monsoon level rainfall.


----------



## damian13ster

Every leader cries and screams around global warming. There is only one though that does something about it:


----------



## Eder

Well our ballerina pitched in for a bag and made a stand against the climate


----------



## Eder

If the team or their competitors find other such galaxies, it could pose a challenge for scientists’ view of dark matter, the dominant perspective in the field for at least 20 years. 
At least these scientists understand the science is never settled...









Astronomers Discover a Strange Galaxy Without Dark Matter


New, high-resolution observations of a faint, fluffy galaxy suggest that dark matter’s not as ubiquitous as scientists thought.




www.wired.com


----------



## Eder

dupe


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> View attachment 22479
> 
> Well our ballerina pitched in for a bag and made a stand against the climate


I kind of wonder about the fixation on Trudeau's masculinity when he could kick our tubby former PM's ***.

Or is this just casual homophobia?


----------



## andrewf

Eder said:


> If the team or their competitors find other such galaxies, it could pose a challenge for scientists’ view of dark matter, the dominant perspective in the field for at least 20 years.
> At least these scientists understand the science is never settled...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astronomers Discover a Strange Galaxy Without Dark Matter
> 
> 
> New, high-resolution observations of a faint, fluffy galaxy suggest that dark matter’s not as ubiquitous as scientists thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.wired.com


Dark matter was always just a question mark. It is what astronomers call the unexplained mass of galaxies.


----------



## damian13ster

https://ca.style.yahoo.com/lufthansa-fly-18-000-near-210958380.html


----------



## HappilyRetired

Climate expert admits that the models are wrong and they don't have enough information to accurately make predictions. But in spite of that they know for sure that it's getting worse and the only solution is to tax the weather.

Anyone who still believes the climate alarmism is a fool. 

"It's our job to keep helping modelers refine their models," Ault said. "It's not that the models are wrong, but they always need more new information as events on the ground change, and what we saw was something completely unexpected."

Solid aerosols found in Arctic atmosphere could impact cloud formation and climate (phys.org)


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> Scientists say they discovered the Arctic has been melting long before instruments were recording it.


Yes, because we're still leaving the last ice age.

Did you know that during the last ice age, there were glaciers where you (sags) are living right now?



> So here we are.....and it looks like climate change is upon us, with increasingly violent weather and repercussions.


It's always been upon us, change is the natural state.



> It doesn't look like Canada is going to be a tropical paradise because of climate change, except perhaps for monsoon level rainfall.


Why not? It was in the past, and since the climate of earth goes in cycles it is likely to be tropical again.


https://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/features/100-million-years-ago-alberta-was-a-giant-sea-surrounded-by-tropical-forest



Perhaps climate change deniers such as yourself should get educated on climate.


----------



## like_to_retire

HappilyRetired said:


> ...the only solution is to tax the weather.


But wait, it gets even better. Now they will tax me, and then return my money by sending 25% of it back to me every quarter. I understand these rebates get everyone quite excited. 

I'm thinking we need to test this by having CMF member "HappilyRetired" send me $100 and then every quarter I'll send him back $25. At the end of it we'll see if the weather is any better, and (this is the important part) that "HappilyRetired" will direct his vote to the Liberals who have renamed CO2 gas to a carbon pollution.

ltr


----------



## HappilyRetired

like_to_retire said:


> But wait, it gets even better. Now they will tax me, and then return my money by sending 25% of it back to me every quarter. I understand these rebates get everyone quite excited.
> 
> I'm thinking we need to test this by having CMF member "HappilyRetired" send me $100 and then every quarter I'll send him back $25. At the end of it we'll see if the weather is any better, and (this is the important part) that "HappilyRetired" will direct his vote to the Liberals who have renamed CO2 gas to a carbon pollution.
> 
> ltr


Don't tax me, tax the believers. Then once they prove that they can change the weather, I'll be all in.

It's a win/win. The believers can feel good about their contribution and if it works then the planet is saved. If it has no effect on the weather then the only people that would lose money were the ones that went along with the scam.


----------



## sags

MrMatt said:


> Yes, because we're still leaving the last ice age.
> 
> Did you know that during the last ice age, there were glaciers where you (sags) are living right now?
> 
> 
> It's always been upon us, change is the natural state.
> 
> 
> Why not? It was in the past, and since the climate of earth goes in cycles it is likely to be tropical again.
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/features/100-million-years-ago-alberta-was-a-giant-sea-surrounded-by-tropical-forest
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps climate change deniers such as yourself should get educated on climate.


If scientists lie about climate change today, they probably also lied about past ice ages and all that other stuff.

How would they know what happened millions of years ago ? Science.........pffft.


----------



## MrMatt

sags said:


> If scientists lie about climate change today, they probably also lied about past ice ages and all that other stuff.
> 
> How would they know what happened millions of years ago ? Science.........pffft.


I think that's part of the problem, climate deniers, such as yourself, are ignoring the science. 
It's really a political movement to further other objectives.


----------

