Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[Haletown]

and I laugh when the leftoids & enviro jihadis use a failed politician and a fruit fly scientist  as their heroes.

What part of his speech did you disagree with and why ?  Skip any cheap personality attacks, lets just discuss the facts

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

To answer one of the questions, much of this thread is dedicated to bashing Al "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manbearpig">Manbearpig</a>" Gore as the comments were taken from another thread, "Al Gore vs. Arithmetic," which referred to some questionable calculations he was making WRT to CO2 emissions or something: the fact that he has tried to reinvent himself as the poster-boy for the Global Warming crusade gave us all the more reason to pile on his hypocritical ass.

Michael Crichton's strongest argument is that the idea of "consensus" (real or imagined) does not equal fact.  IIRC in his book "State of Fear" he compares the scientific consensus on global warming with the (one-time) scientific consensus on eugenics.  The same argument could probably be made WRT opinions on the existence of "the ether" ... why should we stunt development (which for us means a lower standard of living, but in other countries is a death sentence) for a "consensus" that is unproven, AND has a pretty vocal opposition?!?  Much the same happened with DDT and millions have died because of (the ban on) it.

This was on the front page of the National Post last week:

So how did An Inconvenient Truth become required classroom viewing?
Even climate change experts say many of the claims in Al Gore's film are wrong.
Kevin Libin, National Post
Published: Saturday, May 19, 2007

First it was his world history class. Then he saw it in his economics class. And his world issues class. And his environment class. In total, 18-year-old McKenzie, a Northern Ontario high schooler, says he has had the film An Inconvenient Truth shown to him by four different teachers this year.

"I really don't understand why they keep showing it," says McKenzie (his parents asked that his last name not be used). "I've spoken to the principal about it, and he said that teachers are instructed to present it as a debate. But every time we've seen it, well, one teacher said this is basically a two-sided debate, but this movie really gives you the best idea of what's going on."

McKenzie says he has educated himself enough about both sides of the climate- change controversy to know that the Al Gore movie is too one-sided to be taught as fact. Even scientists who back Mr. Gore's message admit they're uncomfortable with liberties the politician takes with "science" in the film. But, McKenzie says most of his classmates are credulous. His teachers are not much more discerning. "They don't know there's another side to the argument," he says. McKenzie's mother was outraged to find out that Mr. Gore's film was being presented as fact in her son's classroom. "This is just being poured into kids' brains instead of letting them know there's a debate going on," she says. "An educational system falls down when they start taking one side."

But Mr. Gore's filmed climate-change lecture is showing up in classrooms across Canada, frequently unaccompanied by critical analysis or a discussion of competing theories. "One of the teachers at my kid's school showed it and he even said ahead of time, 'There is some propaganda in this,' " says Tim Patterson, a Carleton University earth sciences professor. "I said to him, 'You even knew this was a propaganda film, and you still showed it in your classroom?' " The weirdest part: It was the gym teacher.

If you have children in junior or high school, there is a good chance they have been shown An Inconvenient Truth in school--or they will be soon.

Last month, Vancouver's Tides Canada Foundation and a local eco-friendly courier firm teamed up to buy DVD copies for every public high school in B.C. Climate Learning, a non-profit Vancouver outfit, is a third of the way to raising the $68,000 it needs to buy copies of the film for every high school in the country, after just weeks of campaigning.

"I think it's important for high schools to have this film," says Will Cole-Hamilton, the group's director.

"Our objective is to get them into schools by September."

Two weeks ago, 900 students from grade 7 to 12 in Ontario's Halton Region were treated to a screening -- sponsored by ethanol producer SunOpta Inc. -- with a second showing scheduled at a Georgetown high school this Wednesday.

SunOpta has donated 60 copies of the DVD and the book version of An Inconvenient Truth to public and Catholic schools as a resource.

After showing the film to students, a London, Ont., board launched a contest for kids to win tickets to hear Mr. Gore address a fundraiser this month, by making their own environmental videos.

Earthcare Canada, an energy consultant sponsored group, is working with the Ottawa-Carlton school board and one in Belleville, Ont., to raise awareness about energy conservation. The Gore movie is one of the materials it suggests as a teaching resource.

"We would definitely recommend it and make them aware that it is there, and then how to use it," says Earthcare's executive director Rose-Marie Batley.

"I get e-mail from parents all across the country about this, in Calgary, B.C., Ontario," says Albert Jacobs, the founder of Friends of Science, a Calgary-based group that promotes alternative theories to climate change.

"They say my kid has been exposed to this stuff which is totally one-sided and totally wrong and we want them to see the other side."

Hand it to Paramount, the studio behind An Inconvenient Truth, for tapping the classroom market in a way skeptics cannot.

In addition to a companion book written for school-aged children, producers have created a lesson plan, "AIT in the Classroom," for teachers to download.

In England, the government has made the movie part of the public curriculum.

In Spain, the government is buying copies of the movie for all of its schools. In Australia, private donors are buying copies for schools.

Politicians and educators may accept on face value filmed warnings of a world tumbling toward catastrophe if we don't dramatically cut back on our greenhouse gas emissions.

But some of Mr. Gore's allies have acknowledged glaring inaccuracies in the film.

Though Mr. Gore was right for "getting the message out," University of Colorado climatologist Kevin Vranes told The New York Times last month that he worried about the film "overselling our certainty about knowing the future."

James E. Hansen, a NASA scientist and one of Mr. Gore's advisors, agreed the movie has "imperfections" and "technical flaws."

About An Inconvenient Truth's connection of rising hurricane activity to global warming -- something refuted by storm experts -- Mr. Hansen said, "We need to be more careful in describing the hurricane story than he is."

Among other things, since the film's release last year, scientists have rejected Mr. Gore's claims that 2005 was the warmest year on record (temperatures have been receding since 1998), that polar bears are heading for extinction (their numbers are growing), that Antarctica is warming (interior temperature readings show cooling) and that sea levels will "rise 18 to 20 feet," swamping coastal cities (the International Panel on Climate Change predicts a few inches).

Last year, when producer Laurie David offered to donate 50,000 DVDs to the National Science Teachers Association, the group refused, citing a policy "prohibiting product endorsement."

In the U.K., one parent is taking the Department for Education and Skills to court to stop it from using the film in science, geography and citizenship classes.

A Washington-state school board now requires that any teacher showing the film must ensure a "credible, legitimate opposing view will be presented" as well.

In B.C., a Surrey school trustee, Heather Stilwell, has been fighting for a policy to ensure teachers in the Vancouver suburb also present a balancing viewpoint.

Meanwhile, Vancouver-based businessman Michael Chernoff, says his charitable foundation will provide to high schools DVD copies of the new British documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle, featuring interviews with scientists who dissent from Mr. Gore's claims, as soon as the producer is ready to ship the discs.

"And if they start sending [An Inconvenient Truth] to all Canadian schools, then I'll buy a copy of Swindle for all the schools, too," Mr. Chernoff says. "I think showing it is fine, but they should present the other side as well."

But even with Mr. Chernoff 's gift, there's no requirement teachers to show both sides of the argument unless school boards demand it.

"We've gone to school boards offering to provide them with materials that present the other side," says Mr. Jacobs.

"You get the same answer, that the teacher has to teach a certain curriculum and how he does it is his business." Some teachers are open to alternative theories, he says.

But others, like Mr. Gore, have an agenda.

On a discussion board on the CBC Web site last month, readers debated the Surrey controversy. One commentor, who identified himself as a teacher, wrote this:

"Yes students should look at both sides on an issue and learn to judge for themselves. But there are times to do this and times to stop."

He is certain Mr. Gore is right. Now, he wrote, "It is time for action."

© National Post 2007

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorialsletters/story.html?id=f7806f79-bf1f-4bd1-8d33-c904feb71047&k=32084

 

[canadianblue]

I don't think anyone is denying that man has had some influence on the climate, but to blame it all on humans is ludicrous.

You with 749 Comm Sqn?I suppose that National geographic does not know what they are talking about either!!

No one is suggesting that man is the only reason the climate changes, however it is reasonable to believe that when man pumps a large amount of GHG emission's into the atmosphere it can change the climate.

No, I'm a reg member working at Winnipeg right now and going to Suffield.

From your very own link...

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

and I laugh when the leftoids & enviro jihadis use a failed politician and a fruit fly scientist  as their heroes.

Are you talking about the Oxford Professor mentioned in the quote above yours?

As for the failed politician, I'm fairly sure most American's would at the moment take Gore over the current president, who is now believed to be one of the worst presidents in the history of the United States.

Michael Crichton's strongest argument is that the idea of "consensus" (real or imagined) does not equal fact.  IIRC in his book "State of Fear" he compares the scientific consensus on global warming with the (one-time) scientific consensus on eugenics.  The same argument could probably be made WRT opinions on the existence of "the ether" ... why should we stunt development (which for us means a lower standard of living, but in other countries is a death sentence) for a "consensus" that is unproven, AND has a pretty vocal opposition?!?  Much the same happened with DDT and millions have died because of (the ban on) it.

Hold on, am I misreading that or are you against the ban on DDT. Doesn't DDT cause cancer and havn't recent studies shown that DDT wouldn't have prevented million's of deaths as Crichton claims. Either way I'm sure that members of the Republican party and Exxon Mobil love to hear a novel is out trying to make them look like the good guys. As for stunting development, what are we going to do once we start running out of oil. I think that we have to look somewhat ahead and try to find new and innovative solutions in bringing new energy to our homes.

I once again still fail to see how renewable energy, a sustainable economy, or for the matter becoming less reliant on middle eastern oil will make us a worse society. Eugenics can't really be compared to climate change, many countries are now starting to take action on climate change, and I don't think they will result in a large proportion of deaths.

As for the greedy eco-radicals intent on destroying the world in Crichton's novel, that has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. How much did Exxon Mobil make in profit last year, seriously. As well I have a hard time believing that getting rid of environmental regulations is really going to be healtheir for our society.

In all honesty, I take Crichton about as seriously as this commentator.

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=81744

 

[Flip]

About 40 years ago, I recall my science teacher describing how an ice age was
overdue and would soon be upon us.  The evidence was solid, The scientists had a consensus - we were doomed!  Except of course, they were wrong.
At about the same time they banned DDT.  The unintended consequence was that
infant mortality rates in the third world shot up.  A 1% cancer risk is really a moot point if you don't make it to your 4th birthday.

Hold on, am I misreading that or are you against the ban on DDT. Doesn't DDT cause cancer and havn't recent studies shown that DDT wouldn't have prevented million's of deaths as Crichton claims. Either way I'm sure that members of the Republican party and Exxon Mobil love to hear a novel is out trying to make them look like the good guys. As for stunting development, what are we going to do once we start running out of oil. I think that we have to look somewhat ahead and try to find new and innovative solutions in bringing new energy to our homes.

If you want an innovative solution - develop a fusion reactor you can put in your back yard.  How long will that take?  Are you willing to go without groceries in the meantime?
Of course not! You would however, enact policy that will separate that same third world
from their groceries.

I once again still fail to see how renewable energy, a sustainable economy, or for the matter becoming less reliant on middle eastern oil will make us a worse society. Eugenics can't really be compared to climate change, many countries are now starting to take action on climate change, and I don't think they will result in a large proportion of deaths.

Just because a political movement ( and this is ) gains momentum, doesn't mean it's right.
Marxism is one example.  It spread like a bugger.  Are Marxists right?

There is three basic facts.
Our standard of living absolutely depends on fossil fuels.
The current population levels on this planet depend on fossil fuels.
100% of that fossil fuel was at one time CO2 and then living breathing stuff.

Technological change will take a lot of time - I outta know.

My example:

My little manufacturing company manufactures electronic gear (mostly industrial).
For me to cut my CO2 footprint by 30% or so would force me to double my prices.
Since there is no support in the market for that - I close.

Maybe someone in China starts doing what I'm doing.
No controls on heavy metals, no Kyoto, no substantial wages paid to anyone.
My job has been exported by environmentalists.
What should I do?, start a massage parlour?
What has been gained in the big picture? - nothing.
Actually worse than nothing.

Now if you were to propose some legitimate environmental initiative,
I'd be all for it. Stop deforestation.  Stop Smog and acid rain.
Ban boom-boxes and loud car stereos.
Figure out how to farm salmon properly.  Whatever.

Just don't take my living from me on what is likely a myth.


 

 

[canadianblue]

Just because a political movement ( and this is ) gains momentum, doesn't mean it's right.
Marxism is one example.  It spread like a bugger.  Are Marxists right?

That's a red herring. The same can be said of the anti-environmental movement in the United States.

There is three basic facts.
Our standard of living absolutely depends on fossil fuels.
The current population levels on this planet depend on fossil fuels.
100% of that fossil fuel was at one time CO2 and then living breathing stuff.

Oil has already peaked in the United States, and has peaked in Alberta. Right now the largest deposits of oil are in the Middle East, and I think we all know what's happening in Iraq right now. Moving away from fossil fuels would be the smart move because it reduces our dependance on foreign sources of energy.

My little manufacturing company manufactures electronic gear (mostly industrial).
For me to cut my CO2 footprint by 30% or so would force me to double my costs.
Since there is no support in the market - I close.

Once again this is scaremongering, and its typical of larger corporations who are opposed to increased OSHA regulations and improved environmental regulations. studies have shown that becoming more environmentally friendly would not destroy the economy. In fact companies which produce automobiles which are better for the environment are currently gaining money and employing people while the United States is once again behind the pack.

Maybe someone in China starts doing what I'm doing.
No controls on heavy metals, no Kyoto, no substantial wages paid to anyone.
What should I do?, start a massage parlour?
What has been gained in the big picture? - nothing.

Doesn't really matter since the United States is already exporting most of their manufacturing jobs overseas to China, the reason being is its cheap labour. As well China actually has more regulations in terms of making their cars more environmentally friendly, and has actually been making steps towards cutting GHG emmissions. In the end I don't think you'll have to worry about your manufacturing job being lost due to environmentalists, if anything you should blame globalization because they can make the same product at a minimum of the cost.

Now if you were to propose some legitimate environmental initiative,
I'd be all for it. Stop deforestation.  Stop Smog and acid rain.
Ban boom-boxes and loud car stereos.
Figure out how to farm salmon properly.  Whatever.

Just don't take my living from me on what is likely a myth.

Here's the thing, scientists have made the case, Donald Kennedy the editor of chief of Science has said their is a consensus on this, as well their are plenty of organizations which have also supported the science behind climate change. 48 Nobel Prize winning scientists signed a letter stating that Bush need to commit to action to fight climate change. The Kyoto Treaty was ratified by 132 nations with the exception of 2, as well most major cities in the United States have "ratified" the Kyoto Treaty pledging to reduce emissions. California is right now bringing in some of the toughest environmental regulations in the US in order to fight climate change, and I highly doubt they will be reduced to a third world country.

As for taking your living from you, I really don't see how that's going to happen. In all honesty if you haven't been paying attention people in the manufacturing industry in the US have been losing their jobs for years, yet America hasn't signed on to the Kyoto Accord.

 

[Flip]

Once again this is scaremongering, and its typical of larger corporations who are opposed to increased OSHA regulations and improved environmental regulations. studies have shown that becoming more environmentally friendly would not destroy the economy. In fact companies which produce automobiles which are better for the environment are currently gaining money and employing people while the United States is once again behind the pack.

I've been running a technology business for 25 years. I've seen what environmental change can do to my bottom line.  I've seen what globalization has done to my bottom line.
I can tell the difference.  Both ways, I'm under pressure.

The only way I'm scaremongering is if you believe I'm lying.

As for taking your living from you, I really don't see how that's going to happen.

What a 20 year old sees or doesn't see is really nothing to do with the facts.
I know what the circumstances of my business are - you don't.
I know what the coming changes will bring - You clearly don't.
I'm certainly not advocating not becoming more environmentally friendly.

We ( my company ) was the first in Canada to use a totally lead free
process for manufacturing printed circuits.
We were also the first to change some of the manufacturing basics so
as to acheive a greener result.  We never used some of the more dangerous
additives to our process.  I've written articles in trade mags about the virtues
of being lead free.

I have to admit Sigs Guy, I'm pissed off.
You've shown all the sensitivity of of a bad tooth.

You know best of course.
It's ok for manufacturing to go down the pipes in Canada.
You actually believe the Chinese will clean up their environmental act.

Who else's job is ok to axe?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Sigs Guy, you have made some wild accusations about oil peaking in Alberta, China's enviromental laws being tougher...........got some proof??

Since you won't believe a guy who has to live it everyday.

 

[canadianblue]

What a 20 year old sees or doesn't see is really nothing to do with the facts.
I know what the circumstances of my business are - you don't.
I know what the coming changes will bring - You clearly don't.
I'm certainly not advocating not becoming more environmentally friendly.

We ( my company ) was the first in Canada to use a totally lead free
process for manufacturing printed circuits.
We were also the first to change some of the manufacturing basics so
as to acheive a greener result.  We never used some of the more dangerous
additives to our process.  I've written articles in trade mags about the virtues
of being lead free.

I have to admit Sigs Guy, I'm pissed off.
You've shown all the sensitivity of of a bad tooth.

I still want to know how exactly your company will be run into the ground by reducing greenhouse gas emission's.

You know best of course.
It's ok for manufacturing to go down the pipes in Canada.

Manufacturing will go down the pipes as we have seen south of the border, that is the result of globalization.

You actually believe the Chinese will clean up their environmental act.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chinaenv.html

Sigs Guy, you have made some wild accusations about oil peaking in Alberta, China's enviromental laws being tougher...........got some proof??

On China, read above, the fuel economy and GHG emissions of China are in fact tougher than those of the US with the exception of California.

As for peak oil, read the link provided.

http://www.ualberta.ca/~parkland/post/Vol-IX-No1/02anielski.html

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

when global demand for oil is growing, driven by the voracious energy appetite of China

China's national legislature, through its model of "Cleaner Production" and other attempts to reduce air pollution, has significantly altered the Law on the Prevention and Control of Air Pollution, which was revised in 2002. Still, a report issued by SEPA in June 2003 said officials were "still not optimistic" about the overall success of efforts to curb air pollution.


Nothing I read in there supports your arguements at all.

Where does it say for one instance that China's laws are tougher than the US or Canada?  All it says are "tough new laws",...well any new laws are "tough" when there wasn't any before....d'oh!


and just what is Mark Anielski doing 2 years later?
Mark Anielski - Senior Associate Consultant, Pembina Institute

Awww, getting paid to "spread the news".

 

[Haletown]

Little reported news from last week . .  China now exceeds the USA in output of GhG's.

All those new dirty coal fired electrical generation plants  . . one every five days.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Hold on, am I misreading that or are you against the ban on DDT.

Like the World Health Organization, I am against the ban on DDT!

Doesn't DDT cause cancer

No, it doesn't.

and havn't recent studies shown that DDT wouldn't have prevented million's of deaths as Crichton claims. Either way I'm sure that members of the Republican party and Exxon Mobil love to hear a novel is out trying to make them look like the good guys.

I don't know what Michael Crichton's position on the ban on DDT is, but I suspect he is against it.  I have no idea to which "recent studies" you are referring, but Malaria infects something like 300 to 500 million people annually.  It's been shown over and over (including in the real-world examples of North America and Europe) the Malaria would no linger meaningfully exist had DDT continued to have been used.

The "consensus" that DDT caused cancer was based upon pseudo-scientific and misrepresented studies, as well as flat-out lies.  Despite the relentless propaganda that I even remember from grade school, DDT is not passed-up the food chain (it goes inert in something like 90 days) and has never been shown to cause cancer in any event!  Every 30 seconds, somewhere, a child is killed by this little bit of environmentalist "enlightenment" ... I just have a problem with being led down the same road by these same people again ...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6083944

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5350068.stm

http://www.malaria.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=107&Itemid=42

http://www.malaria.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=section&id=8&Itemid=32

 

[canadianblue]

Well first off the vast majority of the scientific community supports the notion that we have to fight climate change not environmental wackjobs as some of the fringe right like to claim. As for DDT, their are still studies which show that DDT could cause gradual harm to people and the environment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1434580.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5145450.stm

While DDT may be helpful in some situations, overall we can't let a free for all happen as many people would seem to prefer, and while DDT may be able to help people in the short term we have to consider the long term effects of that usage.

I just have a problem with being led down the same road by these same people again ...

Actually upon further research again, the environmentalists that you bash for bringing in the ban on DDT once again are not the cold hearted eco-nazis as some would wish them to be.

According to the WHO's plan, DDT will be used in a controlled manner, sprayed on the walls and roofs of houses only, instead of mass spraying outdoors.

Reading and Discussion Questions
This technique, called indoor residual spraying, is tentatively endorsed by environment groups like the Environmental Defense, the Sierra Club and the Endangered Wildlife Trust.

"Reluctantly, we do support it," said Ed Hopkins, the director of the Sierra Club's environmental quality program.

"Malaria kills millions of people and when there are no other alternatives to indoor use of DDT, and where that use will be well-monitored and controlled, we support it."

DDT is still believed to harm the environment, animals, and can cause long term health issues. That's why DDT is considered alright under certain circumstance for controlled spraying. The science isn't pseudo-science, it's still there, but instead we learn how to reasonably use any method to do the least amount of damage possible to the environment.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/july-dec06/ddt_9-18.html

Your fixation on GHG emissions is a bit narrow; a person with your strong views should surely view environmental concern as a holistic approach, whereby insisting stridently that the small manufacturer creating a limited range of products must meet an arbitrary reduction standard for GHG is less important than viewing, as Flip has pointed out, the whole picture view of environmental improvements that a business makes.  Lead, mercury, toxins, dioxin, carcinogens, other heavy metals and toxic wastes, not to mention nuclear, biohazard material and plain old plastic that decomposes and accumulates in sea animals, killing them slowly, are also concerns.

The same people who are opposed to climate change initiatives down in the US are also the same people who support axing environmental and health regulations set by previous governments as well. Sure we should take a general idea to improve the environment, which is why as I said before we should find ways of becoming more energy independant, using renewable sources, and becoming more sustainable.

Your fixation on one element only may lead the outside observer to believe that you are a "trendy crusader" but lack true depth in environmental issues.  This is not a flame, it's an observation from looking at this debate and the strong tones you have taken in your other posts in threads like the gun carriage one.

It's not about a lack of depth as much as common sense. If your doctor tells you that you might have cancer what do you do, you would take action on it, you don't go to 100 different doctors hoping that atleast one tells you that if you continue smoking it'll have no effect on your health.

A trendy crusader, you mean a person that doesn't adopt to the majority view. So far this topic was more about calling any and all people supportive of the environment nutjobs, jihadis, socialists, marxists, etc. If you are troubled by freedom of thought and debate then perhaps we should simply get rid of the politics section altogether. It's not being close minded its thinking critically about an issue, so far many of the example I have come across such as the Oregon Petition [signed by a spice girl and Perry Mason] show the depth of ineptitude when it comes to the professional skeptics. Not just that but it's odd that every major political party in Canada has bought into the issue, as has 132 nation's in the world and the majority of major cities in the United States which include Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Denver, Baltimore, Boston, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Seattle, etc.

As for the consequences all have been cited, and the sources are shown below.

http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/

I've heard the arguments that it will destroy the economy, but it simply doesn't pan out in the end. Changing behavior will not result in the west becoming third world, and I have yet to see a study which shows that happening.

Even if this is a myth what could be the massive downside to us, we'll become more sustainable and less dependant on resources which are non-renewable. In my own view the consequences of not taking action will have worse effects on us than simply putting our heads in the sand and hoping the science is wrong.

 

[Command-Sense-Act 105]

A trendy crusader, you mean a person that doesn't adopt to the majority view. So far this forum was more about calling any and all people supportive of the environment nutjobs, jihadis, socialists, etc. If you are troubled by freedom of thought and debate then perhaps we should simply get rid of the politics section altogether.[

You sir, need to take a deep breath.  Throw the wagon in park and sit for a while, breathe in, then breathe out.

I don't recall calling you a nutjobs, jihadis, socialists, etc or anything of that stripe.  I noted, once again I will say again slowly for you, that your posting style and lack of sources give a certain impression, that of being a trendy crusader that stridently defends issues based on sketchy or thin justification, solely focused on part of an issue without looking in a broader context.  I don't recall attacking you personally or calling you any names.  I certainly don't have any problem with the environment and do believe that environmental issues are something that should adopt more importance, both in the social responsibility of business and that of governments. 

I also don't have any problem with freedom of thought or debate.  Look at my profile and some of my past threads.  You are defending against an attack that is not there, against someone who has not stepped forward to call you names or sling mud in your direction.  I certainly feel that you were off the mark with the tone and content you took with Flip, who was engaging in what I consider to be rational and well-reasoned debate, but not in accordance with your opinion.

In terms of "adopting to a majority view" there is a majority out there in certain quarters of society that believes that all government, military, etc are the evil destroyers of everything that is good, a gang of camouflage-clad fascist eco-vandals.  Which majority view do you ascribe to me?

You, my friend, need to calm down, you have some good ideas and a lot of desire to express yourself.  But you need be neither hateful nor disrespectful to the other members here, particularly when offered constructive criticism.  I did praise the originality of your thesis and offer some sources to better develop it. 

Now, sir, please get over yourself and put your misplaced hurt feelings away in the hurt feelings locker where they belong.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

So far this forum was more about calling any and all people supportive of the environment nutjobs, jihadis, socialists, etc. If you are troubled by freedom of thought and debate then perhaps we should simply get rid of the politics section altogether.

I think "we" can let Mr. Bobbitt make those decisions, thank you.

I am a severe enviromentalist, just not a 'hook, line and sinker' swallower.
[ re. "trendy crusader"]

I prefer to do what I can at my level, in my space, and not scream it from the rooftops for my own personal gain. No Weed and Feed, my yard waste and compostables go to the town wet/dry facility, if I can't eat it, then it don't get watered and I have my rain barrels all ready for the summer.

Gee, and here I always thought I was a

fringe right

guy.......................... :

 

[larry Strong]

The reason I asked if you were with 749 was your bio locates you in Parkland County Ab.

Oil has already peaked in the United States, and has peaked in Alberta. Right now the largest deposits of oil are in the Middle East, and I think we all know what's happening in Iraq right now. Moving away from fossil fuels would be the smart move because it reduces our dependence on foreign sources of energy.

Guess not, because any good ole boy from Alberta would have know better:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/01/11/canadian-oil060111.html

"....Alberta's oilsands could become the single biggest contributor to the world's supply within 10 years, says a report released Wednesday by CIBC World Markets....."


Yes I know the report is over a year old, however we are far from peaked, have not even topped out yet.

 

[canadianblue]

You sir, need to take a deep breath.  Throw the wagon in park and sit for a while, breathe in, then breathe out.

All of my arguments have been based in reason, and I have no reason to "throw the wagon in park and breathe in and out" as you suggest. If you have any concerns with my arguments by all means provide sources to show your side of the argument.

I don't recall calling you a nutjobs, jihadis, socialists, etc or anything of that stripe.  I noted, once again I will say again slowly for you, that your posting style and lack of sources give a certain impression
, that of being a trendy crusader that stridently defends issues based on sketchy or thin justification, solely focused on part of an issue without looking in a broader context.  I don't recall attacking you personally or calling you any names.  I certainly don't have any problem with the environment and do believe that environmental issues are something that should adopt more importance, both in the social responsibility of business and that of governments.  

Upon further reading you'll find plenty of references by other members where people supporting the science behind climate job were attacked with such insults. As for the thin justification, I have provided links showing my side of the debate and have shown that people with stellar credentials have supported the science of climate change. So far you have failed to give sources for your own argument.

I also don't have any problem with freedom of thought or debate.  Look at my profile and some of my past threads.  You are defending against an attack that is not there, against someone who has not stepped forward to call you names or sling mud in your direction.  I certainly feel that you were off the mark with the tone and content you took with Flip, who was engaging in what I consider to be rational and well-reasoned debate, but not in accordance with your opinion.

I asked specifically what would the losses be for the economy if we became more sustainable and reduced GHG emissions which is not unreasonable.

In terms of "adopting to a majority view" there is a majority out there in certain quarters of society that believes that all government, military, etc are the evil destroyers of everything that is good, a gang of camouflage-clad fascist eco-vandals.  Which majority view do you ascribe to me?

That's an overly simplistic view of the debate which is more or less your either with us or against us. Canadian's have said in many surveys that they consider the environment to be important and they believe it should be a priority, this is also reflected in politics as each major political party supports some kind of course to fight climate change. I certainly don't believe the government is out to destroy society, and I don't believe the military is out to destroy society, if anything I think government intervention is sometimes needed for the common good. As for the camouflage-clad fascist eco-vandals, that is a fairly obtuse term for people who support the science behind climate change and I'm sure the vast majority of Canadian's would disagree with that label being pinned to them.

You, my friend, need to calm down, you have some good ideas and a lot of desire to express yourself.  But you need be neither hateful nor disrespectful to the other members here, particularly when offered constructive criticism.  I did praise the originality of your thesis and offer some sources to better develop it.  

I offered criticism of his post which should be expected in a debate. Once again I asked for specifics in how reducing greenhouse gas emissions and using renewable energy would hurt business.

Now, sir, please get over yourself and put your misplaced hurt feelings away in the hurt feelings locker where they belong.

My feelings weren't hurt, however its fairly easy to place a label on anyone if you disagree with them. I have gone over the argument against fighting climate change. Look at my previous posts and I believe I have added links where appropriate with regards to climate change which include the National Academy of Science, PBS, BBC, etc. If I go on a tirade full on profane insults then you'll know my feelings were hurt.

"....Alberta's oilsands could become the single biggest contributor to the world's supply within 10 years, says a report released Wednesday by CIBC World Markets....."


Yes I know the report is over a year old, however we are far from peaked, have not even topped out yet.

Alberta will continue to be large producer of oil, however in the future that production will begin to decrease. As well Alberta will have its own problems with the environment due to the massive growth in the oil industry which in my own opinion should be slowed down.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/30/AR2006053001429.html?referrer=emailarticle

As for the oil peak, I'll correct myself on that point Canada is not believed to peak until 2035, while the US peaked in oil production in 1970.

http://www.davidstrahan.com/map.html

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

The fact that an argument like "there are still studies which show that DDT could cause gradual harm to people and the environment" is balanced against a certainty of hundreds of millions contracting a horrible, debilitating and deadly disease is more revealing than any argument I could make.

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nm/journal/v6/n7/full/nm0700_729.html

Nature Medicine  6, 729 - 731 (2000)
doi:10.1038/77438
Balancing risks on the backs of the poor
Amir Attaran2, Donald R. Roberts1, Chris F. Curtis3 & Wenceslaus L. Kilama4

Malaria kills over one million people, mainly children, in the tropics each year, and DDT remains one of the few affordable, effective tools against the mosquitoes that transmit the disease. Attaran et al. explain that the scientific literature on the need to withdraw DDT is unpersuasive, and the benefits of DDT in saving lives from malaria are well worth the risks.

Few chemicals stir the feelings of the 'man on the street' quite like DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane). Since Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, conservationists in rich, developed countries have waged a decades-long campaign, no less persistent than DDT itself, to convince governments and citizens that DDT is an irredeemable pollutant. They have been very successful: Every industrial country, without exception, has ceased using DDT.

However, DDT remains one of the few affordable, effective tools against the mosquitoes that transmit malaria, a plague that sickens at least 300 million and kills over one million, mainly children, in economically underdeveloped areas of the tropics each year. Such a toll is scarcely comprehensible. To visualize it, imagine filling seven Boeing 747s with children, and then crashing them, every day.

Until now, developed countries have grudgingly tolerated the use of DDT against malaria in poor tropical countries; at least 23 countries do so1. However, this may now be ending. Led by the United Nations Environment Programme, more than 110 countries are negotiating a treaty to "reduce and/or eliminate...the emissions and discharges" of 12 persistent organic pollutants, citing their "unreasonable and otherwise unmanageable risks to human health and the environment."2 If it becomes law, the treaty will likely end DDT manufacture, or at least make the supply scarce and unaffordable to tropical countries.

This, in our view and that of nearly 400 colleagues who have signed an open letter to the diplomats negotiating the treaty, is simply dangerous3. The scientific literature is unpersuasive of the need to withdraw DDT; on the contrary, it is clear that doing so risks making malaria control ineffective, unaffordable, or both.

 

[Kirkhill]

Re "Peaking"

When the "economical" oilsands that are currently being credited to our account (Edit: dry up) there are still many more barrels in the ground up there that the Alberta Government considers "uneconomical" at this time (up to 9 times as much).  And when that runs out there are deep oilsand deposits in Venezuela.  And when those run out there are shale oil deposits.  And when those run out the then there are always the coal deposits that can be converted to oil.......or not because at some point in time the increasing cost of hydrocarbon energy will make other energy sources look more interesting to consumers (both industrial and individual).

http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/docs/oil/pdfs/AB_OilReserves.pdf

A recent recalculation has revealed that the amount of oil buried underneath the ground in Northern Alberta was not millions of barrels - but trillions (1.75 to 2.5 trillion to be exact).  Alberta's internationally recognised reserves are now put at 175 billion barrels of crude. Only Saudi Arabia has bigger reserves.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4649580.stm

http://www.oilsandsdiscovery.com/oil_sands_story/resource.html

And don't forget Saskatchewan is getting into the game as well

US Shale Oil - 2 Trillion Barrels http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/npr/NPR_Oil_Shale_Program.html

We may want to capture, control, possibly even recycle the carbon from the hydrocarbons, we may even want to strip some of those stored hydrocarbons to generate hydrogen, but it is going to be quite some time before we run out of hydrocarbons.

 

[Haletown]

some common sense to cut through the hype & hysteria

NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS
HOME / DONATE / ONE LEVEL UP / ABOUT NCPA / CONTACT US
Climate Science: Climate Change and Its Impacts
NCPA Study

No. 285



http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st285/

 

[Kirkhill]

Re "DDT" (My lane, I believe).

Check into the Delaney amendment (thankfully repealed in 1996 by Bill Clinton's administration).

The Delaney amendment was the ultimate expression of the precautionary principal and, together with Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring", it did in DDT.

Simply put it said that if a compound was proven to produce cancer at any concentration then it could not be included in food.  Consequently DDT and many pesticides were delisted.

Unfortunately the test for carcinogenicity was more of a test for toxicity (the Ames test) and it was discovered that Vitamin D failed the test, as did selenium, both critical for life.  Vitamin D was so critical its presence was mandated in milk.  So the US government found itself requiring the addition of a "toxin" to the nation's milk supply.

Two other factors entered into the discussion.  New technology meant that virtually all chemicals could be detected everywhere.  In 1958 when the Delaney amendment was introduced the standard of analysis was wet chemistry with results reported in parts per thousand (a drop of water in a liter of milk).  Currently the standard is parts per billion (a drop in a swimming pool) with parts per trillion coming up fast.

As well, it has been clear for a long while that "anything" will kill you.  Salt has an LD50 of 10 kg - 10 Kg of salt will kill 50% of the people to whom it is administered if administered intra-anally according to my recollection of the Merck index (who does these studies anyway?).

Short answer these days is that the Delaney amendment was ditched as unenforceable and without merit - and with it went the best argument that the environmentalists had in trying to base their arguments on science.  But not to worry - they came up with the stentorious "Precautionary Principle" - trading philosophy for science.

Meanwhile science has long ago come to terms with the concept of "cost/benefit" and "risk analysis".

http://www.pcdf.org/meadows/delaney.htm
http://www.davekopel.com/env/enpestic.htm
http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/pests_05.html