The Environment Thread

[kelownabomberfan]

The reason evolution comes up is because you are using a similar style of arguing that creationists use to argue evolution. .

Really? And are Western governments dumping billions upon billions of dollars into "fighting" evolution too? That's my real hang-up here. Whenever I get into a discussion with anyone who is really sold on the "consensus", it doesn't take long to get into name-calling etc. This thread has been surprisingly civil, at least, until WBFB decided to up it a notch. Anyway, like I said, my hang-up is that for years now we seen all of these catastrophic predictions and nothing has come true, yet billions upon billions of dollars continue to be diverted from so many other good causes and into "fighting" this mysterious affliction, that any day now is coming, just you wait. Why is there no accountability for those who predict these things, cause billions of dollars to be diverted, and yet their predictions are false? Why?

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

Just saying, "every single prediction made by said "science" been dead wrong?" gives us a clear indication where you two are coming from- there really is no room at the grown up table for you two, you guys get relegated to the kiddie table.

Look, you can be a giant jerk here, that's fine. You are just like every single other warm-monger I know, who just twists words and then calls you names if you dare disagree with the bogus "consensus". What I said was that there have been zero predictions about man-made climate change that have come true. Zero. So why is that if the "science" is so solid? That's all I said. I didn't mention evolution or gravity, so why even bring them up?

The thing is, you don't give any stock to science- it is difficult to have a rational and realistic discussion when you don't even acknowledge science.

Listening to you is akin to having a discussion about Evolution that doesn't give any legitimacy to scientific evidence... if someone who does not believe in science begins to shout and yell about Adam and Eve, they are quickly cut out of the discussion or given very little credibility if any.

You have no credibility when discussing the science or evidence of AGW.

This is not to say you don't have valid concerns, don't get me wrong, you have very legitimate concerns you just refuse to take into consideration the evidence and science in your concerns.

[Fatty Liver]

 

The reason evolution comes up is because you are using a similar style of arguing that creationists use to argue evolution. .

Really? And are Western governments dumping billions upon billions of dollars into "fighting" evolution too? That's my real hang-up here. Whenever I get into a discussion with anyone who is really sold on the "consensus", it doesn't take long to get into name-calling etc. This thread has been surprisingly civil, at least, until WBFB decided to up it a notch. Anyway, like I said, my hang-up is that for years now we seen all of these catastrophic predictions and nothing has come true, yet billions upon billions of dollars continue to be diverted from so many other good causes and into "fighting" this mysterious affliction, that any day now is coming, just you wait. Why is there no accountability for those who predict these things, cause billions of dollars to be diverted, and yet their predictions are false? Why?

 

 

I believe they have predicted warmer temperatures for lakes and oceans and I don't need science to verify the truth of that prediction.  I live on a lake that no longer freezes over, I have seen photos and read accounts of lumber mills routinely hauling timber across this lake on horse driven sleds 75 years ago before roads were in place.

 

Here are two articles that confirm the trend, if they don't tweak the threat of a serious ecological catastrophe in the making, I don't understand your perception of the issue.

 

Fishing ban and use conditions for B.C. rivers

VICTORIA – Drought conditions are forcing the provincial government to ban fishing and impose water restrictions for farms in parts of southern British Columbia in a bid to help fish stocks through a hot, dry summer.

The Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations is suspending fishing in streams for most of Vancouver Island because of low flows and high water temperatures.

 

Beginning on Aug. 4, the only rivers or streams where people will be allowed to fish are the Campbell, Qualicum and Quinsam rivers.

 

The ministry has also restricted water use on farms in B.C.’s Interior in a bid to help salmon that are expected to begin spawning soon on the Coldwater River south of Merrit, where water levels are low because of dry weather.

Farms drawing water from the river and its tributaries have been told they must restrict their water use between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. until Aug. 11, when they will be prohibited from drawing any water until Sept. 30.

 

The ministry says the order covers the holders of 50 water licences who use the river for irrigation.

The Fish Protection Act allows the minister to issue orders to temporarily regulate water users if fish populations are threatened.

The provincial government has designated that much of southern B.C. as Drought Level 4, or extremely dry.

 

World's lakes are warming surprisingly quickly due to climate change. Canadian lakes and those that are ice-covered in winter are warming twice as fast as others

 

Lakes around the world are warming surprisingly quickly due to climate change, threatening the global water supply. And lakes in Canada are some of the fastest-warming in the world, a new study shows.

 

The warming waters can lead to problems like toxic algae blooms that make water undrinkable, declines in fish populations that people rely on for food and other serious problems, warns the international team of researchers that released the study this week.

 

"If air temperatures continue to increase and this influences water supply and water quality, that has a huge implication for humans as we need fresh water to survive," said Sapna Sharma, a researcher at Toronto's York University who was one of the lead authors of the report.

 

The study looked at 235 lakes on six continents representing half the world's freshwater supply. Their surface temperatures between 1985 and 2009 had been measured both directly and using satellites.

 

The lakes had different sizes, depths, locations and other characteristics, but despite their variability, "over 90 per cent of them had a clear signal of warming," said Sharma. "I didn't expect to see that."

 

The study found that on average, lakes were warming at a rate of 0.34 C per decade — faster than either the ocean (increasing 0.12 C per decade) or the air (warming by 0.25 C per decade), the researchers reported in the journal Geophysical Research Letters and announced at the American Geophysical Union meeting San Francisco Wednesday.

 

"Canadian lakes and ice-covered lakes were warming twice as fast as air temperatures and most of the other lakes in the study," Sharma said in an interview with CBC News.  The study found that the rate of warming averaged 0.72 C per decade at high latitudes.

 

Lake Superior warming extra fast

One of the big surprises, Sharma added, was that Lake Superior had one of the fastest rates of warming in the world.

While smaller lakes might be expected to warm more quickly, a couple of factors are having a particularly strong effect on lakes like Superior.

 

One is that lakes that are normally ice-covered in winter are melting earlier in the spring, exposing the lake to warmer air temperatures for a longer period of time.

 

Another, ironically, is that decreased pollution in North America is leading to less smog and cloud cover.

 

"So more solar radiation is hitting the lakes and water temperatures are warming faster than you'd just expect simply [from] climate change," Sharma said. "But hopefully, this will be a short-lived phenomenon."

 

The paper predicts a lot of negative effects linked to the warming:

 

• Algal blooms that suck the oxygen out of the lake water, choking out other organisms, are expected to increase 20 per cent over the next century.
• Algal blooms that are toxic to fish and humans are expected to increase by five per cent over the next century.
• An increase in emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane is expected to increase four per cent over the next decade.
• Increased evaporation will cause a drop in lake water levels.

Sharma said the warming also decreases the amount of habitat available to native cold water fish such as lake trout and walleye, while increasing the likelihood that invasive species will thrive. Africa's Lake Tanganyika hasn't warmed nearly as much as Lake Superior, but is already seeing declines in fish populations that local people rely on for food,

 

Sharma added.

In North America, lake levels are already dropping in some of the Great Lakes and algae blooms have already made tap water undrinkable for days at a time in places like Toledo, Ohio.

[The Unknown Poster]

Lol @wannabe. Not sure what was "wrong" in my post considering it was sarcasm. You know the earth has been colder than now and hotter than now right? You know it's cyclical right? Lol

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

In 1000 years when Florida is finally under water there will still be climate change chicken littles saying "see we've been saying this for 1000 years and you wouldn't listen. Now look".

 

Well, the above sounds like something you would spout off sans-sarcasm- you can't fault me. 

 

Lol @wannabe. Not sure what was "wrong" in my post considering it was sarcasm. You know the earth has been colder than now and hotter than now right? You know it's cyclical right? Lol

 

You are not wrong with these statements... however, in the context you are implying- you are just plain wrong.

 

[The Unknown Poster]

insults are easy. For example you have a habit of attacking

People but it doesn't make you sound nearly as wise as you think it does.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

insults are easy. For example you have a habit of attacking

People but it doesn't make you sound nearly as wise as you think it does.

 

Sorry TUP,

 

I am not attacking you personally- just your grasp on science.

 

You are a good egg, I have admired many of your posts on Football, movies and so on- but not your take on science. Don't take it personally- I don't believe I have attack anyone personally on these boards- If I have, I am sorry.

[The Unknown Poster]

I haven't really taken a position on science so to say you're attacking my grasp of science is laughable. It's one way to avoid dealing with facts and common sense though. 

Heres a a whoops for you

 

 http://www.mrctv.org/blog/flashback-7-years-ago-al-gore-said-north-pole-would-be-ice-free-five-years?utm_campaign=naytev&utm_content=56778968e4b04ddc3f60b1a8

 

[17to85]

Seriously using Al Gore? The guy isn't a scientist and his documentary was filled with poor science and everyone knew it. It was alarmist bullshit.

[The Unknown Poster]

Which is exactly the point. 

[Fatty Liver]

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I haven't really taken a position on science so to say you're attacking my grasp of science is laughable. It's one way to avoid dealing with facts and common sense though. 

Heres a a whoops for you

 

 http://www.mrctv.org/blog/flashback-7-years-ago-al-gore-said-north-pole-would-be-ice-free-five-years?utm_campaign=naytev&utm_content=56778968e4b04ddc3f60b1a8

 

Time frame is wrong but the concept of an ice free Arctic is not.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5664

[The Unknown Poster]

Time frame is wrong 

lol

[17to85]

10 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Which is exactly the point. 

But your point makes no sense. If you're trying to argue that the science is contradictory then you can't pull up bullshit stuff like Al Gores documentary as evidence of that. That's not bad science, that's a celebrity pushing a cause using bad science and alarmist bullshit to do it which is totally different from the consensus that is out there. This is why people are calling out your arguments, but you're taking it as personal insults instead. 

[Mark H.]

2 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Time frame is wrong 

lol

Make fun of people is easy - it doesn't make you sound anywhere near as intelligent as you think it does.

 

[The Unknown Poster]

10 minutes ago, Mark H. said:

Make fun of people is easy - it doesn't make you sound anywhere near as intelligent as you think it does.

 

It gets easier to make fun of people when they quote you as making fun of people when you weren't.  I mean yikes...this debate has really sunk if that's what we're doing.  It was a short sentence, four words.  Try reading it again.

[Mark H.]

2 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

It gets easier to make fun of people when they quote you as making fun of people when you weren't.  I mean yikes...this debate has really sunk if that's what we're doing.  It was a short sentence, four words.  Try reading it again.

Sorry man, I couldn't resist. Cheerio.

 

[Fatty Liver]

6 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Time frame is wrong 

lol

I don't understand your logic.  Do you not agree that the Arctic ice is melting at an unprecedented rate?  Because Gore's hard timeline was incorrect, does that mean that this event is not actually occurring?

[The Unknown Poster]

10 minutes ago, Throw Long Bannatyne said:

I don't understand your logic.  Do you not agree that the Arctic ice is melting at an unprecedented rate?  Because Gore's hard timeline was incorrect, does that mean that this event is not actually occurring?

I do not agree.  Mostly because there is not consensus.  Im no expert, but there are articles using NASA data to show the ice caps are not receding since 1979.

But my main point was to denigrate the populist arguments about Global Warming.  Al Gore is/was a poster child for this.  Whatever Gore is, he was used by the media as an expert.  Millions of people believe him.  And to oppose him is to be called a denier.  And so he's wrong...and quietly removes his videos and statements so he doesnt appear to be wrong.

Basically, if you say "five years" forever, you will eventually be correct.  No?

[17to85]

9 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I do not agree.  Mostly because there is not consensus.  Im no expert, but there are articles using NASA data to show the ice caps are not receding since 1979.

But my main point was to denigrate the populist arguments about Global Warming.  Al Gore is/was a poster child for this.  Whatever Gore is, he was used by the media as an expert.  Millions of people believe him.  And to oppose him is to be called a denier.  And so he's wrong...and quietly removes his videos and statements so he doesnt appear to be wrong.

Basically, if you say "five years" forever, you will eventually be correct.  No?

No, this is why you are being taken to task. You're taking lay people using data incorrectly and fear mongering to attack the scientific consensus. That's not what the consensus is, the consensus is that something greater than 90% of climate change articles in peer reviewed journals all agree on warming and less than 10% are against it. That's actual scientists who actually studied it in peer reviewed papers. It's 90% to 10% or maybe even more I don't know the exact numbers. That is the consensus people talk about, not celebrities like Al Gore and Leo DeCaprio talking out their asses. 

[kelownabomberfan]

currently the Arctic sea ice extent is 89,000 sq miles bigger than the lowest ever recorded extent in 2006.  So it's not shrinking, at least not in a linear fashion that a lot of the alarmists would have you believe.  And also bear in mind, that the Arctic sea ice has only been measured for 34 years of the entire history of the planet, so it's not exactly a big sample size.

And that of course doesn't even include in the discussion the fact that the Antarctic sea ice extent is the largest ever recorded in the history of recorded extents, going back to 1979.

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

Of course, in the article, the fact that the Antarctic sea ice is growing is spun by NASA as "expected" under global warming, just as Leonard Nimoy would have told us in 1978 that it was expected as part of global cooling.

 

 

[sweep the leg]

6 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

You're taking lay people using data incorrectly and fear mongering to attack the scientific consensus. That's not what the consensus is, the consensus is that something greater than 90% of climate change articles in peer reviewed journals all agree on warming and less than 10% are against it. That's actual scientists who actually studied it in peer reviewed papers. It's 90% to 10% or maybe even more I don't know the exact numbers. That is the consensus people talk about, not celebrities like Al Gore and Leo DeCaprio talking out their asses. 

Bingo. The discussion would go better if everybody fully understood the difference between consensus and unanimity.

 

[The Unknown Poster]

43 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

No, this is why you are being taken to task. You're taking lay people using data incorrectly and fear mongering to attack the scientific consensus. That's not what the consensus is, the consensus is that something greater than 90% of climate change articles in peer reviewed journals all agree on warming and less than 10% are against it. That's actual scientists who actually studied it in peer reviewed papers. It's 90% to 10% or maybe even more I don't know the exact numbers. That is the consensus people talk about, not celebrities like Al Gore and Leo DeCaprio talking out their asses. 

Why is this a fact, because you say so?  So in the 70s when the scientific consensus was we were entering an ice age, I guess it was true. 

And My response was perfectly clear in regards to Al Gore.  You just want to hold up a criticism of the Global Warming celebrity poster child as criticism of scientists and dismiss it.  Which is cool.  I don't care whether you accept or dismiss my opinion.  Neither of us are experts and neither of us can say what will happen...well actually those of us that accept the cyclical nature of the temperature of the earth accept that what has come before will come again.

I believe in being kind to the earth.  But the warm-mongerers push an agenda and arent always correct.  Like with the disappearing arctic ice.

[sweep the leg]

2 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

currently the Arctic sea ice extent is 89,000 sq miles bigger than the lowest ever recorded extent in 2006.  So it's not shrinking, at least not in a linear fashion that a lot of the alarmists would have you believe.  And also bear in mind, that the Arctic sea ice has only been measured for 34 years of the entire history of the planet, so it's not exactly a big sample size.

And that of course doesn't even include in the discussion the fact that the Antarctic sea ice extent is the largest ever recorded in the history of recorded extents, going back to 1979.

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

 

 

Interesting timing for this argument. I just read the counter argument to it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/27/climate-skeptics-think-you-shouldnt-worry-about-melting-polar-ice-heres-why-theyre-wrong/

"However, much of the concern with the melting of Antarctica, Greenland and glaciers around the world has nothing to do with sea ice — rather, it involves huge masses of ice sitting atop landmasses in polar regions. Melting of these ice sheets, glaciers and ice caps can contribute substantially to sea level rise —whereas sea ice melting cannot. So already, Taylor’s argument about “polar ice” seems much broader than it actually is."

 

 

[The Unknown Poster]

5 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

Bingo. The discussion would go better if everybody fully understood the difference between consensus and unanimity.

 

The discussion would go better if everybody understood the difference between those that think they know and those that are open to different possibilities.  Then again, no one here is changing their minds.  Its only the staunch Global Warming people that think everyone else is 100% wrong.

Funny...there was a time when Al Gore was considered an authority.  Now that he's wrong, he's discredited.  Can we assume Sazuki is discredited too? 

I would think if people really truly believed their carbon footprint was killing the earth, they would go to great lengths to reduce it.  Those two clowns dont.  How about the massive amounts of waste to attend Paris?  COuldnt have chit chatted over webcam?  None of them really believe it.  That's your first clue.

[17to85]

Both gore and suzuki are not worth listening to and scientists always said that Gore's documentary was full of BS.