The Environment Thread

[Mark F]

1 hour ago, Atomic said:

 

There is very little scientific evidence that cutting greenhouse gases will "mitigate the catastrophic effects of wildfires, floods, and extreme weather events".  I can get on board with reducing human impact on the environment, but the jump she is making with this statement is unsupported and irresponsible, IMO.

How come in the sports forums, you post your opinions and some relevant facts, but here  you just post your opinion, with no facts?

Here's an example of how there is no "jump"

Quote

Recent studies have shown a link between ocean surface temperatures and tropical storm intensity – warmer waters fuel more energetic storms.

NOAA.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 4, 2017 by Mark F

[bearpants]

20 hours ago, Wideleft said:

Scientists have NEVER said it was 100% human induced, so I don't understand the leap.  And what you believe in this regard doesn't really amount to a hill of beans in the face of the mountain of scientific study and evidence that contradicts your belief.  

this is a really confusing response... you start out by saying that my belief is consistent with scientific evidence (I have not read all the scientific literature on this topic, just offered an opinion)... then say that science proves my beliefs to be completely wrong??

At what point did I claim science states climate change is 100% human caused?... I fully believe climate change is real and encouraged by human behavior... but I also think there would be climate changes, even if humans did not exist...

[Atomic]

42 minutes ago, Mark F said:

How come in the sports forums, you post your opinions and some relevant facts, but here  you just post your opinion, with no facts?

Here's an example of how there is no "jump"

 

 

 

I save the facts for the important stuff.

But you'll have to further illustrate how wildfires and floods in Canada are affected by warmer ocean temperatures.  I'm not seeing that link anywhere.  Hurricanes are just one piece of the puzzle.  And of course there have been no studies on how cooler ocean temperatures may incite extreme weather behaviour.  If we reverse course and the oceans cool by a significant amount in a relatively short time, what would happen?  Would extreme weather also result from that?  It's hard to say, just going off your quote, because you didn't include a link and when I searched for the statement, I found it and it lacked any relevant citations to what exactly these "recent studies" were, who commissioned them, and what the conclusions were.

[Mark F]

14 minutes ago, Atomic said:

I save the facts for the important stuff.

answering a question with a question, is just a diversion.

If you want to learn about it, go ahead. If you don't, that's fine too.

 

 

[Atomic]

8 minutes ago, Mark F said:

answering a question with a question, is just a diversion.

If you want to learn about it, go ahead. If you don't, that's fine too.

What question?

Why didn't you address the rest of my post?  If you want to talk then talk, don't take your ball and go home because I don't agree with you.

My point is that I don't see any link between floods, wildfires, and other natural disasters in Canada and nothing you have provided has made that link.

Warmer ocean temperatures causing more severe hurricanes, I can believe.  But that's just one small part of the picture.

[Wideleft]

3 hours ago, bearpants said:

this is a really confusing response... you start out by saying that my belief is consistent with scientific evidence (I have not read all the scientific literature on this topic, just offered an opinion)... then say that science proves my beliefs to be completely wrong??

At what point did I claim science states climate change is 100% human caused?... I fully believe climate change is real and encouraged by human behavior... but I also think there would be climate changes, even if humans did not exist...

You said that it's hard to believe it's 100% human caused which suggests that science/government etc. is suggesting it is.  I may have misunderstood you, but the inference is certainly there.  I can't believe this thread is 13 pages long.  The answer to the original question is Real.

[Wideleft]

1 hour ago, Atomic said:

What question?

Why didn't you address the rest of my post?  If you want to talk then talk, don't take your ball and go home because I don't agree with you.

My point is that I don't see any link between floods, wildfires, and other natural disasters in Canada and nothing you have provided has made that link.

Warmer ocean temperatures causing more severe hurricanes, I can believe.  But that's just one small part of the picture.

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/  I hope NASA is scientific enough for you.

[Wideleft]

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

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

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

 

[Mark F]

1 hour ago, Wideleft said:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

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

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

 

Thanks. I appreciate that.

 article you may be interested in ..... scientific American, that is very disturbing:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-has-already-harmed-almost-half-of-all-mammals/

Generally, For me, I'm  tired of posting links about climate change, for people that are quite clearly more than capable of finding the links/information for themselves, If their purpose is to educate themselves.

Out there In the real world, there's no "debate" about this subject. None.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Mark F

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

33 minutes ago, Mark F said:

Out there In the real world, there's no "debate" about this subject. None.

totally agree with this statement.

[Atomic]

I'm not convinced.  I read the links and it's mostly speculation.

[pigseye]

1 hour ago, Atomic said:

I'm not convinced.  I read the links and it's mostly speculation.

Correlation does not imply causation, any scientist will tell you that, and even the climate modellers will tell that predicting weather outside of 10 days is near impossible, predicting climate change is the butterfly effect.  

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 hour ago, pigseye said:

Correlation does not imply causation, any scientist will tell you that, and even the climate modellers will tell that predicting weather outside of 10 days is near impossible, predicting climate change is the butterfly effect.  

The irony of you trotting out scientists to prove your point that science is wrong- amazing...

[Atomic]

Gotta love the almost godlike reverence served to "scientists", like they are infallible.  I went to university with the kind of guys who perform these studies and let me just say they are far from perfect.  I wonder how many of the other people in this thread have a bachelor of science or better like I do.  And then lecture me on science.

[Wideleft]

1 hour ago, Atomic said:

Gotta love the almost godlike reverence served to "scientists", like they are infallible.  I went to university with the kind of guys who perform these studies and let me just say they are far from perfect.  I wonder how many of the other people in this thread have a bachelor of science or better like I do.  And then lecture me on science.

Yeah, it's pretty strange that we would have reverence for people who study, critique, report on and deal with scientific facts and theory for a living - often giving up more lucrative careers in private business.  Scientists themselves will tell you that they are not infallible - that's your interpretation.  Scientific consensus does mean something and I find it pretty arrogant of people who believe they can pick and choose which consensus they agree with.  

[Wideleft]

I think we need to turn this debate around and re-frame the question to:  Does A Climate Change Denial Industry exist?

Answer: yes

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/front-groups/

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/

For those who aren't aware, the Koch Industries Fertilizer plant in Brandon is the top greenhouse gas emitter in the province (data from 2014).

.http://climatechangeconnection.org/emissions/manitoba-ghg-emissions/manitoba-large-final-emitters-lfe/

 

Reporting Facility	GHG emitted (tonnes CO2e)	% MB total	min./T
Koch Fertilizer Plant	665,791	3.1%	0.79
Brady Road Landfill	381,030	1.8%	1.38
TransCanada Pipeline	268,200	1.2%	1.96
Faulkner Lime Plant	143,632	0.7%	3.66
Summit Road Landfill	106,284	0.5%	4.95
Thompson Operations	78,883	0.4%	6.66
Minnedosa Ethanol Plant	77,891	0.4%	6.75
Brandon Hydro Station	72,404	0.3%	7.26
Manitoba Kraft Papers	68,854	0.3%	7.63
Kilcona Landfill	61,950	0.3%	8.48

This article articulates the various players and groups involved in getting Trump to declare he is pulling out of the Paris Agreement:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/jun/02/trumps-paris-exit-climate-science-denial-industry-has-just-had-its-greatest-victory

 

 

 

[Mark F]

24 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Does A Climate Change Denial Industry exist?

 

I like this one

"A Canadian climate change denial group has popped up in a U.S. coal giant's bankruptcy proceedings that have lifted the curtain on the funding of a sophisticated continent-wide marketing campaign designed to fool the public about how human activity is contributing to global warming.

A document, nearly 1,000 pages long, lists the Calgary-based Friends of Science Society as one of the creditors expecting to get money from the once-mighty coal company, Peabody Energy.

Climate scientists and environmentalists have long suspected that the so-called “Friends” group was a front for fossil fuel companies trying to block government action to reduce carbon pollution, but Friends of Science members always declined to reveal their source of funding."

People who don't "believe" in the science, will be glad to know that they are in agreement with coast to coast am, overnight radio show, which does not accept climate science either.

The  show  also have guests who discuss things like ghostly encounters, communicating with the dead, time travel, anti vaccine, alien visitations, crop circles.

Edited October 5, 2017 by Mark F

[Wideleft]

4 minutes ago, Mark F said:

I like this one

"A Canadian climate change denial group has popped up in a U.S. coal giant's bankruptcy proceedings that have lifted the curtain on the funding of a sophisticated continent-wide marketing campaign designed to fool the public about how human activity is contributing to global warming.

A document, nearly 1,000 pages long, lists the Calgary-based Friends of Science Society as one of the creditors expecting to get money from the once-mighty coal company, Peabody Energy.

Climate scientists and environmentalists have long suspected that the so-called “Friends” group was a front for fossil fuel companies trying to block government action to reduce carbon pollution, but Friends of Science members always declined to reveal their source of funding."

People will be glad to know that coast to coast am, overnight radio show, does not accept climate science either.

They also have guests who discuss things like ghostly encounters, communicating with the dead, time travel, anti vaccine, alien visitations, crop circles.

I'm ashamed that Tim Ball (Friends of Science) is from Winnipeg. 

Retired - Professor of Geography, University of Winnepeg
Senior Scientific Advisor, Friends of Science Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee, Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP)

Tim Ball was a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry funded Friends of Science, an organization well known for its climate skepticism and politically charged attack ads. Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is also predominantly funded by foundations and corporations. Ball is also a writer for Tech Central Station, a climate denial website run by the PR firm DCI Group. 

Tin Ball was a professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to 1996. He is a prolific speaker and writer in the skeptical science community.

 http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1164

 

[Mark F]

Wideleft here's an article about an ff industry funded scientist.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0

 

 

Quote

 

For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate changehave bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.

One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.

But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers.

 

1.2 million dineros. 

 

Edited October 5, 2017 by Mark F

[Mark F]

in the last year or two, I heard a panel discussion of the flooding of Calgary, they had on various people who had expertise on different aspects of it. I think the guests were all from Alberta.

At one point, one of the panelists was talking about the causes of the flooding, and he was about to say the words

"climate change......"   you could almost hear the  alarm/internal censor going off;    luckily, he was able to choke off saying the phrase;

I don't blame him, could cost you your job in some places.

So, no discussion of climate change role in the flooding of Calgary.

lol.

[Atomic]

One thing is for sure, floods never happened before humans started changing the climate.  In fact there was never a natural disaster.  Purely a late 20th century thing.

[Wideleft]

2 minutes ago, Atomic said:

One thing is for sure, floods never happened before humans started changing the climate.  In fact there was never a natural disaster.  Purely a late 20th century thing.

Translation: I got nothing.  

[Wideleft]

 

Edited October 5, 2017 by Wideleft

[Wideleft]

Full doc, but not great video quallity.

 

[Atomic]

24 minutes ago, Wideleft said:

Translation: I got nothing.  

No point arguing with two people who sit there sharing articles that agree with their viewpoint and never investigate alternative views.  And then claim there is a scientific consensus, where there isn't one, by saying anyone who disagrees must be getting paid off by a corporation.