The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

And there is still deep debate on where the actual ppm rise fits into influence on future climate and how it sits with other natural drivers.

This "deep debate" is certainly not to the point where anybody is suggesting that we don't need to bother with emissions cuts.

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

For example, the ICPP is going to have to wrestle with this - from last week...

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.04633.pdf

Did you actually read the paper? I see nothing that suddenly invalidates years of scientific consensus. But I'm curious why you think otherwise.

[TallerIsBetter]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This "deep debate" is certainly not to the point where anybody is suggesting that we don't need to bother with emissions cuts.



Did you actually read the paper? I see nothing that suddenly invalidates years of scientific consensus. But I'm curious why you think otherwise.

Lol, you respond in like two minutes with a full and definitive assessment of the paper, and then ask me if I read it. Really?

And then you twist my original point into something that I never said.

I'll repeat. We DO NOT understand either Natural nor Anthropogenic Climate drivers impacts.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

Lol, you respond in like two minutes with a full and definitive assessment of the paper, and then ask me if I read it. Really?

It's not a long paper. And having had courses on the Space Environment and Space Weather, I understand the subject matter. Now. Did you read it? And if so, please explain why you think it would substantially change scientific consensus on AGW and specifically the required mitigations.

You keep saying you have a science background. And yet you can't seem to discuss these issues while applying scientific reasoning.

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

We DO NOT understand either Natural nor Anthropogenic Climate drivers impacts.

Just because you don't understand a specific issue doesn't mean the global scientific community doesn't.

[WarrenC12]

Lol posting scientific abstracts like they are a mic drop. The deniers are reaching their limits.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

I'll repeat. I DO NOT understand either Natural nor Anthropogenic Climate drivers impacts.

I fixed that for you.

I'll be honest, I'm probably no more qualified to understand the science than you (though I do have a science degree). But unlike you, I understand and respect science enough to defer to the scientists that do.

In the handful of posts of yours I've seen, I can only say that you are definitely not a "scientist" type, in fact you are the worst type, someone that thinks they understand but are ignorant of their ignorance. Perhaps you are anti vaxxer, anti GMO too?

[Hackslack]

God this back and forth between ACC warriors on the left and the ones on the right challenging the science is f’n ridiculous. Why the F can’t a civil convo be had where people’s opinion or point of view should be challenged and debated, perhaps try to educate, rather than call them deniers or climate change warriors

Like, on one side the science of F’n proven and if you even slightly challen he the science or question it, even one part of it you are a denial, labeled almost as bead as a racist or homophobe.

On the other side there are those that think the whole thing is made up and a complete joke, but there is a reason multi billions of dollars from even the private sector are finding new ways to make living in a first world environment more sustainable.

Fact is though, there is a reason why hundreds of billions of dollars still being invested in the science and understanding of climate change, meaning there is a consensus there is something happening to our environment, dramatic change to the climate with respect to anything seen in the past, but there is obviously no consensus within the scientific community of exact cause, effects, and solution. The who, what, when, where and why are not yet determined.

I was watching 60 minutes from last week and the scientist from Australia was discussing he Australian fires, and even she said that from her studies she expected to see what is happening now should be happening 30 years from now. So what does that tell me? She doesn’t whole heartedly understand the science behind climate change. Her models were of by almost 30 years...

Grow the fuck up people. You are so immature... like, “LOL, my opinion is much better than yours, my opinion is fact, blah blah fucking blah...”

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

God this back and forth between ACC warriors on the left and the ones on the right challenging the science is f’n ridiculous. Why the F can’t a civil convo be had where people’s opinion or point of view should be challenged and debated, perhaps try to educate, rather than call them deniers or climate change warriors

Like, on one side the science of F’n proven and if you even slightly challen he the science or question it, even one part of it you are a denial, labeled almost as bead as a racist or homophobe.

On the other side there are those that think the whole thing is made up and a complete joke, but there is a reason multi billions of dollars from even the private sector are finding new ways to make living in a first world environment more sustainable.

Fact is though, there is a reason why hundreds of billions of dollars still being invested in the science and understanding of climate change, meaning there is a consensus there is something happening to our environment, dramatic change to the climate with respect to anything seen in the past, but there is obviously no consensus within the scientific community of exact cause, effects, and solution. The who, what, when, where and why are not yet determined.

I was watching 60 minutes from last week and the scientist from Australia was discussing he Australian fires, and even she said that from her studies she expected to see what is happening now should be happening 30 years from now. So what does that tell me? She doesn’t whole heartedly understand the science behind climate change. Her models were of by almost 30 years...

Grow the fuck up people. You are so immature... like, “LOL, my opinion is much better than yours, my opinion is fact, blah blah fucking blah...”

No, we don't know everything with 100% certainty, but we know more than enough to know that CO2 has a large effect on the climate and reducing our output of the gas is in our best interest. We don't fully understand gravity either, but that doesn't mean it would be a good idea to jump off a cliff.

If people want to deny the science, it isn't a matter of opinion that we need to respect, they are simply wrong.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by milomilo

No, we don't know everything with 100% certainty, but we know more than enough to know that CO2 has a large effect on the climate and reducing our output of the gas is in our best interest. We don't fully understand gravity either, but that doesn't mean it would be a good idea to jump off a cliff.

If people want to deny the science, it isn't a matter of opinion that we need to respect, they are simply wrong.

I agree. That’s what I said. I didn’t say we don’t know enough. I said we know enough to understand it’s bad and has adverse effects, but we collectively don’t fully understand to effects.

To say we know enough about climate change to that of gravity is a completely useless comparison. We know a lot more about gravity than climate change.

I’m in agreement that there are hugely negative effects. But there are also professors from some of the most distinguished universities that challenge the effects. Should we mock them too? Are you or anyone here smarter than them?

There is a debate to be had. And to mock either side is a waste of time and energy.

Why are there still multi million dollar developments in major cities all around the world on the coast? Science tells us that the sea level will rise, and cities will be under water, yet there are still trillions of dollars of investments in these cities. Why? Tell me you have an answer, because the science is settled, as you say.. or are they simply wrong, because you say do?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

I agree. That’s what I said. I didn’t say we don’t know enough. I said we know enough to understand it’s bad and has adverse effects, but we collectively don’t fully understand to effects.

To say we know enough about climate change to that of gravity is a completely useless comparison. We know a lot more about gravity than climate change.

I’m in agreement that there are hugely negative effects. But there are also professors from some of the most distinguished universities that challenge the effects. Should we mock them too? Are you or anyone here smarter than them?

There is a debate to be had. And to mock either side is a waste of time and energy.

Why are there still multi million dollar developments in major cities all around the world on the coast? Science tells us that the sea level will rise, and cities will be under water, yet there are still trillions of dollars of investments in these cities. Why? Tell me you have an answer, because the science is settled, as you say.. or are they simply wrong, because you say do?

Of the three of us that just criticised tallerisbetter, I don't think any of us would disagree with most of what you have posted in this post. I think we'd all agree that it is dumb for humans to keep building things that could very well be useless in a few decades.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Of the three of us that just criticised tallerisbetter, I don't think any of us would disagree with most of what you have posted in this post. I think we'd all agree that it is dumb for humans to keep building things that could very well be useless in a few decades.

I completely agree, it would be a waste for humans to keep building things that could be useless in a few decades. But we are. Surely there is some engineering investigation behind these developments that address being under water in a couple decades. Would they even get climate change insurance?... I’m just saying there is more to the story that we here cannot be the ones to laugh at people, unless they outright deny anything at all is happening.

I must note too, that during that 60 minutes segment discussing the Australian wild fires, nothing at all was mention about how 75% of the fire (allegedly) was started by arson. If people did not start the fires, would there have even been fires that could not be contained, and as such, close mate change may not have been to blame. I guess what I am saying that, if arson did not at are t he fires, even though it was record dry and record hot, would climate change be one to blame for anything, other than record heat and record dryness. Is arson at fault, or is climate change at fault, for those devastating fires. Just another viewpoint to this topic, so please don’t mock and LOL me.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

I’m in agreement that there are hugely negative effects. But there are also professors from some of the most distinguished universities that challenge the effects. Should we mock them too? Are you or anyone here smarter than them?

There is a debate to be had. And to mock either side is a waste of time and energy.

Why are there still multi million dollar developments in major cities all around the world on the coast? Science tells us that the sea level will rise, and cities will be under water, yet there are still trillions of dollars of investments in these cities. Why? Tell me you have an answer, because the science is settled, as you say.. or are they simply wrong, because you say do?

I agree that we should keep an open mind with respect to science and what we are continually learning about climate change. There are certain things we can predict with reasonable accuracy, such as the increase in global temps with the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

What we don't know is what exactly will happen, when, and where.

But I don't like talk of "both sides". They aren't on equal footing. There's 97% of scientists, and 3%. It doesn't make sense to give them equal space in our discourse, or our attention and money. The 3% have a big hill to climb to start to convince the rest of us.

Because climate is extremely complex and unpredictable, it's far too easy for deniers to throw a wrench in to a prediction that was incorrect, and thereby claim the whole thing is a scam. This is dangerous thinking and deserves to be exposed and stamped out for what it is, a lie.

[Airboy]

While doing some reading on Embedded GHGs I came across this Oxford Study. Lost of reading but worth the time. The comparison between Consumption GHGs and Production GHGs.

My office is now looking at Embedded GHGs when developing a sustainable building. Still not part of our official calculations but we are adding it to our design as a supplemental for our clients to see.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-o...-co2-emissions
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-o...-gas-emissions

[TallerIsBetter]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I fixed that for you.

I'll be honest, I'm probably no more qualified to understand the science than you (though I do have a science degree). But unlike you, I understand and respect science enough to defer to the scientists that do.

In the handful of posts of yours I've seen, I can only say that you are definitely not a "scientist" type, in fact you are the worst type, someone that thinks they understand but are wignorant of their ignorance. Perhaps you are anti vaxxer, anti GMO too?

I love getting my flu vaccine and if they can make a GMO strawberry the size of my fist, I take two please.

Would you like to make any other vile ad hominin assumptions publicly? SMH.

I actually am the best kind of scientist type, as I am willing to express uncertainty. And question consensus. Both are pillars of the scientific method.

I never stated greenhouse gasses are not greenhouse gasses and can have no effect. So your/others use of the term denier is a disgusting tactic.

All I said was there is a weakness in our understanding. The popular media and particularly policy makers deny uncertainty. The schools deny uncertainty.

Here are some facts:

• Canada cannot move the needle on ppm levels, even if we disappear
• A prosperous Canada can help develop technology that helps the world move towards better, more sustainable energy solutions, as well as clean water, agricultural efficiency, etc.
• the BIG LIE in this is that there is a 97% consensus among climate and meteorological scientists. Not even close.

I'll respectfully leave you all to your echo chamber.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

• Canada cannot move the needle on ppm levels, even if we disappear
• A prosperous Canada can help develop technology that helps the world move towards better, more sustainable energy solutions, as well as clean water, agricultural efficiency, etc.
• the BIG LIE in this is that there is a 97% consensus among climate and meteorological scientists. Not even close.

I'll respectfully leave you all to your echo chamber.

1. A timeless argument. I'm just one person, why bother doing anything?

2. One can only assume by "prosperous Canada", you mean as many oil sands pipelines as we can build? Who doesn't want Canada to be prosperous?

3. What is the consensus then? You seem to have the answers.

Oh sorry, you're taking your ball and going home.

[Truenorth00]

"scientist type" because I question the consensus.

Proof that TallerIsBetter doesn't know or actually understand the Scientific Method. I'm now willing to bet, he (such nonsense never comes from women in my experience) doesn't have a science degree at all. Let's move on from the troll.

[Truenorth00]

The whole reason I like the coming tech wave is because it's so secular and all the screeching climate deniers with an eye on their paycheques won't have a leg to stand on when companies are just making sound business decisions.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The whole reason I like the coming tech wave is because it's so secular and all the screeching climate deniers with an eye on their paycheques won't have a leg to stand on when companies are just making sound business decisions.

Well, in this post-truth era, they will still have a boogeyman to blame, real or imagined. When it's big oil money, everything is fine. Suddenly when other big money is involved, it's a Soros/UN plot to take over the world.

I also look forward to the solutions though!

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I think we'd all agree that it is dumb for humans to keep building things that could very well be useless in a few decades.

Hey. I've said I'm okay with letting our Prairie brethren build whatever they want. I just want a deal where they foresake future bailouts when the inevitable happens. If they bet the farm, why should we backstop their losses when there was decades of warning against their strategy?

Any Albertan or Saskatchewan who truly believes that oil and gas will last for another half century at least should have no issues signing up for that deal. And if it goes bust, we treat you guys like the Maritimes and depopulate.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Well, in this post-truth era, they will still have a boogeyman to blame, real or imagined. When it's big oil money, everything is fine. Suddenly when other big money is involved, it's a Soros/UN plot to take over the world.

I also look forward to the solutions though!

Like I've said, I wouldn't worry about the trolls. There's always someone on the wrong side of history. This time it's mostly scientifically illiterate Western Baby Boomers.

A few years back I'd share the concern. Now? Not the least bit concerned. This is moving faster than even the most concerned Hippie can imagine. And it's guys in suits with real money making the decisions.

[Hackslack]

Wow, not sure how legitimate this is but, here it goes...

Alberta to warm faster than the rest of the planet..

I did not read the report, so maybe it is just terrible journalism, spreading misinformation. I mean, I didn’t think global warming changes so much at such restricted areas, such as provincial borders... I obviously have a lot to learn if so!

“
Alberta will warm faster than the rest of the planet because of human activity, causing a range of profound impacts on the province’s economy, infrastructure and public health, says a new report, prepared by climate scientists and published on a provincial government website.”

https://globalnews.ca/news/6600989/a...mpression=true