The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[MolsonExport]

ah Rofina, I think your only job is to attack my postings. Do you ever have any fun?

do I really need to acknowledge some of the side benefits of fossil fuels? Christ, as a former smoker, I can tell you that my former lousy habit also had a lot of benefits, or so it seemed at the time.

The benefits of oil are universally known. It is a non-argument; a red herring. Meanwhile, the planet is cooking. I would say that is a pretty serious downside.

Every single thing we touch today is a petroleum product. The shirt Im wearing, the car I drive, the keyboard I'm typing on, the aspirin I took this morning, the bottle holding my water, the chair I sit on, the desk holding my computer, my cell phone, the meal I had for lunch, the medical devices saving millions of lives a year, the power plant that makes the lights work, the wheels on an ambulance, the engine that powers the ambulance, the fireman's hose, medicine.

Wow. that sounds like one of those "Pure Michigan" tourist ads. Well done, Mr. P.R.

I used to come to SSP for light-hearted fun, but the contrarian Grinches have taken over.

[MolsonExport]

the meal I had for lunch

I ate some bitumen for lunch and washed it down with a can of motor oil. 10W-40. Tasted oily.

[Hackslack]

MolsonExport, you should change your name to Mr.Contrarian… the whole discussion surrounding oil today has been because of you, attacking me saying that’s the only thing I talk about. You brought the whole topic of oil up. Before you posted, it was entirely on the discussion of what questions can be asked before one is labelled a climate denie. You then went off on a massive tangent comparing tobacco to oil. Next time just try to stay on topic, instead of trying to rock a boat that would otherwise not even be there.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

MolsonExport, you should change your name to Mr.Contrarian… the whole discussion surrounding oil today has been because of you, attacking me saying that’s the only thing I talk about. You brought the whole topic of oil up. Before you posted, it was entirely on the discussion of what questions can be asked before one is labelled a climate denie. You then went off on a massive tangent comparing tobacco to oil. Next time just try to stay on topic, instead of trying to rock a boat that would otherwise not even be there.

Like TrueNorth said outright denial is no longer the game. Now it's all about shifting goalposts and casting doubt about our ability to do anything. Also all about hyping up tax revenues and using China as the Whataboutism bogeyman.

[O-tacular]

Delete.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Like TrueNorth said outright denial is no longer the game. Now it's all about shifting goalposts and casting doubt about our ability to do anything. Also all about hyping up tax revenues and using China as the Whataboutism bogeyman.

I get that, and I know what he means and don’t disagree. The individuals who originally posted questioned if logging in BC had anything to do with the mass flooding, and I didn’t think that question had any underlying motive, other than to perhaps generate discussion of if other factors, on top of the main driver, had an impact on the flooding. I questioned too the mass wildfires this year if they were a reason for the flooding (which of course is climate change driven too)… anyway, there’s obviously a real fine line to walk before one gets labelled as either a denier or has ulterior motives… I’ve learned today it’s best no to even ask, especially on this forum and especially because context can very easily be lost on forums.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

ah Rofina, I think your only job is to attack my postings. Do you ever have any fun?

How many times do I have to answer to this? You are not the main character friend. I quote and reply, on average, I figure 20, maybe 30 times a day? Sorry - you're not special in this regard.

do I really need to acknowledge some of the side benefits of fossil fuels? Christ, as a former smoker, I can tell you that my former lousy habit also had a lot of benefits, or so it seemed at the time

Not at all. But dont pretend like the reason why are having this conversation over the internet, on computers, has nothing to do witht he fact we built modern civilization on oil.

Nothing happens without oil today.

That doesn't that shouldn't change, it should have. 20 years ago. Next best time is today.

The benefits of oil are universally known. It is a non-argument; a red herring. Meanwhile, the planet is cooking. I would say that is a pretty serious downside.

Uhh - yah. Once again, we need to get off this stuff like decades ago. That's not what were talking about.

I'm talking about your absurd claim that oil hasn't done any good for us, despite the fact we wouldn't even have a computer to type on without oil.

Wow. that sounds like one of those "Pure Michigan" tourist ads. Well done, Mr. P.R.

Sure.

I used to come to SSP for light-hearted fun, but the contrarian Grinches have taken over.

Really? Dude, you are like one of the meanest posters around. Half your stuff is snide and sarcastic, and you seldom engage in any sort of conversation that goes beyond surface level.

I would much prefer you dismantle me intellectually than talk about Mr. PR.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

I get that, and I know what he means and don’t disagree. The individuals who originally posted questioned if logging in BC had anything to do with the mass flooding, and I didn’t think that question had any underlying motive, other than to perhaps generate discussion of if other factors, on top of the main driver, had an impact on the flooding. I questioned too the mass wildfires this year if they were a reason for the flooding (which of course is climate change driven too)… anyway, there’s obviously a real fine line to walk before one gets labelled as either a denier or has ulterior motives… I’ve learned today it’s best no to even ask, especially on this forum and especially because context can very easily be lost on forums.

I agree the dead forest charred by wildfires made the flooding worse. I have no idea if logging parcels are close enough to the affected urban areas to have contributed but could see it also making things worse. A couple weeks ago I shared an article about BC logging old growth forests and how that is a terrible idea. In the end those are things that need to be looked at to mitigate the effects of Climate Change. What I (and others it seems) have an issue with is when those factors are taken out of context and used to obfuscate the cause of the storms which are the source of all of the flooding to begin with. No different than pretending arsonists are the cause of all the historic summer wildfires instead of the parched conditions.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I agree the dead forest charred by wildfires made the flooding worse. I have no idea if logging parcels are close enough to the affected urban areas to have contributed but could see it also making things worse. A couple weeks ago I shared an article about BC logging old growth forests and how that is a terrible idea. In the end those are things that need to be looked at to mitigate the effects of Climate Change. What I (and others it seems) have an issue with is when those factors are taken out of context and used to obfuscate the cause of the storms which are the source of all of the flooding to begin with. No different than pretending arsonists are the cause of all the historic summer wildfires instead of the parched conditions.

I think scientists have done an abhorrent job in communicating the realities to people.

Climate change is an issue because it throws stability out the window.

I dont think many people understand that all it takes is to have stability gone for us to begin collapse.

Everything we do today is based on models.

The new bridge or highway expansion? Engineers create models to simulate worse case scenarios, their probabilities, and work around that.

How can one logically model anything when the assumptions are changing so dramatically and rapidly?

Getting half a year worth of rain in one month was likely not something that was used as part of the design on these roads because it was an unreasonably low probability event, and outlier of little benefit.

Now that low probability events are happening every 2,3, 4 or 5 years it drastically changes the realities of habitation and survival.

I mean a simple thought exercise; what if the BC floods happen every 3-4 years from now on. How does Canada adjust?

I think low probability events have become something we can expect to see couple times a decade, and we are not ready.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by rofina

How many times do I have to answer to this? You are not the main character friend. I quote and reply, on average, I figure 20, maybe 30 times a day? Sorry - you're not special in this regard.


Not at all. But dont pretend like the reason why are having this conversation over the internet, on computers, has nothing to do witht he fact we built modern civilization on oil.

Nothing happens without oil today.

That doesn't that shouldn't change, it should have. 20 years ago. Next best time is today.


Uhh - yah. Once again, we need to get off this stuff like decades ago. That's not what were talking about.

I'm talking about your absurd claim that oil hasn't done any good for us, despite the fact we wouldn't even have a computer to type on without oil.



Sure.



Really? Dude, you are like one of the meanest posters around. Half your stuff is snide and sarcastic, and you seldom engage in any sort of conversation that goes beyond surface level.

I would much prefer you dismantle me intellectually than talk about Mr. PR.

The points about oil play right into the Alberta War Room strategy of deflecting criticism by pointing out the "hypocrisy" of anyone living in our modern society who uses products derived from oil. I don't disagree with what you said in general but we are at a point where it's starting to sound ludicrous when people praise the industry as the world around us is falling apart. You know what else propelled the modern world forward? Slavery. But you won't find too many people cheering about that.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

The points about oil play right into the Alberta War Room strategy of deflecting criticism by pointing out the "hypocrisy" of anyone living in our modern society who uses products derived from oil. I don't disagree with what you said in general but we are at a point where it's starting to sound ludicrous when people praise the industry as the world around us is falling apart. You know what else propelled the modern world forward? Slavery. But you won't find too many people cheering about that.

Fair criticism, but I think acknowledgement of reality is paramount to building reliable models of the world.

I think your example of slavery is extremely apt; it literally tore a nation apart causing a bloody civil war.

Oil is no different, were talking about a change as dramatic as possible today.

Understanding how the world economy works, and what oil's role in it is critical in figuring out how we shift away from its use.

We need credible solutions, beyond power generation, that remove our dependence on oil.

We need products made from alternate materials, we need to subsidize when possible those industries that replace petroleum products.

What I don't think is helpful is pretending we could snap our fingers and get off oil tomorrow with a fleet of EV's made from mostly plastics, produced from oil.

Its hard not to hear the greenwashing of industries and not be intensely cynical about the purpose; profit.

The ultimate solution has and will be a return to a sustainable pace of life; less consumption. Clothes that last. Food that grows with the seasons and produced locally. Motor vehicles for service work only. Etc.

But that's far too radical a solution, so instead we argue about building wind turbines made from petroleum products, while the petroleum industry continues to print record profits.

The problem always has been rooted in the quality of life we have come to expect. And the fact 5 billion other humans want to understandably join the club.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

By the way the Quebec-Windsor corridor with half the country's population has about the same density as Spain or France. It's getting really tiring to hear a bunch of uninhabited tundra constantly used as an excuse for why we don't have the same infrastructure and practices as the rest of the developed world.

Copenhagen is walkable despite Greenland

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What the defence for having one quarter the EV penetration of China? Are they a "postage stamp sized country" too?

Also, Oslo to Bergen or Trondheim is about the same distance as Toronto to Ottawa/Montreal. Similar climate to Southern Ontario. But a far more challenging drive than the 401. And yet, Ontario is at 2-3% EV penetration?

By the way the Quebec-Windsor corridor with half the country's population has about the same density as Spain or France. It's getting really tiring to hear a bunch of uninhabited tundra constantly used as an excuse for why we don't have the same infrastructure and practices as the rest of the developed world. In this case, cheaper gas didn't lead to people across the country more. It just led to Canadians buying larger and larger vehicles.

Are the population of Spain and France trying to provide defense and supply services for a population spread out over the second largest country by landmass on the planet? But by all means, ask your neighbour how much more tax they'd be willing to pay for highspeed rail in the corridor.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I agree the dead forest charred by wildfires made the flooding worse.

A geoscientist I know who studies debris flows and landslides did a helicopter survey of the Fraser Canyon and up the Coquihalla just after the first round of heavy rain, he said that none of the landslides he saw were triggered in forest fire scars, they were all natural landslides.

The major flooding in Abbotsford and Chillwack wasn't caused by wildfire scars either, it was caused by inadequate dykes and massive amounts of rainfall in BC and Washington State.

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

I get that, and I know what he means and don’t disagree. The individuals who originally posted questioned if logging in BC had anything to do with the mass flooding, and I didn’t think that question had any underlying motive, other than to perhaps generate discussion of if other factors, on top of the main driver, had an impact on the flooding. I questioned too the mass wildfires this year if they were a reason for the flooding (which of course is climate change driven too)… anyway, there’s obviously a real fine line to walk before one gets labelled as either a denier or has ulterior motives… I’ve learned today it’s best no to even ask, especially on this forum and especially because context can very easily be lost on forums.

Part of of the context that you might not have understood is that the person asking the question has a reputation for claiming one position, and then vociferously arguing another. After awhile it no longer becomes reasonable to assume he's quacking in good faith in any discussion.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Are the population of Spain and France trying to provide defense and supply services for a population spread out over the second largest country by landmass on the planet?

Are Canadians trying to do that? Those four fighter squadrons, four subs and 12 warships really speaks to our exceptional defence spending to guard a continent sized country..... Especially when compared to two former colonial powers, with territories on multiple continents, who field aircraft carriers, globally deployable forces, and in one case a nuclear triad. And that's just defence. Do you really want to compare the difference in the welfare state between two European countries and Canada? Let's start with Canada being the only developed country with no universal school lunch program. Meanwhile, French kids are served a four course meal (including a cheese course) daily. Canadians absolutely love to make excuses for the mediocrity in our country. In other places, citizens tend to actually expect governments to deliver.

Let's forget high speed rail. I agree that actual developed world infrastructure is beyond the ambition of the post-colonial backwater we live in. We don't even have what would be regular speed rail service in most of Europe, in the corridor with half the country's population. This in a country where for a third of the year driving is treacherous and flights risk serious delays and cancellations. In Spain, you get a 25% refund if your train is 15 mins late, 50% if it's 30 mins late and a full refund if the delay is an hour or more. VIA's revenue would tank if those kind of guarantees had to be applied to the Corridor services.

Originally Posted by whatnext

But by all means, ask your neighbour how much more tax they'd be willing to pay for highspeed rail in the corridor.

We actually should ask the public that. I am fairly confident the support would actually be fairly in high in the Quebec-Windsor corridor.

[someone123]

We cannot serve a French-style cheese course to unsophisticated children outside of The Corridor. It would be bedlam. Also, cheese contributes to climate change due to methane from cows. We could have a soy loaf course, fashioned into fake marble cheese cubes.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by someone123

We cannot serve a French-style cheese course to unsophisticated children outside of The Corridor. It would be bedlam. Also, cheese contributes to climate change due to methane from cows. We could have a soy loaf course, fashioned into fake marble cheese cubes.

And of course we could nearly eliminate the forest fires attributed to climate change if we chopped down all our forests and converted that land to farms or pastures, as they have done in the Netherlands and other parts of virtuous Western Europe over the millennia.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by whatnext

And of course we could nearly eliminate the forest fires attributed to climate change if we chopped down all our forests and converted that land to farms or pastures, as they have done in the Netherlands and other parts of virtuous Western Europe over the millennia.

And as we did in a lot of Southern Ontario and Quebec. Those vineyards in Niagara aren't a creation of nature.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by someone123

We cannot serve a French-style cheese course to unsophisticated children outside of The Corridor. It would be bedlam.

Given that Quebec is the only province to allow unpasteurized cheeses, this might be closer to the truth than you think....

Originally Posted by someone123

Also, cheese contributes to climate change due to methane from cows. We could have a soy loaf course, fashioned into fake marble cheese cubes.

It'd be a step up from not feeding kids anything....

In any event, my point here is that the geography excuse is just pure nonsense. Nobody is proposing this infrastructure in the middle of low density prairie. Indeed, I've been particularly vocal on how wasteful such investment would be in low density regions. But really, it is amazing that we accept such poor infrastructure, to the point of it impacting economic productivity and even safety, in regions of the country where we have the population to support such infrastructure.