The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Monolith]

University of Alberta vice-president resigns over 'beefier barley' billboards

The University of Alberta's vice-president of university relations has resigned over the school's "beefier barley" billboards, which were slammed as promoting climate change.

"The messaging on the ad called the reputation of the University of Alberta and its extensive research on climate change into question," vice-president of university relations Jacqui Tam said in an announcement posted Sunday.

"As Vice-President (University Relations), I apologize for this and take responsibility. In the best interests of the institution, I am announcing my departure from the University of Alberta, effective immediately."

The "beefier barley" billboards, displayed at four locations in Edmonton and Calgary, read, "Climate change will boost Alberta's barley yield with less water, feeding more cattle."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...ards-1.5302308

[Andy6]

Was the messaging untrue?

[milomilo]

It was an out of context prediction from a research paper. I have no idea why they felt the need to spend money on that.

'Beefier barley' researcher says her work does not promote positives of climate change

[someone123]

Originally Posted by milomilo

It was an out of context prediction from a research paper. I have no idea why they felt the need to spend money on that.

'Beefier barley' researcher says her work does not promote positives of climate change

It's not really "out of context"; it's exactly what the paper is about. If you look at the highlights for the paper and the abstract the whole paper was about barley water footprints and yields. They found that yields in some areas are expected to go up, in other areas they're unchanged, and the water footprint is expected to go down.

Governments right now are trying to decide how much money to spend to minimize CO2 emissions. Questions like this have an impact on where emissions targets should be set. We should want to spend more to avoid a scenario where agricultural yields plummet than one where they go up.

[milomilo]

What you just wrote sounds exactly like out of context. The billboard didn't even say 'might' increase yield, it said it will, which is obviously incorrect.

Yes, research like this is important. But spinning it in an inaccurate way, ironically as a promotion of "truth matters", is not what a university should be doing. I'd expect this kind of crap from one of the fake "friends of science" type anti climate change groups.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by milomilo

What you just wrote sounds exactly like out of context. The billboard didn't even say 'might' increase yield, it said it will, which is obviously incorrect.

We should ban "will" from the vocabulary then because all statements about the future are uncertain. I would guess that a lot of billboard readers are aware that predictions are not guaranteed to come true, and that some ads might not be completely dispassionate.

Yes, research like this is important. But spinning it in an inaccurate way, ironically as a promotion of "truth matters", is not what a university should be doing. I'd expect this kind of crap from one of the fake "friends of science" type anti climate change groups.

I bet that this was some kind of oil industry fueled PR initiative. It seems dumb to me and I wish universities didn't do this kind of thing. But it's not outside the norm for university ads or science journalism. It just happened to fall into a politically sensitive area.

[WarrenC12]

More Alberta playing the victim. "If you don't let us blow up carbon emissions, we won't be able to produce more barley in the future!"

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

More Alberta playing the victim. "If you don't let us blow up carbon emissions, we won't be able to produce more barley in the future!"

A statement that appears to be well supported by science.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

More Alberta playing the victim. "If you don't let us blow up carbon emissions, we won't be able to produce more barley in the future!"

I think that's a bit of an overreaction.

Originally Posted by Andy6

A statement that appears to be well supported by science.

You're just going to ignore the full story? The researcher herself said the billboard was a misuse of her paper.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

We should ban "will" from the vocabulary then because all statements about the future are uncertain.

You're being sarcastic but you aren't that wrong - when writing a serious document about some future business that isn't 100% guaranteed, I use "could", "should", "might", "probably will", etc.

Now, yes, if I say I'll be there tomorrow at 8, I don't need to add the disclaimer "unless I die in a car crash on my way". On that, I'm with you.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by someone123

Sure. There will always be people with ridiculous beliefs.

Here is a chart of emissions in Canada:


Source

But this masks what is going on regionally:



If we had a "Canada minus the Prairies" chart from 2005-2017 we'd see emissions dropping a lot faster. I also don't think these include carbon capture initiatives (mostly reforestation).



Not really on a human timescale. In the time we went from horses and buggies to landing on the moon the average global temperature went up by around 0.3-0.5 C.

I question how much of this decline was done by an erosion of industry in Eastern Canada.

If you want the working class trapped at shopping malls selling Iphones I guess there is nothing to worry about. However if you care at all this is pretty much the biggest issue in Canada.

This carbon tax and all this other nonsense is just the top 30th percentile punching down at the bottom 30th percentile.

You claim victory when their lifestyle collapses while you wish to expand yours.

You want to curb emissions, stop driving/stop over consumption. This will either happen with consent from the top down, or it'll mean create extreme material inequality in our society.

Energy consumption equates to actual income far better than imaginary abstractions in a bank.


This is why this topic is leading in the debates it will never effect the upper third of society. It'll simply put wealth into one basket over to another.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by someone123

We should ban "will" from the vocabulary then because all statements about the future are uncertain. I would guess that a lot of billboard readers are aware that predictions are not guaranteed to come true, and that some ads might not be completely dispassionate.

Not here in Alberta, my friend. A shockingly large portion of the population here aren't just wilfully ignorant, they're wantonly fucking stupid. Have realized this a lot over the past year.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Andy6

A statement that appears to be well supported by science.

If I set my house on fire in January, I can enjoy wonderful tropical heat in the middle of winter!!!!

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Not here in Alberta, my friend. A shockingly large portion of the population here aren't just wilfully ignorant, they're wantonly fucking stupid. Have realized this a lot over the past year.

It's not just here, it's everywhere, only the particular flavour of stupidity changes. You're not wrong though. I can partially forgive ignorance, I cannot stand wilful ignorance though.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Not here in Alberta, my friend. A shockingly large portion of the population here aren't just wilfully ignorant, they're wantonly fucking stupid. Have realized this a lot over the past year.

Do you still drive a car?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

You're being sarcastic but you aren't that wrong - when writing a serious document about some future business that isn't 100% guaranteed, I use "could", "should", "might", "probably will", etc.

"Tomorrow will be Thursday" vs. "it might rain tomorrow" vs. "it will probably rain tomorrow". Note that the first option isn't 100% guaranteed either; I might have made an error, for example.

In serious forecasting you give probabilities rather than relying on subjective interpretation of these words. "40% probability of precipitation tomorrow". You also need to make a prediction about something objective that can be checked after the fact. Otherwise you are not really making useful predictions.

Billboards don't normally use language in very serious way. Making a big deal out of will vs. might on a billboard is an isolated claim for rigour that we don't consistently expect from that medium. This type of criticism is usually political. You apply one standard to the speech you like and another to the speech you don't like. I doubt that the university normally considers that an error that people need to resign over.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Do you still drive a car?

I've never had a car. Only even driven a handful of times.

Originally Posted by milomilo

It's not just here, it's everywhere, only the particular flavour of stupidity changes. You're not wrong though. I can partially forgive ignorance, I cannot stand wilful ignorance though.

It certainly is everywhere. Though that is why I specified "shockingly large amount" in my post, because it's particularly bad - almost bordering on dangerous and even actionable - here in Alberta. It's basically like living in the fucking states.

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Was the messaging untrue?

The first rule of climate change: Don’t talk about the benefits of climate change! Especially if you are an employee of the government or working on a government grant.

It is a well established scientific fact that many plants using photosynthesis respond positively to higher levels of CO2. They grow faster, larger, they require less water, are more drought resistant. NASA has shown the earth is greening in response to higher CO2 levels. Most people would consider that a good thing. You can buy CO2 kits for your home grown weed (not weeds) and garden. Just don’t talk about it!


https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...greening-earth


https://www.growweedeasy.com/co2


https://www.htgsupply.com/product-ca...lete-co2-kits/

[milomilo]

More cherry picking.

[Andy6]

Originally Posted by milomilo

More cherry picking.

The whole point is that the cherries exist to be picked. But we’re not allowed to mention that fact in case it gives comfort to the wicked climate heretics. That’s a religious way of thinking, not a scientific one, as I understand those terms.