The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[lio45]

I just find it odd that SaskScraper would be rooting for unabated global warming when Maple Creek is already so hot it's barely livable at this point.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by someone123

But think of these "social distancing" measures:

- Avoid nightlife, packed bars, etc.
- Avoid major events
- Shelter in place because it is dangerous to go outside

Saskatchewan has been operating this way since long before March 2020!

Yeah, it's unfair. Saskatchewan had an easy time; when you're empty Flyover Country it's not difficult to be unaffected by the virus. :p

"No major events". Okay, what's new...?

[someone123]

Originally Posted by rousseau

I, for one, welcome our new Sakatcha...Saskatachawinian...Saskachatawanian...Saskawachian...our new Prairie overlords.

I drove partway to the Prairies once but after an endless trip through frozen wasteland I decided to give up around Barrie and turn back.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Is this...satire?

It certainly reads like it is... but no, I'm afraid it's not.

[blueandgoldguy]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

LOL! I read what you wrote and clearly my response went right over your head. If the economy gets destroyed we will end up abandoning cities, etc. and that will result in a wasteland. Climate change is a huge scam. It's nothing but made up science that's being used to cause hysteria in the less educated and to take their money from them. The climate is always changing. Is it caused by human activity? Highly, highly unlikely!

lol so the majority of scientists (you know, actual experts in their fields) around the world who agree that climate change we are currently experiencing is primarily caused by us are wrong? Are you going to defer to a tiny minority of scientists and their studies with dubious claims to confirm your own bias.

How about the increasing acidification in the oceans and the bleaching of coral that we have observed recently? Is that part of the natural cycle of climate change?

[blueandgoldguy]

It depends on population growth. Europe and Asia are over-populated and both could stand to to lose a few hundred million each. Economic stagnation would occur as the result but not necessarily with some noticeable decline in standard of living. A similar number or slight decline in the world population means similar of lower carbon emissions.

Those numbers presented by Jawagord likely assume we do not experience a massive shift from gas to electricity in our transportation methods which account for a significant portion of our carbon emissions. We know this is unlikely to be the case as over the next decade we should see a major shift to electric vehicles/transport.

Next, we need to figure out how to recycle plastics in a cheaper manner than it is to currently produce new plastics as only 10% of plastics put in recycling bins are actually recycled! Our oceans are dying because of this!

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

So you are back to be a full blown climate change denier? Good to know, thanks for making that clear. It used to be you were a weak denier, pretending you cared but also not wanting to do anything about it, and at one point trying to convince us that Scheer's plan would actually reduce emissions more than carbon pricing, despite it not having any mechanisms to do much at all.

But being a climate change denier, that disqualifies you from discussing climate change in this thread. Your views are a decade or so out of date, no one, not even Canadian conservative politicians, are denying climate change is man made any more.

No, I said the climate is always changing just that it's not driven by man-made activity. Then I provided you some compelling science from a source that you can't refute. Are you a science denier? My views are based on science, not on what the uneducated and easily influenced masses believe. Sorry, Milo. You're the one who's disqualified from discussing this topic, not me.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

No, I said the climate is always changing just that it's not driven by man-made activity. Then I provided you some compelling science from a source that you can't refute. Are you a science denier? My views are based on science, not on what the uneducated and easily influenced masses believe. Sorry, Milo. You're the one who's disqualified from discussing this topic, not me.

Do you believe that carbon concentration in the atmosphere impacts climate in any way?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

lol so the majority of scientists (you know, actual experts in their fields) around the world who agree that climate change we are currently experiencing is primarily caused by us are wrong? Are you going to defer to a tiny minority of scientists and their studies with dubious claims to confirm your own bias.

How about the increasing acidification in the oceans and the bleaching of coral that we have observed recently? Is that part of the natural cycle of climate change?

I was waiting to see a response like this. Are you saying the experts in the study I linked to don't know what they're talking about? What's dubious about their claims? What makes your claims correct? Bias? Do you even know what bias is in this context?

[milomilo]

You're a denier. The man made part is the problem and you're the one disagreeing with science about that, which you are on the record as saying you do not trust, so I'm not sure how you can now claim you do base things on science when you have said you don't trust it.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

It depends on population growth. Europe and Asia are over-populated and both could stand to to lose a few hundred million each. Economic stagnation would occur as the result but not necessarily with some noticeable decline in standard of living. A similar number or slight decline in the world population means similar of lower carbon emissions.

Those numbers presented by Jawagord likely assume we do not experience a massive shift from gas to electricity in our transportation methods which account for a significant portion of our carbon emissions. We know this is unlikely to be the case as over the next decade we should see a major shift to electric vehicles/transport.

Next, we need to figure out how to recycle plastics in a cheaper manner than it is to currently produce new plastics as only 10% of plastics put in recycling bins are actually recycled! Are oceans are dying because of this!

What group of credible scientists, economists, demographers, etc. are providing the basis for your claims? Are you advocating for a huge war to wipe out about 0.5 billion or people? Or would this depopulation be done via a lottery?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Do you believe that carbon concentration in the atmosphere impacts climate in any way?

If you're asking if increased CO2 results in warmer temperatures then the answer is no because too many studies have shown that there is no relationship.

Do you believe in relying on models that are consistently wrong? Denying the validity of studies and the expertise of those behind them? When this happens time after time it makes it very hard for those of us who try to be objective to take climate change seriously. It's anything but scientific and deep down you know that I'm right.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

You're a denier. The man made part is the problem and you're the one disagreeing with science about that, which you are on the record as saying you do not trust, so I'm not sure how you can now claim you do base things on science when you have said you don't trust it.

Is the man made part the problem? More and more studies are showing other factors are what drives changes in climate. I'm a denier of crap science and so should you be.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Is the man made part the problem? More and more studies are showing other factors are what drives changes in climate. I'm a denier of crap science and so should you be.

If you disagree that man is having a large impact on the climate, and that this will have large negative impacts, then you disagree with the scientific consensus and thus are a denier. You can't pick and choose what science you think is true, unless you are an expert on the subject, and you clearly are not (neither am I).

The fact there are lots of factors in climate to consider and that we don't fully understand them does not contradict the main theory.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

If you're asking if increased CO2 results in warmer temperatures then the answer is no because too many studies have shown that there is no relationship.

Do you believe in relying on models that are consistently wrong? Denying the validity of studies and the expertise of those behind them? When this happens time after time it makes it very hard for those of us who try to be objective to take climate change seriously. It's anything but scientific and deep down you know that I'm right.

Literally no one of note, except maybe Maxime Bernier, is peddling this any more. You're about 15 years late and won't fool anyone except yourself.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by blueandgoldguy

lol so the majority of scientists (you know, actual experts in their fields) around the world who agree that climate change we are currently experiencing is primarily caused by us are wrong? Are you going to defer to a tiny minority of scientists and their studies with dubious claims to confirm your own bias.

How about the increasing acidification in the oceans and the bleaching of coral that we have observed recently? Is that part of the natural cycle of climate change?

The most interesting bit about Covid-19 is that it's finally forcing a full on confrontation with anti-intellectualism and we're starting to see how the wilful ignorance of others can impact us personally. I really am curious to see if this changes any of our politics surrounding climate change as deniers become less and less prevalent and socially acceptable in society. I can see 5 years from now where climate change denialism is seen the same way as those who oppose same sex marriage today.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

If you're asking if increased CO2 results in warmer temperatures then the answer is no because too many studies have shown that there is no relationship.

Do you believe in relying on models that are consistently wrong? Denying the validity of studies and the expertise of those behind them? When this happens time after time it makes it very hard for those of us who try to be objective to take climate change seriously. It's anything but scientific and deep down you know that I'm right.

Prove your first point. The rest of your post is a straw man.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The most interesting bit about Covid-19 is that it's finally forcing a full on confrontation with anti-intellectualism and we're starting to see how the wilful ignorance of others can impact us personally. I really am curious to see if this changes any of our politics surrounding climate change as deniers become less and less prevalent and socially acceptable in society. I can see 5 years from now where climate change denialism is seen the same way as those who oppose same sex marriage today.

Agreed. TBH, I think it is already there and has been for some time, but clearly there are some hold outs...

I do have some optimism here though. As far as I can tell, people have had very little time for bullshit recently and have been quite willing to listen to expertise. However, that could easily change once our current situation becomes normal.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The most interesting bit about Covid-19 is that it's finally forcing a full on confrontation with anti-intellectualism and we're starting to see how the wilful ignorance of others can impact us personally. I really am curious to see if this changes any of our politics surrounding climate change as deniers become less and less prevalent and socially acceptable in society. I can see 5 years from now where climate change denialism is seen the same way as those who oppose same sex marriage today.

Wishful thinking. The hard scientific fact of COVID19 is hitting these same deniers right in the face and is isn't changing their views on the virus, nevermind climate change.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Wishful thinking. The hard scientific fact of COVID19 is hitting these same deniers right in the face and is isn't changing their views on the virus, nevermind climate change.

Have you noticed what I have noticed though? There seems to be way less tolerance for pseudo science, conspiracy theory bullshit recently (corndogger excepted of course). I think if Gwyneth Paltrow or some other loon tries to peddle some anti vax crap now the reaction is going to be "yeah I'd rather live".