HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1561  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2020, 4:37 PM
jawagord's Avatar
jawagord jawagord is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
Thankfully, most people don't buy into their bullshit anymore. Even in the US. And especially among the next generation of voters about to get majorities all over the developed world. And after this pandemic, science denying kooks will have even less credibility.

It’s always funny seeing climate science mediocrities criticizing Steve McIntyre. The guy was a Canadian teen math prodigy, a Commonwealth scholar, graduate from Oxford. He knows mathematics, statistics and data handling better than the climate scientists (if geologist were good at math they’d be engineers) and routinely shreds their data reconstructions, no wonder they don’t like him and resort to the usual ad hominem attacks when they can’t refute his findings.

McIntyre, a native of Ontario, attended the University of Toronto Schools, a college-preparatory school in Toronto, finishing first in the national high school mathematics competition of 1965.[2] He went on to study mathematics at the University of Toronto and graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in 1969. McIntyre then obtained a Commonwealth Scholarship to read philosophy, politics and economics (PPE) at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, graduating in 1971.[1][2] Although he was offered a graduate scholarship, McIntyre decided not to pursue studies in mathematical economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[2]

McIntyre's blog has as a recurrent topic the struggle to obtain underlying data from peer reviewed papers. McIntyre has stated that he started Climate Audit so that he could defend himself against attacks being made at the climatology blog RealClimate.[21]

Climate Audit was co-winner of a 2007 Weblog Award for "Best Science Blog", receiving 20,000 votes in the online poll.

In 2007, McIntyre started auditing the various corrections made to temperature records, in particular those relating to the urban heat island effect. He discovered a discontinuity in some U.S. records in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) dataset starting in January 2000. He emailed GISS advising them of the problem and within a couple of days GISS issued a new, corrected set of data and thanked McIntyre for "bringing to our attention that such an adjustment is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year 2000".
__________________
The human ability to innovate out of a jam is profound. That's why Darwin will always be right and Malthus will always be wrong - K.R.Sridhar

‘I believe in science’ is a statement generally made by people who don’t understand much about it. - Judith Curry, Professor Emeritus GIT
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1562  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2020, 5:06 PM
lio45 lio45 is online now
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Quebec
Posts: 42,150
Let's make this about (very simple) math then. jawagord, your position here must be one of these two:

1) You dispute the claim that carbon dioxide is currently at >350 ppm in the atmosphere;

or

2) You claim that at some point(s) in the past, carbon dioxide levels were at least at ~350-400 ppm.

So which is it?

(If it's neither, then you're fine with the graph, because that's the only two things it's meant to show.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1563  
Old Posted Aug 23, 2020, 6:43 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24,438
97% of scientists tell us that climate change is accelerating and driven largely by the atmospheric accumulation of GHGs since the start of the industrial revolution. The other 3% are kooks who appeal to authority with a generic scientific background but no actual expertise in atmospheric physics, climatology, etc. The Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil of the climate change discussion. I think we'll stick with the scientific consensus. After Covid, we know how dangerous these kooks really are.

And particularly hilarious is the idea that climate change is the only benefit to decarbonization. Thanks to Covid we now have an idea of how much cleaner and healthier our cities can be. You won't find too many people eager to vote for more smog and childhood asthma, if alternatives are available.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1564  
Old Posted Nov 9, 2020, 10:46 PM
davidivivid's Avatar
davidivivid davidivivid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ville de Québec City
Posts: 2,877
TD swears off oil and gas deals in Arctic Circle and sets net-zero goal for 2050

Quote:
Toronto-Dominion Bank introduced a global climate action plan that includes rejecting work on oil and gas projects within the Arctic Circle and moving to net-zero carbon dioxide emissions from its operations and financing activities by 2050.

Global banks have rolled out climate-action plans this year, jockeying for position in the sustainable finance business and trying to curry favour with environmental-minded customers. HSBC Holdings Plc said last month that it’s targeting a net-zero carbon client portfolio by 2050 and pledged to provide as much as US$1 trillion to help customers cut emissions. Days earlier, JPMorgan Chase & Co. said it’s setting climate targets for its financing portfolio and is planning a net-zero carbon footprint for its own operations.

[...]
https://financialpost.com/commoditie...box=1604958004
__________________
"I went on a diet, swore off drinking and heavy eating, and in fourteen days I lost two weeks" Joe E. Lewis
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1565  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2020, 3:37 AM
jawagord's Avatar
jawagord jawagord is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidivivid View Post
TD swears off oil and gas deals in Arctic Circle and sets net-zero goal for 2050



https://financialpost.com/commoditie...box=1604958004
I guess if you are trying to “curry favour with environmental-minded customers” who aren’t the sharpest knives in the drawer, you don’t mention there’s a 5 year moratorium on Arctic oil and gas exploration and TD likely has nothing to finance? And you don’t mention the Inuit are the people who are actually disadvantaged by this, as big oil and investment simply goes somewhere else.

As 2019 comes to a close, there’s one year remaining of Canada’s five-year moratorium on Arctic offshore oil and gas exploration.
The 2016 agreement was jointly signed by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and former president of the United States Barack Obama, prohibiting any new exploration on the Arctic Ocean’s sea floor. The moratorium will be reviewed in 2021....... After the moratorium was established in 2016, the federal government spent a year talking to northern leaders, Inuit and territorial governments, who cried foul over its unilateral imposition.

The reality, he said, is a glut of oil and gas elsewhere, and the remoteness and lack of infrastructure in the Arctic, is making it costly to explore. “You’ve got all these things lined up that are not helpful to the economy and the region,” he said.


Among the exploration licences, the two highest work bids were those of Imperial Oil Resources Limited: EL-477 and EL-476. Both sit about 180 kilometres northwest of Tuktoyaktuk in the Beaufort Sea.
Imperial Oil announced that it was suspending its joint venture offshore program in the Beaufort in 2015, so those two licences wouldn’t be seeing any action.


https://nunatsiaq.com/stories/articl...e-oil-and-gas/
__________________
The human ability to innovate out of a jam is profound. That's why Darwin will always be right and Malthus will always be wrong - K.R.Sridhar

‘I believe in science’ is a statement generally made by people who don’t understand much about it. - Judith Curry, Professor Emeritus GIT
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1566  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2020, 1:54 PM
BlackDog204's Avatar
BlackDog204 BlackDog204 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: west
Posts: 1,503
Trump Administration Removes Scientist in Charge of Assessing Climate Change

Michael Kuperberg was told he would no longer oversee the National Climate Assessment. The job is expected to go to a climate-change skeptic, according to people familiar with the changes.



https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/c...?smid=tw-share
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1567  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2020, 2:22 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,870
people who deny ACC aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. Even if they are complete tools.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. (Bertrand Russell)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1568  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2020, 5:05 PM
scumtoes's Avatar
scumtoes scumtoes is offline
:|
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 778
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
people who deny ACC aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. Even if they are complete tools.
People who screech from the rooftops that we are all going to die in 20 years from climate change aren't either, sorry to say. Why would any bank or insurance company touch anything within feet of the shoreline if it was all going to flood away in a few years? Even if that is the case, what are people willing to give up to use less energy? Travel less? Give up coffee and all tropical fruit? Sit in a cold house all winter? Eat less? Accept a de-population program?

What are some viable energy alternatives to maintain our standard of living while at the same time de-carbonizing? The only one I can think of is nuclear energy. It can provide cheap energy for fleets of electric cars, trucks and buses but remember the metals used in electric vehicles doesn't just magically appear. Heavy machinery, planes, crop fertilizer, etc. would might have to be used sparingly in such a world.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1569  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2020, 5:16 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,870
Quote:
People who screech from the rooftops that we are all going to die in 20 years from climate change aren't either, sorry to say.
I agree, but who is saying this? Nobody on SSP, I hope. Seems like a straw man.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. (Bertrand Russell)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1570  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2020, 5:40 PM
Hackslack Hackslack is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
I agree, but who is saying this? Nobody on SSP, I hope. Seems like a straw man.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the UN says we only have 12 yrs left. Greta Thunberg, sorta the face of climate change, says we only got 8 years left to save the Earth.

Not sure if anyone on SSP agrees with them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1571  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2020, 5:46 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 21,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
I agree, but who is saying this? Nobody on SSP, I hope. Seems like a straw man.
It is.

This same user then argues that the economic and insurance fallouts aren't happening to these risk areas and industries. Observation says otherwise.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1572  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2020, 9:49 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackslack View Post
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the UN says we only have 12 yrs left. Greta Thunberg, sorta the face of climate change, says we only got 8 years left to save the Earth.

Not sure if anyone on SSP agrees with them.
They don't mean the world is going to end in 8 or 12 years, just that we need to have turned the corner by then to have any hope of keeping warming within a semblance of the current temperature.

I don't know if that is true or not, but all the people that know what they are talking about say much the same thing - we've probably already done enough damage that we'll blow past 1.5C warming even if we went carbon neutral tomorrow.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1573  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2020, 9:51 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by scumtoes View Post
People who screech from the rooftops that we are all going to die in 20 years from climate change aren't either, sorry to say. Why would any bank or insurance company touch anything within feet of the shoreline if it was all going to flood away in a few years?
This is already happening.

Quote:
Originally Posted by scumtoes View Post
Even if that is the case, what are people willing to give up to use less energy? Travel less? Give up coffee and all tropical fruit? Sit in a cold house all winter? Eat less? Accept a de-population program?
If the choice was those options or an unlivable planet, why not?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1574  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2020, 7:39 PM
MattBerryOfficial's Avatar
MattBerryOfficial MattBerryOfficial is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Posts: 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by scumtoes View Post
Why would any bank or insurance company touch anything within feet of the shoreline if it was all going to flood away in a few years?
This is already happening. Check out this podcast for a look at how insurance companies and State level governments in the US are responding to increasing disasters:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/27/p...on-crisis.html

Some highlights:

t=9m00s

"Florida officials have already acknowledged that defending some roadways against the sea will be unaffordable. And the nations federal flood insurance program is for the first time requiring that some of its payouts be used to retreat from climate threats across the country. It will soon prove too expensive to maintain the status quo."

t=22m59s

"Hurricane Andrew reduced parts of cities to landfill and cost insurers nearly 16 billion in payouts. Many insurance companies, recognizing the likelihood it would happen again, declined to renew policies and left the state (Florida). So the Florida Legislature created a state run company to insure properties itself. Preventing both an exodus and an economic collapse by essentially pretending that the climate vulnerabilities didn't exist."

t=24m25s

"Keenan, who is now an associate professor of real estate at Tulane Universities School of Architecture ....... Last Fall though as the previous round of fires ravaged California his phone began to ring with private equity investors and bankers all looking for his read on the states future. There interest suggested a growing investor grade nervousness about swiftly mounting environmental risk in the hottest real estate markets in the country. It's an early sign ....... that the momentum is about to switch directions"

t=26m07s

"The Tubbs fire, as it was called, shouldn't have been possible. Coffey Park is surrounded not by vegetation, but by concrete and malls and freeways. So insurers had rated it as basically zero risk according to Kevin Van Leer. Then a risk modeler from the global insurance liability firm Risk Management Solutions. He now does similar work for Cape Analytics. But Van Leer, who had spent 7 years picking through the debris left by disasters to understand how insurers could anticipate (and price) the risk of their happening again had begun to see other "impossible" fires ....... He said "alarm bells started going off for the insurance industry"."

t=28m52s

"It was no surprise then that California's property insurers, having watched 26 years worth of profits dissolve over 24 months, began dropping policies. Or that California's insurance commissioner trying to slow the slide placed a moratorium on insurance cancellations for parts of the state in 2020. In February the legislature introduced a bill compelling California to, in the words of one consumer advocacy group, "Follow the lead of Florida by mandating that insurance remain available. In this case that with a requirement that homeowners first harden their properties against fire"."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1575  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2020, 12:29 AM
dreambrother808 dreambrother808 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 4,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
people who deny ACC aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. Even if they are complete tools.
They’re just trolls who need to be ignored while adults get shit done.

The last thing we need is another pointless discussion with them. It’s like when people try to reason with a toddler. Do you wait for your toddler to agree with all of your parental decisions? Uh, no.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1576  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2020, 2:54 AM
Hackslack Hackslack is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,325
Just to be clear... one who supports and advocates for the prosperity of Canada’s oil and gas industry, does not make them a climate change denier. I know I have previously been wrongfully labeled a denier in the past simply because I support Canada’s O&G industry.

I do understand though that there are ACC deniers
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1577  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2020, 11:21 AM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreambrother808 View Post
They’re just trolls who need to be ignored while adults get shit done.

The last thing we need is another pointless discussion with them. It’s like when people try to reason with a toddler. Do you wait for your toddler to agree with all of your parental decisions? Uh, no.
You can't ignore it when one whole side of our political spectrum shares that view.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1578  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2020, 11:49 AM
harryc's Avatar
harryc harryc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Oak Park, Il
Posts: 14,989
Quote:
Originally Posted by scumtoes View Post
People who screech from the rooftops that we are all going to die in 20 years from climate change aren't either, sorry to say.
...snip...
.
Sources ?
__________________
Harry C - Urbanize Chicago- My Flickr stream HRC_OakPark
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. B Franklin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1579  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2020, 1:09 PM
milomilo milomilo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Calgary
Posts: 10,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackslack View Post
Just to be clear... one who supports and advocates for the prosperity of Canada’s oil and gas industry, does not make them a climate change denier. I know I have previously been wrongfully labeled a denier in the past simply because I support Canada’s O&G industry.

I do understand though that there are ACC deniers
The reason I have strong opinions on climate change denial, and reality denial, is precisely because I want the oil industry in Alberta to have some hope of a smooth transition. If we just listened to CAPP, continue denying climate change, pretend there is no energy transition on the horizon and just continue full bore with CO2 intensive production, then the changes in the future will be even harsher.

We might get one more small boom once everything comes out of COVID and all the lost production from shutdown oil projects and depleted fields comes into light. That'll bring us to maybe 2030, but after that the world will truly be transitioning - coal plants will be mostly gone in the western world, gas being replaced by renewables and electric cars will be mainstream and the sensible choice for purchase brand new. Alberta must be ready - if we are still churning out some of the most CO2 intensive production on the planet, we're going to struggle to find a buyer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1580  
Old Posted Nov 12, 2020, 3:29 PM
isotack isotack is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by milomilo View Post
They don't mean the world is going to end in 8 or 12 years, just that we need to have turned the corner by then to have any hope of keeping warming within a semblance of the current temperature.

I don't know if that is true or not, but all the people that know what they are talking about say much the same thing - we've probably already done enough damage that we'll blow past 1.5C warming even if we went carbon neutral tomorrow.
No...they actually mean that the world is going to end. Even if they don't believe their own BS. They do it to get attention for themselves, push the government into funding fringe causes and to scare people. In the case of the Young (autistic) Sweed, she trumpets what she is told.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:40 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.