A third of Canadians don't believe in man-made climate change

[hal53]

Originally Posted by bsmitty27

I don't have a opinion either way on climate change. There are forces working on both sides, there is no possibility of it being one or the other.
The earth is a mysterious woman and I will be dead long before we figure her out.

But what I do have a strong opinion about is CLEAN WATER and CLEAN AIR, we should be doing all we can to make sure we have clean water and clean air for the next generations.
Water and air quality can be monitored and compared year after year to get reliable information, so we can target areas that we need to work at. In the end it doesn't matter what the cause of climate change is.
If countries priorities clean air and water, we will be living in a better world year after year.

I hope it is common ground to see that protecting our waterways and improving air quality is a good idea.


There is more grey than BLACK and WHITE
(just need to step out of your comfort zone)

Brad

Great post!!!..

[BuckCuller]

Originally Posted by bessiedog

I find it odd that you’d decide to paint what I said with a ‘misplaced National loyalty’ brush. Nice tactic. Straw man stuff much???

I find it even more amazing that you think that ‘They’ have a problem and we dont.

It’s the same boat.... and you pointing out that the dudes on the other side of the boat are the problem.....

They are trying to be like us in a hurry.

It’s going to affect us all.

Yet we (you)sit here and quibble about how it ain’t so... not our problem, cost us too much... etc.

Get out from behind the keyboard. Check it out. Get some perspective.

Stop

Ahh yes you are better than I because you went on a vacation.
It doesn’t change the perspective that I already have.

[bessiedog]

Yup

Anecdotal are powerful to some. Thought I’d share.

And nice red herring.......

Perhaps you aren’t aware of argument falacies..... or you are and are counting on the audience not being aware of such.

Try honestly Challenging your beliefs on this. Just try.

I’m out.


Ps... if you think chaperoneing 2dozen high school kids is a vacation.....


Pps...... read up on the effects of economic development and population growth... then ponder

[BuckCuller]

Originally Posted by bsmitty27

I don't have a opinion either way on climate change. There are forces working on both sides, there is no possibility of it being one or the other.
The earth is a mysterious woman and I will be dead long before we figure her out.

But what I do have a strong opinion about is CLEAN WATER and CLEAN AIR, we should be doing all we can to make sure we have clean water and clean air for the next generations.
Water and air quality can be monitored and compared year after year to get reliable information, so we can target areas that we need to work at. In the end it doesn't matter what the cause of climate change is.
If countries priorities clean air and water, we will be living in a better world year after year.

I hope it is common ground to see that protecting our waterways and improving air quality is a good idea.


There is more grey than BLACK and WHITE
(just need to step out of your comfort zone)

Brad

I believe in pollution and reducing it. What I don’t believe in is people creating global warming. I also believe that over population is our biggest problem.
I believe there is much gray area whole heartedly.
I remember when I would ice fish Gull lake and you could see down twenty feet in the clear water.
Now you can’t see 5 feet down, this degradation of water quality is not due to climate change or the oil field. It’s because of the need for higher food production and money so farmers use more fertilizer which drains into the waterways which promotes more algae production in turn creates warmer water temperatures and less oxygen in the water creating a less sustainable habitat.
The more people there is the higher the demand for energy resources.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by BuckCuller

The real problem will never be confronted which is population.
The scientists never say that real problem is population and governments are promoting higher population which is completely backwards. When the population runs over true capacity that is when things will really get bad.
There is nothing being done about this and hasn’t been in any scientific headlines.

Population is a large part of the problem and there actually have been numerous studies and even some steps taken to reduce its effects. Look at China's one child policy for an example.

The worlds capacity ultimately depends on how the population affects the world. Given our current situation I would say we are already over our capacity for the way we live. You can see this in our pollution, how we are destroying nature across the globe and how we are over harvesting animal and fish populations etc. That doesn't mean we need to start killing people off though, it means that we need to change how we are living.

Scientists have noticed a trend that shows our population should naturally start to plateau in the next century. This trend being due to reduced birth rates in developed nations. If this doesn't naturally happen then I expect you will see more and more countries start to implement laws similar to China's one child policy. The world is capable of physically holding many many more people but not until we make significant changes.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by BuckCuller

So you are trying to convince me that a tesla car is not priced to make money?
You also want me to believe that clean energy companies will not make loads of cash when they are well established? Are we going to be able to make clean energy affordable?

Tesla is not an energy company.

Tesla has never turned a profit.

What does this example or question even mean or meant to illustrate? Never mind I don't really want to hear a response and prolong this root canal any longer at this point.

When did we decide to turn left here? You solicited me by asking me a question, so I obliged, but now this is getting silly.

Let's focus .... We were talking about energy companies (comparing clean versus fossil energy) and their contribution to federal tax revenues.

This was in response to our exchange a few post ago, where a few people who commented that the whole "sky is falling" "conspiracy" about green energy was all about the secret deals where the evil government makes way more money pushing a green energy agenda by collecting all this cash from green energy - when, in reality, green energy is currently not profitable, as the tax revenues that originate from any profitable green energy companies are minuscule compared to tax revenues/royalties derived from fossil energy sources.

Did you ever consider that the opposite is true? that big oil are the ones using lobbyists to "pay off" politicians to deny climate change - we already have seen and heard this same story so many times it's utterly ridiculous to think otherwise.

Believe whatever you want, fill your boots, there seems to be no reason whatsoever to try and have a civil, data driven and factual reasonable discussion on this topic anymore.

If you are intent is to entertain yourself by posing challenge after challenge, then ignoring responses and facts, only to deflect onto another line of attack to entertain yourself - that's not a game I'm willing to play.

And, please note, I have fed my family from the proceeds of fossil energy for the past 20 years, and am no big fan of the liberal federal or provincial NDP government or their potions on these matters. I would like to think I'm somewhat reasonable and pragmatic person when considering issues like climate change and/or where special interests "influence" our legislators.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Either way - I won't be able to change your mind, as it's already made up. I appreciate your position and respect your opinion but cannot share it. sorry.

Time to move on instead of feeding this any longer.

[C2C3PO]

For those of you not tuned in to breaking news........
Kinder Morgan just announced it is suspending any further spending on the pipeline expansion. The CEO has said it can't continue to spend money and put its' shareholders at risk.
Notley is holding a press conference in 45 mins and will address the issue at hand.
It will be interesting to see how all this plays out considering our current Premier said Alberta would adopt the Carbon tax so long as the pipeline got built........

[drhu22]

Originally Posted by EZM

Tesla is not an energy company.
Tesla has never turned a profit.
What does this example or question even mean or meant to illustrate? Never mind I don't really want to hear a response and prolong this root canal any longer at this point.
When did we decide to turn left here? You solicited me by asking me a question, so I obliged, but now this is getting silly.
Let's focus .... We were talking about energy companies (comparing clean versus fossil energy) and their contribution to federal tax revenues.
This was in response to our exchange a few post ago, where a few people who commented that the whole "sky is falling" "conspiracy" about green energy was all about the secret deals where the evil government makes way more money pushing a green energy agenda by collecting all this cash from green energy - when, in reality, green energy is currently not profitable, as the tax revenues that originate from any profitable green energy companies are minuscule compared to tax revenues/royalties derived from fossil energy sources.
Did you ever consider that the opposite is true? that big oil are the ones using lobbyists to "pay off" politicians to deny climate change - we already have seen and heard this same story so many times it's utterly ridiculous to think otherwise.
Believe whatever you want, fill your boots, there seems to be no reason whatsoever to try and have a civil, data driven and factual reasonable discussion on this topic anymore.
If you are intent is to entertain yourself by posing challenge after challenge, then ignoring responses and facts, only to deflect onto another line of attack to entertain yourself - that's not a game I'm willing to play.
And, please note, I have fed my family from the proceeds of fossil energy for the past 20 years, and am no big fan of the liberal federal or provincial NDP government or their potions on these matters. I would like to think I'm somewhat reasonable and pragmatic person when considering issues like climate change and/or where special interests "influence" our legislators.
Seems pretty clear to me.
Either way - I won't be able to change your mind, as it's already made up. I appreciate your position and respect your opinion but cannot share it. sorry.
Time to move on instead of feeding this any longer.

You will never get an intelligent or even a pertinent response from some of these guys... its a losing battle.

[BuckCuller]

Originally Posted by EZM

Tesla is not an energy company.

Tesla has never turned a profit.

What does this example or question even mean or meant to illustrate? Never mind I don't really want to hear a response and prolong this root canal any longer at this point.

When did we decide to turn left here? You solicited me by asking me a question, so I obliged, but now this is getting silly.

Let's focus .... We were talking about energy companies (comparing clean versus fossil energy) and their contribution to federal tax revenues.

This was in response to our exchange a few post ago, where a few people who commented that the whole "sky is falling" "conspiracy" about green energy was all about the secret deals where the evil government makes way more money pushing a green energy agenda by collecting all this cash from green energy - when, in reality, green energy is currently not profitable, as the tax revenues that originate from any profitable green energy companies are minuscule compared to tax revenues/royalties derived from fossil energy sources.

Did you ever consider that the opposite is true? that big oil are the ones using lobbyists to "pay off" politicians to deny climate change - we already have seen and heard this same story do many times it's utterly ridiculous to think otherwise.

Why don't you compare that to any credible example of where a "green" energy company has had anywhere near the influence and/or impact in the same manner? Go ahead, show us all.

While you are at it why don't you show me ONE, just ONE green energy company, with at 5% market share in their sector that is profitable. Just ONE.

Then look at fossil energy generation under the same guidelines and tell us what you find.

Believe whatever you want, fill your boots, there seems to be no reason whatsoever to try and have a civil, data driven and factual reasonable discussion with you because you are intent on just posing utterly ridiculous challenges to really, quite frankly, silly questions based on some delusional perspectives that holds zero credibility to any person who is reasonable sensible or pragmatic.

And, please note, I have fed my family from the proceeds of fossil energy for the past 20 years, and am no big fan of the liberal federal or provincial NDP government or their potions on these matters. I would like to think I'm somewhat reasonable and pragmatic person when considering issues like climate change and/or where special interests "influence" our legislators.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Either way - I won't be able to change your mind, as it's already made up. I appreciate your position and respect your opinion but cannot share it. sorry.

Time to move on instead of feeding this any longer.

Yes I know Tesla is not an energy company but rather a clean energy technology just a similar category. Tesla model 3 target profit margin 5X higher than Fords average vehicle.

Your being unreasonable of coarse new technologies might not make money immediately but when it’s mainstream there is no doubt the government will make their money off it or rather us.
But for now they will extort money from us in the disguise of taxes for the purpose of environmental cause.
You can try to insult my intelligence with the use of politically correct wording but it does not waver my confidence. Nice try though.
Yes there is a balance between money and votes.

[BuckCuller]

Originally Posted by C2C3PO

For those of you not tuned in to breaking news........
Kinder Morgan just announced it is suspending any further spending on the pipeline expansion. The CEO has said it can't continue to spend money and put its' shareholders at risk.
Notley is holding a press conference in 45 mins and will address the issue at hand.
It will be interesting to see how all this plays out considering our current Premier said Alberta would adopt the Carbon tax so long as the pipeline got built........

All you anti’s win and I hope you reap what you sow.
See you on the unemployment line.

[ReconWilly]

Originally Posted by bessiedog

Yup

Anecdotal are powerful to some. Thought I’d share.

And nice red herring.......

Perhaps you aren’t aware of argument falacies..... or you are and are counting on the audience not being aware of such.

Try honestly Challenging your beliefs on this. Just try.

I’m out.


Ps... if you think chaperoneing 2dozen high school kids is a vacation.....


Pps...... read up on the effects of economic development and population growth... then ponder

Don't worry, feminism is slowly taking care of the "population crisis", what? didn't they teach you that in your university feminism studies?

[bessiedog]

Ha!

Only class I failed. Wrote a paper on how some feminist schools of thought were as dogmatic as fascism..... prof got offended I guess.

[propliner]

Here's one I stumbled across today.

https://principia-scientific.org/pag...ed-as-corrupt/

Interesting website with many other good articles.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by propliner

Here's one I stumbled across today.

https://principia-scientific.org/pag...ed-as-corrupt/

Interesting website with many other good articles.

Here is another article from that website.

https://principia-scientific.org/top...tions-invalid/

I like this part.

And though most scientists agree man is warming the planet through CO2 emissions by burning fossil fuels, Prof. Humlum wrote that the figure for CO2 climate sensitivity is completely in dispute.

[Buckhead]

Originally Posted by RavYak

Here is another article from that website.

https://principia-scientific.org/top...tions-invalid/

I like this part.

I like this part:

"On the global scale natural climatic variations dominate over effects caused by man. Climate models often claim to incorporate natural variations, but this is not correct, as can be shown by statistical analyses. Thus, the argument that only by assuming a large effect of CO2 can climate models reproduce global climate change since 1950 is invalid.”

Which is what I have been pointing to all along.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Since 1806 here is what the ocean level has done.



Recorder on solid ground not subsiding limestone.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/




Now scientists say tons of snow has been falling on Antarctica.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43691671

While the standard warming alarmist sentence (sea level rise concerns) gets added the fact is normal ocean currents move and shift and can affect sea ice like in the Arctic...Antarctica's ice has been expanding since the 1970's.

While the sea level info in France clearly shows normal steady sea level rise over time consistent with post ice age sea level rise...we look good.

If you build a home at sea level and on settling clay or limestone...what you should expect is flooding.

[Chuck_Wagon]

$100 billion dollars trading hands from Paris climate accord by 2020 alone, and the gullible say the climate change agenda is not about money, how naïve can you get.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by bsmitty27

I don't have a opinion either way on climate change. There are forces working on both sides, there is no possibility of it being one or the other.
The earth is a mysterious woman and I will be dead long before we figure her out.

But what I do have a strong opinion about is CLEAN WATER and CLEAN AIR, we should be doing all we can to make sure we have clean water and clean air for the next generations.
Water and air quality can be monitored and compared year after year to get reliable information, so we can target areas that we need to work at. In the end it doesn't matter what the cause of climate change is.
If countries priorities clean air and water, we will be living in a better world year after year.

I hope it is common ground to see that protecting our waterways and improving air quality is a good idea.


There is more grey than BLACK and WHITE
(just need to step out of your comfort zone)

Brad

VG point! And post.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by Buckhead

I like this part:

"On the global scale natural climatic variations dominate over effects caused by man. Climate models often claim to incorporate natural variations, but this is not correct, as can be shown by statistical analyses. Thus, the argument that only by assuming a large effect of CO2 can climate models reproduce global climate change since 1950 is invalid.”

Which is what I have been pointing to all along.

First of all that is Humlum's opinion.

Secondly it doesn't even matter as the conclusion drawn from that logic is faulty.

Lets use personal finances as an analogy. When you look at how much you are spending do you choose to ignore your car insurance because it is small compared to your mortgage/rent?

When looking at the big picture it is important to take all the effects into account. I don't doubt that natural changes are likely are the dominant force when it comes to climate change but I also refuse to use that argument to say we can ignore our own effects.

Why do you think people are writing articles like this? Why do you think there are scientists trying to disprove climate change? For the same reason you guys claim climate change isn't real. Corruption... Money...

Who do you think has more money to spend and more money to lose right now? The poor struggling green energy sector or the current energy sector? The current energy sector is the one that is fighting all our pipelines, stopping the trans mountain, stopping keystone, saying that our oilsands are destroying the planet etc... They do so to keep our products from getting to market saving them money. These are the richest and powerful people/companies on the planet and you can guarantee that none of them like climate change and that they are fighting it much like they have our own provinces industry.

[Chuck_Wagon]

Yup, nothing to do about money.

The decision to spend 741 million Canada Pension Plan (CPP) payroll-deducted dollars from hard-working Canadians to purchase industrial wind turbines, risks the pensions of Canadians.

The CPP tax was recently increased by the Trudeau liberals, rising to 11.9% in 2019.

The industrial wind turbine scheme and the Liberal ‘greed’ Energy Act have been mired in controversy, including a criminal investigation that led to the conviction of a top ranked government official. According to Ontario’s Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk, Ontarians paid $37 billion above the market price for electricity over the past eight years, and face an additional $133-billion overpayment by 2032. Ontario is now burdened with the continent’s highest electricity rates.

On April 2nd, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB) announced that it signed an agreement to acquire a portfolio of six operating wind and solar power projects located in Ontario from foreign-owned NextEra Energy Partners, LP (NYSE: NEP) for $741 million. The deal includes the assumption of approximately $882 million in existing debt.

What the pension plan purchase means for working Ontario electricity ratepayers is even higher rates. Their own CPP tax dollars are being used to purchase something that is causing the spike in electricity prices. High energy costs result in unemployment. Ontario has 713,300 low-income households, representing almost 16% of residential ratepayers in the province.

This purchase goes against the mandate of the CPP Investment Management Board. The Board is required to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries of the Canada Pension Plan. As noted by Wind Concerns Ontario, the coalition of more than 30 community groups and hundreds of families and individuals concerned about the impacts of industrial-scale wind power development, “Why buy wind power projects when Ontario has a surplus of power and when wind power is a factor in higher electricity bills leading to energy poverty?”

Worse, in 2017, Ontario sent 8,242 GWh (gigawatts) of cheap electricity to the State of New York at a loss of $700 million. In other words, Ontario electricity ratepayers are subsidizing our American competitors, by about $700 million to take away Canadian jobs.

The four NextEra wind turbine projects being purchased in Ontario (Summerhaven, Jericho, Bluewater and Conestogo) have been the source of more than 120 official reports of excessive noise and vibration, some including staff notes on health impacts, made to the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change. The CPP Investment Board was established by an Act of Parliament in December 1997.

[Darkoming]

Ive been reading AO for many years now and never found myself wanting to comment on a topic as much as this one. I just want to add that this global warming (climate change) has not been limited to just the earth. You could call this solar warming as all the planets have been experiencing the effects that we have been having on earth. From increasing storms to polar caps decreasing in size on mars. The big ball of fire that makes up 99.8% of the mass of our solar system has been very active over the last few decades and is affecting climate on all the planets. Not that I agree with polluting our skys and waters but this man made climate change is a bill of goods sold on speculation and flawed science.

[muledriver]

Originally Posted by BuckCuller

All you anti’s win and I hope you reap what you sow.
See you on the unemployment line.

In the USA, more people are employed by wind and solar power than oil, coal and gas. We need to get on that job creating explosion.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by muledriver

In the USA, more people are employed by wind and solar power than oil, coal and gas. We need to get on that job creating explosion.

I would like to see that statistic with the details.

[BuckCuller]

Originally Posted by muledriver

In the USA, more people are employed by wind and solar power than oil, coal and gas. We need to get on that job creating explosion.

Looks little like oil and gas 1.1 million jobs.
Wind and solar 362 thousand jobs.
Not sure where your info comes from but here is the real stats.
https://www.energy.gov/downloads/201...loyment-report

[BuckCuller]

Just read an article this morning about how BC and Alberta are using the carbon tax as general revenue. Hmmm.
http://business.financialpost.com/op...other-tax-grab

[Scott h]

Originally Posted by BuckCuller

Just read an article this morning about how BC and Alberta are using the carbon tax as general revenue. Hmmm.
http://business.financialpost.com/op...other-tax-grab

That's the problem with having a NDP government. When BC first got their carbon tax a decade ago, under the previous government, it was directly balanced with a lowering of income tax.
You paid more for gas but got to keep more of your wages. It worked quite well and no one was too upset. If you chose to burn less fuel, or turn your thermostat down, you were money ahead. If you made no change in your consumption you were cash neutral. Now with the current BC government they took a tax that was used as a show piece world wide and turned it into nothing more than a cash cow to help offset their outrageous spending addiction.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by Chuck_Wagon

$100 billion dollars trading hands from Paris climate accord by 2020 alone, and the gullible say the climate change agenda is not about money, how naïve can you get.

That's a lot of money .... no doubt if that figure is accurate it's far greater than I would have imagined .... but it's a drop in the bucket compared to oil/gas/fossil fuel money out there - which is, BTW, IIRC was in the hundreds of Trillions of Dollars.

In North America alone, the revenues of just the sale of final product, in 2013, was 1.26 Trillion - which was an estimated 8% of the contribution of all revenues considering total throughput of $15.8 Trillion just in the US/Canada in the same year.

There really is no comparison between the two, how many companies are operating in either sector and how many jobs and or secondary source (tier 2/3) suppliers are also generating revenues and creating jobs due to the fossil fuel/energy companies.

[Walleyedude]

Originally Posted by bsmitty27

I don't have a opinion either way on climate change. There are forces working on both sides, there is no possibility of it being one or the other.
The earth is a mysterious woman and I will be dead long before we figure her out.

But what I do have a strong opinion about is CLEAN WATER and CLEAN AIR, we should be doing all we can to make sure we have clean water and clean air for the next generations.
Water and air quality can be monitored and compared year after year to get reliable information, so we can target areas that we need to work at. In the end it doesn't matter what the cause of climate change is.
If countries priorities clean air and water, we will be living in a better world year after year.

I hope it is common ground to see that protecting our waterways and improving air quality is a good idea.

There is more grey than BLACK and WHITE
(just need to step out of your comfort zone)

Brad

This times 1000. I couldn't agree more.

In my opinion, there are SO MANY far more important environmental issues facing the world on land, sea and air than greenhouses gasses and "CO2 pollution" .

The biggest travesty of the Climate Change movement is that it's shifted the focus away from the real pollution and destruction of the environment that's going on in the world every day. If you ask me, that's where the real dollar and cents of the issue comes into play. There's no money in cleaning up the oceans or controlling/eliminating toxic waste in our air and waterways...