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

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Is that what eugenics is?

From Wikipedia -
Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of a human population.

It is not so much about effect as it is about cause.

We know that artificial selection can alter the genetic makeup of a species.

We debated the ethical ramifications of doing that to people.

Just like:

We know that humans have an effect on the earth's climate

We can debate whether our current use of that information is ethical.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by Buckhead

The charts and satellite images I have seen don't appear to agree with your opinion.

You mean like this data showing that the arctic ice area has fallen to almost half of what it was 40 years ago?

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4573

Not sure what charts or images you have been looking at as I have seen numerous sources saying the opposite. I have shared one, you are welcome to share your own claiming the opposite.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

We know that artificial selection can alter the genetic makeup of a species.

We debated the ethical ramifications of doing that to people.

Just like:

We know that humans have an effect on the earth's climate

We can debate whether our current use of that information is ethical.

What?

You comparison here is odd, and at the least detrimental to your cause.

[ReconWilly]

Originally Posted by RavYak

So I am wrong because there are bison etc that also affect our planet? Or you are wrong because you don't realize that we as humans, along with animals, vehicles, manufacturing plants etc contribute to CO2 production which in turn contributes to climate change? Humans breathing may be a very small portion of CO2 production but it is portion none the less.

Look at the chart on the following website. CO2 concentrations have SKYROCKETED in the past century. Not only has it skyrocketed well beyond historical values but it has also continued to increase its rate of increase year after year.

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/

How could our ever increasing population and development not be the reason for this change? What other natural phenomenon would be causing this increase in CO2 concentration at roughly the same rate as human expansion/development? The reason for this is obviously mankind... You would have to be insane to think otherwise.

How anyone could think that mankind has no effect on this planet is beyond me. We have modified a huge part of this planet converting forests and grassland to cities, farm land etc. Our presence can be seen from space with a naked eye... Do you guys really believe the earth is impervious to these changes? That destruction of the environment, polluting the air and filling the seas and land with waste will have no effect?

Stop living in a bubble...

As I mentioned before the handling of climate change is a completely different topic then the one being discussed here. This thread says 1/3 of Canadians don't believe in man affecting climate change. That tells me 1/3 of Canadians must be living under a rock... Man undoubtedly is having an effect on our planet and climate.

Man is also taking advantage of other men by using climate change as an excuse. That is what Canadians are sick of. If they didn't think of climate change as being a hoax to tax them more then I almost guarantee the number of people saying man affects climate change would be much higher. People are just saying that man made climate change is a hoax because they want to get rid of carbon taxes etc and want to keep that money in their pocket. As mentioned though that is a completely different topic. Accepting that we have an effect on climate change is one thing, dealing with climate change is another.

MURDER YOUR TV!

DO IT NOW!

We can wait...

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Is that what eugenics is?

From Wikipedia -
Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aims at improving the genetic quality of a human population.

It is not so much about effect as it is about cause.

And that cause is artificial selection...

Artificial selection is the intentional reproduction of individuals in a population that have desirable traits. In organisms that reproduce sexually, two adults that possess a desired trait — such as two parent plants that are tall — are bred together.

[glen moa]

We will all be taxed to death long before climate change kills us.

[2 Tollers]

Originally Posted by RavYak

Accepting that we have an effect on climate change is one thing, dealing with climate change is another.

Accepting the fact that we have an effect on earth is something each of us can get into for reducing our personal consumption footprint and recycling.

Having climate change pushed down your throat at every point and watching the actions of the hypocrites' that are doing the pushing is a major cause of the push back. Whether it be Climate Barbie or Ms Berman.

https://www.taxpayer.com/commentarie...l-use-revealed

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by Newview01

What?

You comparison here is odd, and at the least detrimental to your cause.

You confused a factual argument with an ethical one in your comparison and it made no sense.

I split both sides of your analogy into factual/ethical portions so that it worked.

[Grizzly Adams]

I see a T shirt opportunity. I DON"T BELIEVE .

Grizz

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by RavYak

And that cause is artificial selection...

That is simply false.

Artificial selection is not the same as eugenics. To be simple, artificial selection would be breeding a better type of species whereas eugenics would include killing the weak and defective "versions" of the same species to achieve the results.

[dgl1948]

Are there no points to be made for warming? Less CO2 from winter heating? A longer cost free season to increase crop production to feed a growing population? Multiple crops per season?

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Ok, my only understanding of this jabber is that you are backpedaling.

Yes, mankind has an effect. As much as an effect towards emptying the Pacific Ocean a teaspoon has.

You don't understand how to read graphs showing that CO2 concentration has increased 30% over the past century(or 8% over the past 12 years as seen at the following https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/)?

Or you don't understand how during this time the human population has quadrupled and went from living without electricity and fossil fuel burning transportation to the majority of the population now having electricity, automobiles etc all of which produce extremely high amounts of CO2? Around 10% of the amount of CO2 produced by the largest natural CO2 source(the ocean).

https://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhou...xide-emissions

I like the part where the 2nd highest source of natural CO2 production is plant and animal respiration. How could 7.5 billion humans not be a factor...

Or you don't understand that CO2 concentration has an effect on climate change?

http://www.co2science.org/subject/qu...greenhouse.php

Perhaps mankind is having more of an effect then your analogy suggest...

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by Newview01

That is simply false.

Artificial selection is not the same as eugenics. To be simple, artificial selection would be breeding a better type of species whereas eugenics would include killing the weak and defective "versions" of the same species to achieve the results.

Find me a source that says Eugenics is killing the weak and defective population? That is only ONE method of many that can be used for Eugenics(or artificial selection for that matter).

Here is a better definition then the wikipedia one.

Eugenics, the selection of desired heritable characteristics in order to improve future generations, typically in reference to humans.

https://www.britannica.com/science/eugenics-genetics


None of this matters as it is a completely different topic. I just found it funny that you choose to refute climate change and artificial selection.

Or what I should probably say is that you don't understand either climate change nor eugenics and have drawn incorrect conclusions on both subjects.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by Newview01

That is simply false.

Artificial selection is not the same as eugenics. To be simple, artificial selection would be breeding a better type of species whereas eugenics would include killing the weak and defective "versions" of the same species to achieve the results.

I believe a better way to phrase this would be eliminating undesirables.

[gman1978]

Our climate has been changing forever and humans have very little to do with it. I tend to agree with Randell Carlsons research. As far as garbage and human created hell holes, well that’s a different topic.

[cschache]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

I see a T shirt opportunity. I DON"T BELIEVE .

Grizz

You gonna start makin a few Grizz? I'll buy a couple!

[Buckhead]

Originally Posted by RavYak

You mean like this data showing that the arctic ice area has fallen to almost half of what it was 40 years ago?

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4573

Not sure what charts or images you have been looking at as I have seen numerous sources saying the opposite. I have shared one, you are welcome to share your own claiming the opposite.

Certainly. Here you go. Show me where half the sea ice is missing compared to the 1979 to 2000 baseline as of March 2017.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fe...woc_201703.jpg

[Buckhead]

Double post

[Buckhead]

Originally Posted by RavYak

You don't understand how to read graphs showing that CO2 concentration has increased 30% over the past century(or 8% over the past 12 years as seen at the following https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/)?

Or you don't understand how during this time the human population has quadrupled and went from living without electricity and fossil fuel burning transportation to the majority of the population now having electricity, automobiles etc all of which produce extremely high amounts of CO2? Around 10% of the amount of CO2 produced by the largest natural CO2 source(the ocean).

https://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhou...xide-emissions

I like the part where the 2nd highest source of natural CO2 production is plant and animal respiration. How could 7.5 billion humans not be a factor...

Or you don't understand that CO2 concentration has an effect on climate change?

http://www.co2science.org/subject/qu...greenhouse.php

Perhaps mankind is having more of an effect then your analogy suggest...

And perhaps mankind is not. I am assuming that you are aware that we are in an interglacial warm period on the earth.

It's only natural to fear change. Are the changes in climate due to the influences of mankind or are they driven by natural forces. More of the evidence points to the latter.

Natural CO2 generated by the earths carbon cycle is around 750 gigatons.
Human generated CO2 amounts to about 29 gigatons or about 3.9%. Is this going to have a huge effect on the earth's climate. Possible but highly unlikely.

And if it is the cause - what is your solution? That all humans and animals stop breathing? That we revert back to an age where we all use animal dung or whale oil for fuel?

It's easy to fear monger without providing any sort of practical solution - if there is even a problem.

[CaberTosser]

I'll allow that we have some affect, but I'll also allow that those effects go in both directions. Of course its is without question that temperature and weather patterns have undergone significant change without our influence for hundreds of thousands of centuries.

We get fed a lot about carbon taxes and co2 in the atmosphere, but the politicians feeding us the excuse to tax us are also not allowing for how much carbon that Canada absorbs into the vegetation in our vast forests and prairies. In the past century we have suppressed a lot of natural forest fires which are natural cycles of releasing carbon. We also lock in lots of carbon into our homes and consumer goods. Our homes are built from lumber that was forested, but those forests have been re-planted so they continue to absorb CO2. the thing is that our homes, buildings, decks and fences will last a long time and that carbon will be locked up for longer periods that it would in nature, where the tree dies and either rots on the forest floor or is consumed in fire sparked by lightning.

I'll link a really interesting but very long video in which a fellow named Randall Carlson presents some really neat information based on geological evidence as well as studies of the Greenland ice sheet that I found to be entirely plausible and for lack of a better term, rather mind-blowing. It does lose me a bit when he goes into his tangent on numbers towards the end but it had me transfixed to that point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Cp...&feature=share

[glen moa]

Let all the people that believe pay for it.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by cschache

You gonna start makin a few Grizz? I'll buy a couple!

Me too....people watch a tv show, read an article and then jump on a band wagon...no difference then what took place 1000 years ago or so....here's one for ya ban Mother Nature....she allows the country side to get dryer than a popcorn fart then lights the place up and let's it burn for years....hmmmm...I think she has a plan that we can't wrap out masters degree around....

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by RavYak

Find me a source that says Eugenics is killing the weak and defective population? That is only ONE method of many that can be used for Eugenics(or artificial selection for that matter).

Here is a better definition then the wikipedia one.



https://www.britannica.com/science/eugenics-genetics


None of this matters as it is a completely different topic. I just found it funny that you choose to refute climate change and artificial selection.

Or what I should probably say is that you don't understand either climate change nor eugenics and have drawn incorrect conclusions on both subjects.

I understand your point on eugenics, and I understand that my interpretation is the problem, I will admit that.

But as for not understanding climate change - that is laughable, and a typical response from the changeists. "you just don't understand it" is apparently an appropriate response when there are no arguments left.

As has been stated so many times, nobody on this earth will argue that the climate is changing. Nobody will argue that humans pollute, a lot in some places. But in terms of having a measurable effect on the climate of this planet - there is no consensus. Put 100 scientists in a room and most will have a different outcome of the result of humans inhabiting the earth. Climate predictions / models are nothing more than a shot in the dark.

One volcano here, one earthquake there, a hurricane somewhere else, all the models have to be redone. Nature has its own, unknown way.

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by 2 Tollers

Accepting the fact that we have an effect on earth is something each of us can get into for reducing our personal consumption footprint and recycling.

Having climate change pushed down your throat at every point and watching the actions of the hypocrites' that are doing the pushing is a major cause of the push back. Whether it be Climate Barbie or Ms Berman.

https://www.taxpayer.com/commentarie...l-use-revealed

What you say is true regarding the psychology of why people resist the idea. Everybody wants to point fingers and have somebody else fix the problem without having an effect their own lifestyle. As demographics change from third world people moving to a first world consumptive lifestyle we are accelerating consumption and waste instead of the opposite. The first world is cleaning up its own backyard cosmetically while transferring the mess into the neighbors backyard then pointing fingers at them. In reality we are doing little to resist what effect we have on the environment, in fact increasing the effect..

In the long run it won't matter what we do, humans time and lifestyle on this planet is limited, we are a blip on the scale of time radar. The human species will either kill itself off or natural disaster/disease will eventually eliminate us or at least knock us and our population back to pre-industrial age age levels, which as far as the environment is concerned is a good thing. Humans have become an unsustainable parasite on the planet, are way over the capacity of our habitat being able to support us at our current standards in a sustainable way in the long term future. Burgeoning populations and ever increasing consumptive lifestyles will ensure this. Our socioeconomic systems are designed around and dependent on gobbling up the environment and planet we live on. Sooner or later we are in for a rude awakening if current trends continue.

[SlimChance]

Originally Posted by Buckhead

And if it is the cause - what is your solution? That all humans and animals stop breathing? That we revert back to an age where we all use animal dung or whale oil for fuel?

It's easy to fear monger without providing any sort of practical solution - if there is even a problem.

I honestly doubt there's a good "global" solution. We're probably better off looking at ways to mitigate local effects.

And, I definitely wouldn't argue that a lot of politicians are using climate change to either further their careers or to implement policies that would otherwise be difficult to sell.

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

We get fed a lot about carbon taxes and co2 in the atmosphere, but the politicians feeding us the excuse to tax us are also not allowing for how much carbon that Canada absorbs into the vegetation in our vast forests and prairies. In the past century we have suppressed a lot of natural forest fires which are natural cycles of releasing carbon. We also lock in lots of carbon into our homes and consumer goods.

Politicians may not be, but scientists are absolutely accounting for carbon sequestered in forests and grasslands.

Originally Posted by Newview01

As has been stated so many times, nobody on this earth will argue that the climate is changing. Nobody will argue that humans pollute, a lot in some places. But in terms of having a measurable effect on the climate of this planet - there is no consensus. Put 100 scientists in a room and most will have a different outcome of the result of humans inhabiting the earth. Climate predictions / models are nothing more than a shot in the dark.

One volcano here, one earthquake there, a hurricane somewhere else, all the models have to be redone. Nature has its own, unknown way.

That's just not true. If you put 100 scientists in a room the vast majority will agree on the basics of anthropogenic climate change. There is tons of debate on minutiae and specifics but there is a strong consensus on a very broad level.

These models are far more encompassing and complex than you're giving them credit for. Volcanos and hurricanes are accounted for - in fact scientists can ise them to predict climatic effects of volcanic eruptions (ie: they can simulate a volcanic eruption in the model to see what happens).

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by SlimChance

That's just not true. If you put 100 scientists in a room the vast majority will agree on the basics of anthropogenic climate change. There is tons of debate on minutiae and specifics but there is a strong consensus on a very broad level.

These models are far more encompassing and complex than you're giving them credit for. Volcanos and hurricanes are accounted for - in fact scientists can ise them to predict climatic effects of volcanic eruptions (ie: they can simulate a volcanic eruption in the model to see what happens).

Ok, but what you said is even too vague. Anthropogenic Climate Change? And what is the consensus? That humans cause a measureable amount of climate change? And nothing beyond that has been agreed on? That doesn't give people any confidence at all.

And yes I can appreciate that the models are more complex than I can understand, but they simply are functional in terms of they don't know what will happen where, and there is no way they can account for everything. Again, I realize they have a lot accounted for, but it doesn't cut it in terms of long term accuracy.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by RavYak

You mean like this data showing that the arctic ice area has fallen to almost half of what it was 40 years ago?

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4573

Not sure what charts or images you have been looking at as I have seen numerous sources saying the opposite. I have shared one, you are welcome to share your own claiming the opposite.

40 years is nothing. A large portion of melt is attributable to natural fluctuations in ocean currents. The Earth has also been warming since 13,000 years ago when the Columbia Icefields glacier was at Bow Valley Campground.

The question is of the warming what percentage is natural and what if any is man made? Scientists in the man made warming camp refuse to answer that. Because they have no clue and funding would not be given nor would their colleagues in that camp like them.

[markg]

Originally Posted by dgl1948

Are there no points to be made for warming? Less CO2 from winter heating? A longer cost free season to increase crop production to feed a growing population? Multiple crops per season?

If the climate is changing, be it from natural or man made origins (or both) Do we truly know that the results will be negative? Must we assume that any changes are going to be harmful?

Arctic regions of the planet have less biomass and less diversity than deserts. They are the regions of the planet most deviod of life. If there was less of the planet in a frozen polar condition wouldnt that be great? Longer growing seasons means more food. Perhaps a change in climate could bring more water to the the Sahara desert region and make it habitable and food producing?

I think all the doom and gloom types just want to profit from climate fear porn.

[markg]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

40 years is nothing. A large portion of melt is attributable to natural fluctuations in ocean currents. The Earth has also been warming since 13,000 years ago when the Columbia Icefields glacier was at Bow Valley Campground.

The question is of the warming what percentage is natural and what if any is man made? Scientists in the man made warming camp refuse to answer that. Because they have no clue and funding would not be given nor would their colleagues in that camp like them.

Well said Dilly Dilly

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by markg

If the climate is changing, be it from natural or man made origins (or both) Do we truly know that the results will be negative? Must we assume that any changes are going to be harmful?

Arctic regions of the planet have less biomass and less diversity than deserts. They are the regions of the planet most deviod of life. If there was less of the planet in a frozen polar condition wouldnt that be great? Longer growing seasons means more food. Perhaps a change in climate could bring more water to the the Sahara desert region and make it habitable and food producing?

I think all the doom and gloom types just want to profit from climate fear porn.

Totally true. Huge value to the planet to be warmer. More food...let power needed. More stability and less war.