Climate Change?

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Found on the net FWIW... " My fellow Canadians, you are buying into a lie regarding our energy industry and the global environment. We are a mere 35 million people, just 0.5% of this planet's 7.3 bill

Been saying this for decades and from the very beginning of this thread. The oceans cover nearly 80% of the surface of our pale blue dot. Their average depth is 10,000 feet. All atmospheric weather is

Gator You are talking about pollution not climate change. I'm all for reducing pollution in all it's forms but to think that is going to change the climate is a big leap. The climate will ch

Posted Images

Rex Murphy: The High Church of Global Warming

As this edition of the Post hits the stands, the great Conclave of Catastrophists in Paris will have concluded. The last goose will gladly have surrendered its swollen liver — foie gras does not come without exertion — to the last epicure environmentalist. We have been told that the French did not stint on lending all the arts of its fabled cuisine to assist the Great Deliberators. State dinners took on something of the largesse and abundance last recorded by Gibbon in his descriptions of the Emperor Heliogabalus, who is reputed to have served up the tongues of hummingbirds, peacock brains and mice sauteed in honey, to the jaded appetites of his decadent court.

The reference here to far earlier times is not accidental or flip. Just as in the early centuries of Christianity, when the patristic Fathers struggled with various heresies and sought to stabilize the dogmas of the then-nascent Faith, held their great Councils to parse the finer points of esoteric doctrine, the Parisian analogue gave itself over to even more subtle ruminations: whether, for example, it was best to “commit” to ensuring the planet’s temperature doesn’t rise more than 1.5 degrees by the year 2100, or whether it was best merely to hold the thermometer to a more expansive two degrees.

How much mental energy must have been expanded over that winsome 0.5 degrees, 80 years down the road? The subtleties involved, the logical intricacies deployed, would have outpaced Aquinas and sent poor Augustine to bed early with a migraine. However, the modern monks of the High Church of Global Warming have resources that the early philosophers and theologians could not even dream of — they have computer models that dance in the direction wished of them.

And when what they deliciously refer to as the “settled science” does not serve their needs, they have always about them the ancient texts of Earth in the Balance by Reverend Al Gore, or the early press releases of the Dun Scotus of Global Warming, Cardinal Emeritus George Monbiot.

And where the scholiasts of old, wrestling with imperfect transcriptions and dubious translations of Holy Scripture had only prayer to guide them on the knotty questions of global warming — such as how many polar bears can dance on the edge of an ice floe — the priests of Climatology can always consult the Oracles of Greenpeace and the Sierra Club; or when in deeper need — say on the relationship between the decline of the coral reefs and bovine flatulence — refer to the obiter dicta of Bishops Tutu or Suzuki, on which matters such authorities speak with a Truth beside which that of Scripture is a mere contrail.

Not having been in Paris myself, I cannot speak of how they marked the end of their tormented consultations, whether they wafted a few puffs of invisible carbon dioxide over the steeple of the Eiffel Tower, or burnt a few outdated physics texts to mark the beginning of the new era their meeting signified. But they surely could not have ended without pointing to the example — the evidence-based example I should stress — of what happens when governments take the Dogma of New Green seriously.

If one wishes to learn the true value of what a commitment to the New Learning actually involved, then Ontario is both laboratory and experiment. By what fraction of a degree did the world’s temperature actually lower itself — was it 0.01 per cent, 0.001 per cent or any fractional mite in between? — for that $37 billion?

The experience of Ontario, as underscored by the very timely report of its auditor general — released as the great Throng was chewing over these very questions — had to have been an inspiration and a comfort. For Ontario provides, as it were, a case-study of what happens to reason and policy when a government truly gives itself over to the new Meditations. Ontario as all the world knows went Green with fervour, with former premier Dalton McGuinty and his successor, Premier Kathleen Wynne, fancying themselves something of the Copernicus and Tycho Brahe of the New Green Learning. And was it not learned from the auditor general that their great dive into a solar and wind powered future has cost the innocent citizens of Ontario a mere $37 billion more than it should have, which could give rise to another, extra $133 billion by 2032?

Could it even be — Heresy of Heresies — that maybe the global temperature moved not at all, or — Good Gore, save us — went upwards? We cannot know, for it is the nature of this subject that substantive answers are never possible nor welcome. When dealing with the “airy subtleties” of the new Faith, we must settle for ignorance, but as long as it is for the Great Cause, as long as 50,000 can jet to Paris, Rio or Beijing annually, who cares that we have no certainty? As long as the faith holds, there is no call for certainties.

Save the one more important than all the rest: the idea that the vastly imperfect governments of this world, who between them cannot guarantee anything six months out, can speak with serene confidence on the Whole Atmosphere of our Great Dynamic Planet nearly 100 years from now?

I do not wish to end on a cynical turn here. There has been on undeniable improvement wrought from this great Conclave. St. Leonardo di Caprio, patron spirit of The Yachts of the Monaco Basin, learned for the first time this week that there is such a thing as a chinook. So we now know that there is a least one fact in that well-photographed head of his, and that probably makes it superior to many of those other heads that met so urgently in Paris.

National Post

Link to post
Share on other sites


The perfectly respectable environmental movement has been hijacked by climate radicals

Sat Dec12, 2015 - National Post
Conrad Black

My views of the Paris conference on the environment were published here last week and need not be revisited. But I think the phenomenon of climate change rigidity is so unusual and widespread, it is worthy of more analysis. We start from the fact that absolutely everyone is an environmentalist in the sense that the term enjoyed for many years. This was in having a concern, even if belated, for clean air and water, reforestation, preservation of species, and of all mankind being responsible stewards of the physical planet. No one today claims that lakes belong to industry, and no one, at least in the Western world, accepts the industrial smog that used to prevail in almost all industrial cities, or the untreated sewage that made most of the world’s urban waterways from early in the Industrial Revolution until the last 40 or 50 years a fecal ooze. In London, in the 1860s, for instance, the Thames was so foul with sewage that the windows of the Palace of Westminster had to be closed to reduce the nausea that afflicted members of Parliament and peers in their deliberations. Even with that precaution, the ghastly odour combined with the summer heat caused frequent unscheduled recesses. London was widely reckoned the greatest city in the world, though Paris, Vienna, and even New York preceded it in building comprehensive sewer systems which did not really treat the effluent but conveyed it some distance from the nostrils of the most populous and prestigious urban areas.

The battles for cleaning up the air and water in North America, and such specific problems as acid rain, achieved very wide support and were carried, ultimately with little opposition, though the implementation was very costly to the corporate sector and municipalities, and the waste disposal picture remains far from perfect, though very much improved. On the heels of this victory, the conservation-environmental movement, which had previously confined itself to fairly notorious concerns no one could dispute, relatively quickly graduated to the higher plane of predicting the end of life on Earth due to human-generated emissions of carbon dioxide that would overheat and devastate the planet with astonishing swiftness.

'I am not a climate change denier, I am an unsuccessful climate change evidence-seeker'


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the BBC report on the agreement, some binding, some voluntary, I see that the developing countries (would like to see a list) will be receiving 100 Billion a year by 2020 so they can work towards reducing their pollution. I would like to see a list of countries and amounts of those who will be providing the 100 Billion. Here is a goto to the list of the world's Richest Countries

MONEY: The agreement says wealthy countries should continue to offer financial support to help poor countries reduce their emissions and adapt to climate change. It also encourages other countries to pitch in on a voluntary basis. That paves the way for emerging economies such as China to contribute, even though it doesn't require them to do so. Actual dollar amounts were kept out of the agreement itself, but wealthy nations had previously pledged to provide $100 billion in climate finance by 2020.

I suspect the Devil will indeed be in the detail when it comes to handing out the $$$$$$.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The so-called historic UN climate deal reached Saturday in Paris is a fraud.

Here’s what James Hansen, the ex-NASA climate scientist known as “the father of global warming” for first sounding the alarm about man-made climate change in the 1980s, said about it.

“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he told the Guardian. “It’s just bull---- for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will continue to be burned.”

What really happened at the United Nations’ COP21 (the 21st meeting of the Conference of the Parties) climate summit, was that to get all 196 nations on board for the first time, while keeping the U.S. and China from bolting, the UN watered down the agreement to the point of absurdity.

Despite the lofty rhetoric of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and his French hosts, despite Canadian Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna tweeting “History is made. For our children” — the UN failed to achieve what it has always said is needed to reduce industrial greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions linked to climate change.

That is, a global treaty in which every nation has a binding, legally enforceable GHG reduction target, subject to sanctions if it fails to deliver.

There is nothing like that in the Paris agreement.

Misleading UN claims the treaty is “legally binding” refer to clauses about process, reporting mechanisms and supporting the goals of the 31-page treaty, not results.

The word “binding” is never used. “Voluntary” appears 14 times.

Climate scientists say the voluntary GHG reduction targets submitted to the UN by 187 countries, including Canada, will see global temperatures double what the treaty claims is the point of no return — 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

It used to be 2C.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s UN emission reduction target — which used to be Stephen Harper’s — is a fantasy.

Canada’s pledge, at a minimum, is to reduce our GHG emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, 17% by 2020.

Trudeau’s 2030 target would require Canada to cut GHG emissions by 202 megatonnes (Mt) annually, the equivalent of shutting down our entire oil and gas sector (179 Mt) in 15 years, and still come up 23 Mt short.

Trudeau’s 2020 pledge requires a cut of 104 Mt, equivalent to closing 58% of Canada’s oil and gas sector in five years.

To underscore the absurdity of this, it’s estimated B.C.’s carbon tax will reduce Canada’s emissions by 3 Mt by 2020.

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne’s cap-and-trade scheme doesn’t start until 2017 and won’t reduce emissions, if ever, until 2018.

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley doesn’t know if her new carbon tax will cut emissions, because the only sure thing about a carbon tax is that it raises government revenues, not that it cuts emissions.

Norway imposed a carbon tax in 1991 and concluded 13 years ago it was ineffective at reducing emissions.

Small wonder Canada received two “Fossil of the Day” awards at the Paris summit from environmental groups — the same ones the Harper government used to get.

What the Paris agreement revealed is how divorced UN climate policy is from reality.

UN rhetoric grows more hysterical, and hypocritical, every year.

In 2016, tens of thousands of UN freeloaders will be “saving humanity” at COP22 in the tourist mecca of Marrakech, Morocco, leaving behind another giant carbon foot print.

Meanwhile, the UN couldn’t even get its $100 billion annual Green Climate Fund starting in 2020 (which Canadians will end up contributing to anyway) into the legal wording of the treaty.

What will happen is that the Trudeau government will fall further behind its reduction targets, but face no penalties for doing so, while carbon pricing will penalize Canadians by taking billions of dollars out of our pockets annually.

It will be the modern version of papal indulgences — the price we pay for the “sin” of using fossil fuels to live in a big, cold, northern, sparsely populated, resource-based country — while GHG emissions continue to rise.

Our federal and provincial governments will confiscate billions of dollars from us every year, claiming they are saving the planet, while never having to meet even their own made-up emission targets.

In other words, they’ve come up with the perfect scam.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A real leader from any of the participating countries would have never gone on the junket in the first place. A real leader tells his people the truth and acts responsibly. but hey, I'm sure the 400 attendees from Canada had a heck of a good time on your dime.

By 2020 there'll be another 500 million mouths to feed in the Third World and many fewer species of flora and fauna sharing the space with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suspect the author of the article would not object to having his efforts acknowledged.

You are right. When I posted it I thought it was from CNN and when links to CNN are posted, they normally only remain for a few hours as the website keeps changing so no link posted

However I found the article again this morning........ "Mr Google is my friend" :biggrin1: ............The article was BY LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well ... here we go again with those brilliant scientists on the op-ed and business pages of the popular Press ... Mr. Murphy and Lord Black are two of the most entertaining practitioners of the polemical arts, and in fine form here.

The former picks off most of the easy prey, Gore/Suzuki, deCaprio et al. Otherwise, the usual incoherent barrage about failures to overcome ... er ... flagrant self-interest, and the very opposition, loud and effective as it is, which he himself exemplifies.

The Baron of Crossharbour, OTOH, styles himself as "conscientiously trying to find any evidence that the climate is changing and that man is causing it to change, and I am not finding it" (presumably fancying himself qualified to judge). Any evidence? I guess he's only looking in the same pages he writes in. Certainly not referring to just about every national council or academy, NASA, NOAA, The Royal Society etc. etc. WTF do they know, I guess?

Goldstein doesn't even have the leavening effect of entertainment. His arithmetic about Canada's targets is incomprehensible, his assessment of Norway's carbon tax ignores the debilitation of massive exemptions for protected industries ... & of course there're the usual, compulsive cheap shots at the usual targets.

Nah, screw all those pointy-heads, that actually practice any science, who have done some evaluation of over a century's worth of data & study! Let's give credence to Murphy, Black, Goldstein, or whomever else is found in the popular (& thoroughly non-scientific) Press, that comforts our predispositions ... no axes to grind there, no political bent, no wisp of personal economic or lifestyle concerns ...

But, fellow pilots, the next time you're wondering why everybody doesn't "follow the science" on FTDT ... maybe, just maybe ... ;)

Cheers, IFG :b:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, I wonder how long it will take folks to insist that Lettuce be banned? Going out for a BigMac but I will insist that they hold the lettuce. :biggrin2:

Eating lettuce more than three times worse for environment than eating bacon: Study
biopic.jpg?quality=60&strip=all&w=55&h=5 By Nicole Mortillaro Science and Weather Reporter Global News

Eating more lettuce than meat uses more resources and increases greenhouse gas emissions, according to new research.

AP Photo/Tsafrir Abayov

While studies have shown that eating meat is bad for the environment, a new study has found that eating your veggies can be worse.

A study out of Carnegie Mellon University found that following the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) recommendation to eat more fruits, vegetables, seafood and dairy is in fact more harmful to the environment than eating meat. The reason, they say, is that these foods require high resource use and create high greenhouse gas emissions per calorie.

READ MORE: Reality check – Have greenhouse gas emissions decreased as the economy grows?

“Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon,” said Paul Fischbeck, professor of social and decisions sciences and engineering and public policy, and an author of the paper. “Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than you would think. Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken.”

The researchers did find that by eating fewer calories and managing our weight, the effect on the environment was positive, with a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the food supply chain by nine per cent per calorie.

However, by following the USDA’s recommended guidelines — more veggies, fruits, dairy and seafood — energy use increased by 39 per cent, water use by 10 per cent and greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent.

“There’s a complex relationship between diet and the environment,” said one of the study’s authors, Michelle Tom. “What is good for us health-wise isn’t always what’s best for the environment. That’s important for public officials to know and for them to be cognizant of these tradeoffs as they develop or continue to develop dietary guidelines in the future.”

Link to post
Share on other sites


??? (14)Airports & Locations Business & Finance Common Government & Military (3)Medicine & Science Chat & Sub Cultures Education Schools (2)Technology, IT etc. (3)

Rank Abbreviation Meaning
***** DGIS Directoraat Generaal Internationale Samenwerking
***** DGIS Dangerous Goods Instructors' Symposium
***** DGIS Direct Graphics Interface Standard
**** DGIS DoD Gateway Information System
**** DGIS Direct Graphics Interface Specification
*** DGIS Distributed Geographic Information Systems
*** DGIS Director General Intelligence and Security
* DGIS Directoraat Generaal voor Internationale Samenwerking
* DGIS Directorate General for International Co-operation
* DGIS Dynamic Geographic Information System
* DGIS Data Generator Interface Subsystem
* DGIS Desktop Geographic Information System
* DGIS Dinamic Geographic Information Systems
* DGIS Defense Gateway Information System
Link to post
Share on other sites

What a sham. An agreement that allows signatories to continue polluting as they have been, only at a cost.

Same as Kyoto. But now penalizing existing polluters rather than restricting third world countries from developing. THAT is a benefit and this agreement is a reduction of the Kyoto agreement.

What a sham.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a sham. An agreement that allows signatories to continue polluting as they have been, only at a cost.

Same as Kyoto. But now penalizing existing polluters rather than restricting third world countries from developing. THAT is a benefit and this agreement is a reduction of the Kyoto agreement.

What a sham.

the Libs jumped onto and signed Kyoto and then did nothing, the question that should concern us is .....what if they actually try this time to honour their promises? What will be the result to our economy and where will all those $$$$$ end up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Malcolm.....DGIS.....Don't Give A Sh#t

I am so tired of hearing about what has to happen and what should happen and what will happen if what should happen is not going to happen. I'm tired of the free loading politicians that decided Paris would be good for a photo op and mini vacation. The whole scenario is running a bit thin....who are we supposed to believe, the Yays or the Nays about climate control? Photos of melting icebergs is NOT definitive proof but the cycle this blue marble is going through happened before and will happen again. Yes, there is pollution, and very bad pollution in some about embargos on those countries. " Until you clean up, we don't buy one thing from you"...and pay for your own damned made it..

Why are we giving billions to countries that have screwed their own country up. Cripes, Canada gives hundreds of millions to countries I can not even pronounce let alone spell. How about we look after the folks that are living here first, how about we kick some of the phony politicians that just seem to babble a lot but really just want to maintain the status quo and line their pockets.

No, I am not just an old man yelling at clouds out here, just someone who I feel echoes the sentiment of thousands, if not millions of Canadians.

Look at the Premier of Ontario....screws up hydro and gas infrastructure, costs us tax payers millions and it is on OUR utility bills.......and absolutely nothing happens to any of these crooks. I missed entering a receipt for an investment on my 2014 taxes and I get a bill from Revenue Canada for $50.14....

All the writing and prolific essays on any forum is not going to change a damned thing and if you think the USA is in trouble, just wait and watch what happens in Canada.

PS ...........the premier of Ontario held an enormous Press hullabaloo to announce that Ontario is going to sell beer in grocery stores...what a waste of time that concert was.Does "she" not have more important things to do????? (probably not)

I was stationed in the USA in 1972 and beer and wine was readily available in every grocery store but but Canada's politicians, (read Ontario), play it up as if they personally invoked divine intervention and approved the sale of beer in a "few " corner stores.

Is there a solution??? Well I certainly don't want to see a Donald Trump up here but at least he is telling it like it is. We need to ensure that the "old boys/girls" are put out to pasture and bring in people who will fight for the people and do what the people want...we elected them, and not fill their time by pontificating platitudes that mean absolutely nothing and just belly up to the trough everyday.

Rant over...G'night..see you in a week or so...maybe. :closedeyes:

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Look back 20 or 30 years at Los Angelas. It was the Smog capital of America. I remember driving on the freeway up the coast one early afternoon around 1991. you could see the green smog. on the way back south in the late evening I could see the lights of "a city" I hadn't seen on the way up. It was the San Fernando Valley. During the afternoon it was completely shrouded by smog as to be obscured from a distance.

That is not the same case today. Even though smog levels are still elevated they are not even remotely close to what they once were. thanks to C.A.R.B. and the like putting harsh regulations on emissions.

North America is far from a worst offender in the air pollution area.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.