Jump to content

Climate Change?


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Fido said:

+4c today in Edmonton

I love climate change

According to Weather Canada , you are not seeing climate change.?  1997 was warmer

  • n/a
Average low
  • n/a
Highest temperature (1996-2017)
  • 4.5°C
  • 1997
Lowest temperature (1996-2017)
  • -28.2°C
  • 2017
Greatest precipitation (1996-2017)
  • 5.7 mm
  • 1998
Greatest rainfall (1996-2006)
  • 0.0 mm
Greatest snowfall (1996-2006)
  • 5.7 cm
  • 1998
Most snow on the ground (1996-2018)
  • 35.0 cm
  • 1996
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Moon The Loon said:

CLIMATE IS NOT MEASURED IN 20 YEAR PERIODS. IT IS MEASURED IN 2,000+ YEAR PERIODS.

Bah, humbug....

yes it is so people need to stop blaming a warm winter ofr hot summer on Climate Change.  It just fuels the BS

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trudeau just doesn't get Western alienation as he inflicts two more hits to the West’s economy

Trudeau reaffirmed Liberal hostility to resource development with two decisions, both of which undermine his avowed mission to combat climate change

The prime minister just doesn’t get Western alienation. Either that or he is so obsessed with his green image he doesn’t care. After rejection by two-thirds of voters, with support from less than 22 per cent of the total electorate and only four out of 62 seats in the Prairie provinces, Trudeau is downplaying regional “frustrations,” saying they do not amount to a national unity crisis.

As if to flaunt his indifference, Trudeau reaffirmed Liberal hostility to resource development with two fateful decisions, both of which — paradoxically — undermine his avowed mission to combat climate change. The first relates to the government’s stance at the failed UN Conference on Climate Change (COP25) in Madrid and the second, its commitment to adopt the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

As I recently wrote, selling Canadian oil and gas to Asia will reduce net global emissions by enabling importing countries to decrease their use of higher-emitting coal. Canada can be a big contributor to the international climate effort by exporting oil and gas or it can concentrate on domestic emissions and penalize its economy.

Minister of the Environment and Climate Change Jonathan Wilkinson graciously declared “I’m not saying liquid natural gas (LNG) in the future can’t be part of an overall structure” before adding the killer: “but the focus of the climate plan is on reducing our own domestic emissions.”

Follow his self-defeating reasoning: the government will concentrate on achieving its Paris accord commitments even if doing so precludes reducing worldwide emissions. Because in the end the only number that counts is total global emissions, this approach prioritizes bragging rights over a looming threat to humanity. The Liberal scorecard evidently is more important than whether the planet fries.

Those who oppose sharing carbon reduction credits worry about the possibility of double counting but that technical problem is easily resolved. China quite understandably wants to hoard the credit for reducing its own domestic emissions. But why would the Canadian government support a process that disadvantages its own energy industry for no net environmental advantage?

Wilkinson’s approach should be politically toxic for the Liberal government. The reason it is not pervades the discussion of an alleged climate change crisis: facts and rationality about a technical subject are no match for the stultifying conformity of the environmental bandwagon and its intolerance of dissent.

As for UNDRIP, federal Justice Minister and Attorney General David Lametti promised it would be adopted into law in 2020, against the opposition of his predecessor, Jody Wilson-Raybould.

Public commentary and the courts respond almost exclusively to Aboriginal people opposed to resource projects. Yet for many Indigenous communities resource development is a transformative opportunity to create jobs, long-term revenue and lasting economic partnerships. Most First Nations support pipelines that traverse their traditional territories. They resent domestic and foreign NGOs that manipulate Aboriginal rights and denigrate Aboriginal benefits in order to advance their own ideological and commercial agendas.

Hard questions abound. When some nations say no and others say yes, whose voices should be heard and on what basis? What are the implications of proven versus unproven rights and titles? How critical is physical proximity to the project? Does population size matter? Should resource companies consult with hereditary chiefs, band councils or the entire community?

Then there is the Canadian national interest, especially the overarching need to access overseas markets for our oil and gas. In a 2016 discussion paper, a team led by Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci outlined the considerations when consent cannot be obtained, including that rights must be adequately protected and impacts mitigated, which may entail compensation. Otherwise, the infringement must be justified by balancing Indigenous rights with the need to respect other human rights, as well as the public interest in “meeting the just and most compelling requirements of a democratic society.”

We cannot know how UNDRIP will be interpreted by the courts or, crucially, whether First Nations could veto development projects. Inevitably, these complex issues will generate extensive litigation. Regulatory risk, lawfare and political opposition caused project sponsors TransCanada and Kinder Morgan to withdraw from Energy East and Trans Mountain, respectively, at a sunk cost of a billion dollars each. Adding UNDRIP to the new “no pipelines” Impact Assessment Act could seal the fate of new projects, leaving vast energy resources landlocked.

Canadians are left to wonder whether the government considered the full implications of these two decisions for the country or, given its minority situation, whether it even cares.

Joe Oliver was minister of natural resources and minister of finance in the Harper government.

 

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/joe-oliver-trudeau-just-doesnt-get-western-alienation-as-he-inflicts-two-more-hits-to-the-wests-economy?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1577966348

Edited by Jaydee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Two months ago, Venice was flooding and this was blamed on Climate Change.  So here we are 2 months later:

Venice canals almost dry, two months after severe floods

·        1 hour ago Link to article and video    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51098129

Media captionVenice's canals look more like mud trenches

Low tides have left canals in Venice almost dry, just two months after severe flooding left much of the Italian city under water.

Boats have been seen almost beached as water levels dip drastically.

The canals look more like mud trenches and getting around has become a problem for many in the city.

In November, Venice experienced its highest water levels in more than 50 years in what some said was a direct result of climate change.

§  Climate change behind highest tide in 50 years, says mayor

More than two thirds of the city was underwater then, with the mayor estimating damage at over a billion euros ($1.1bn; £850m).

Landmarks like St Mark's Square were flooded, while shops and businesses had to close.

The latest low tide - while exceptional - is not quite as unprecedented. The tides here mean water levels can vary by around half a metre, or sometimes even more.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who sees Droughts as caused by climate change needs to look in history.  There is a reason we have the word drought.  Because it's not a new phenomenon.

Look back to the 1930's and the dust bowl.  Where was climate change then?

Late 80's early 90's in California.  That lasted like 5 years

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Here's a good "trial run" for all of those Liberals who refuse to answer when I ask "where does that 79 megaton carbon deficit (Paris Accord) come from?" 

This ain't but nothing (and I mean NOTHING) when compared to what's actually required to hit those accord targets.... how do you like it so far?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/disruption-rail-industries-economy-1.5461212

Taking all tractor trailers off the road isn't near enough either. Shutting down the entire agricultural sector isn't enough. If action on climate change is the number one  concern of most Canadians, why aren't people applauding a minuscule effort like this and demanding more of the same?

 If you think this qualifies as "an emergency," then you really don't want what you say you think you might maybe really perhaps want and you should stick to magic lightbulbs and plastic straws.

It's really a golden opportunity to see what a thin veneer western civilization actually is and it stands as a lesson in comparing what you think you want and what you are likely to complain about not having. Not to be mean about it, but hopefully this will drag out sufficiently long for people to really understand the potential effects of what they have been advocating for. As it (if it) unfolds, keep in mind that this is small potatoes when compared to what is actually required to hit accord targets.

If the temperature in your house right now is above 15C, and you want more action on climate change, you may be in for a surprise if you actually get what you are demanding. Now, try and imagine Bernie at the helm of the USS Green New Deal....

https://torontosun.com/news/national/fuel-shortages-likely-if-rail-shutdown-continues

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It gets even sillier than that.

I constantly use those bags for a myriad of things and now I have to buy them. But the ones you buy are between two and three times thicker. In short, when I’m done with them and they finally get recycled, I have increased my plastic consumption/disposal by a factor of three.

 

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

It gets even sillier than that.

I constantly use those bags for a myriad of things and now I have to buy them. But the ones you buy are between two and three times thicker. In short, when I’m done with them and they finally get recycled, I have increased my plastic consumption/disposal by a factor of three.

 

 

You could always purchase the "Bio-degradable" ones.  ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Marshall said:

Must be the cheap Eastern Canada variety ?

Yup, those are the ones. 

Although it's a huge reservoir of Liberal voters here, I think people will now be content with plastic bags and straws for a while.  It seems most have lost their appetite for shutting down the entire transportation sector in support of Paris Accord targets. It didn't take long either.

 

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wolfhunter said:

Yup, those are the ones. 

Although it's a huge reservoir of Liberal voters here, I think people will now be content with plastic bags and straws for a while.  It seems most have lost their appetite for shutting down the entire transportation sector in support of Paris Accord targets. It didn't take long either.

 

but now they have apparently settled for shutting down the entire surface transportation sector in support of a minority of Hereditary Chiefs.  

Link to comment
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.

Guest
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...