View Poll Results: What is your opinion on global warming?

Voters
168. You may not vote on this poll
  • It's happening and we're to blame

    85 50.60%
  • It's happening but it's not man made

    20 11.90%
  • It's not even happening, except according to the cycles of nature

    46 27.38%
  • Undecided / No opinion

    17 10.12%
Page 1 of 17 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 1670

Thread: Still Believe in Global Warming?

  1. #1

    Default Still Believe in Global Warming?

    I haven't posted at C2E for quite some time, but I thought I'd throw this out there just to see if opinions have changed at all since the last time this was a topic. The last time we discussed global warming on C2E the vast majority of posters believed it was real and were quick to insult and alienate those of us who knew it was a scam right from the start.

    I'm just going to post this latest piece of evidence and see what the reaction is. I want to know if more people are waking up to the truth, or if the general public is still drinking the kool-aid to the same extent they were a year ago.

    Original Article - Son of Climategate!

    Son of Climategate! Scientist says feds manipulated data
    Reporting points in coldest regions simply eliminated by U.S. agencies

    Posted: January 16, 2010
    12:20 am Eastern

    By Bob Unruh
    © 2010 WorldNetDaily

    In a one-two series of Climategate aftershocks that assuredly will further rattle the global warming community, a report has been issued by U.S. researchers accusing government agencies of cherry-picking temperature readings used to assess global temperatures, and a series of embarrassing e-mails were released revealing what happened when a blogger dared to point out a mistake by NASA climate scientists.

    The new report is from scientist Joseph D'Aleo and was highlighted in a report on global warming on KUSI television in San Diego.

    It comes only weeks after the tumultuous climategate e-mail scandal in Britain erupted, proving top global warming scientists manipulated data there.

    The report from D'Aleo, a retired climatologist who has been skeptical of global warming, contends climate data has been corrupted and skewed by "urbanization and other local factors such as land-use-land-cover changes and improper siting."

    He blamed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which he described as "seriously complicit in data manipulation and fraud."

    (...)
    Last edited by Moderator1; 16-01-2010 at 05:32 PM. Reason: Shorten to 150 words, per rules.

  2. #2

    Default

    I have my doubts about the severity of global warming, and the extent to which it is a result of human activities or not. But, in saying that, I don't know if I trust the source you quoted. When this story hits a reputable news agency like the NY Times, or BBC, I'll be interested then, until then I won't take the analysis any more seriously than the doomsday predictions of a greenpeace activist.

  3. #3

    Default

    Personally I think its a natural cycle. I dont think humans have as much effect on it as we are lead to think. I do think that the new era of 'green' thought is more political is origins than anything to do with the environment. Just look at Copenhagen for example. It seems more an effort to push forth a form of global government than anything else.

    Ban Ki-moon: “We will establish a global governance structure to monitor and manage the implementation of this.”
    “We need to have a very strong, robust, binding political deal that will have an immediate operational effect. This is not going to be a political declaration, just for the sake of declaration. It is going to be a binding political deal, which will lead to a legally binding treaty next year”

    In a New York Times editorial called 'We Can Do It' (LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/op...iht-edban.html) Ki-moon wrote that efforts to impose restrictions on CO2 emissions “Must include an equitable global governance structure.”

    David Rothschild: "It’s past the point of talking. We know historically that the global governance sort of agenda to these issues is very hard to… with all the best intentions it’s very hard to actually activate.”

    EU President Herman Van Rompuy: "“The first step towards the global management of our planet.”
    Last edited by Komrade; 16-01-2010 at 04:32 PM.
    FREE THE LOOPING .GIF MEMES
    youtube.com/GrimEmpire

  4. #4
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Meadows
    Posts
    1,975

    Default

    Are we really still debating this...give me a break.
    $2.00 $2.25 $2.50 $2.75 $2.85 $3.00 $3.20 $3.25

  5. #5
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Yes, climate change is a fraud...just like all those other fabrications that caused scientists to raise alarm bells in the past, like the hole in the ozone layer, acid rain, the problems with dumping all our waste into a landfill, the dangers of dumping raw sewage into waterways, germs, a round earth that revolves around the sun, etc. Those greedy, scheming scientists just trying to profit from shaking up the status quo...
    Strathcona City Separatist

  6. #6
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Also, you're supposed to just post the first 150 words and a link to the original article, according to the Rules and Guidelines.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  7. #7

    Default

    Its part of a natural cycle. Man is not helping though, we are making the cycles go faster. We need to work on being protective of earth and reducing our footprint as much as possible without overdoing it

  8. #8
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    I still do not understand the disappointment that people have of scientists "manipulating" data. This is what statistics and data analysis are no?

  9. #9
    In Guantanamo (Banned)
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    1,769

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jstock View Post
    Are we really still debating this...give me a break.
    ....only here! - Albertans are kind'a slow to pick stuff up.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    I have my doubts about the severity of global warming, and the extent to which it is a result of human activities or not. But, in saying that, I don't know if I trust the source you quoted. When this story hits a reputable news agency like the NY Times, or BBC, I'll be interested then, until then I won't take the analysis any more seriously than the doomsday predictions of a greenpeace activist.
    It took a few weeks after climategate broke before the "reputable news agencies" mentioned the story.

  11. #11

    Default

    ^with no Copenhagen summit, this isn't news, its just more back and forth over the same stuff, which is what this thread will be as well.

  12. #12
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,424

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by andy8244 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by jstock View Post
    Are we really still debating this...give me a break.
    ....only here! - Albertans are kind'a slow to pick stuff up.

    hmm You cant get around that much.Its being debated in parts of Ottawa , and in Toronto
    they dont believe in in any more than I do, and their is a heck of lot less media about it!

  13. #13
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    I really hope you guys are kidding with some of your responses.

    Yes of course it's ocurring, and of course we are to blame. It's irresponsible and selfish to think otherwise IMO.

    Yes, there are natural cycles in the Earth's climate, but from the stats I saw, prior to the Industrial Revolution, we were actually starting to get into a cooling period, but went warmer due to the industrial and urban growth. Not only that, but many stats and predictions show that different things with the climate are off the charts and outside of the normal range that has occurred for as far back as we can trace.

    How is it perfectly ok and natural for a river to be turned dark instead of clear blue due to dumping of waste and kill many fish. Yeah, that's normal. Yeah, that was not our fault at all, it was the monkeys of course!

    How is it perfectly normal for our ice to be cracking up, falling into the ocean, and melting, thus causing sea levels to rise? Especially at the rate it is now. Or how is it normal to have hurricanes as strong as they have become recently? Way outside the normal realm.

    Oh, and yeah...it's perfectly natural for there to be holes in the Ozone layer, or thinning...yeah perfectly natural, right?

    Does everybody just not realize the impact we have on this planet? Look at the midwestern US, it may look like nature from far away satelite images...but it's all HUMAN farms! All the forests we've cut down, and all the pretty green golf courses we've created in Nevada and Arizona...yeah no impact on altering the environment. You keep telling yourselves that.

    Just wow.

    One of the saddest things about humans is we only act when somethings starring us in the eye, yet we have the brains to solve something prior to it happening. Well, it's too late now I guess.
    ----

  14. #14
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    10,362

    Default

    I think that global warming is partly nature (e.g., volcanos), but human involvement may be enough to tip it. We have to be proactive about managing our natural resources.
    "Talk minus action equals zero." - Joe Keithley, D. O. A.

  15. #15

    Default

    I believe that nothing is black and white... it's foolish to think we can spew hydrocarbons, methane and other forms of pollution and not pay for it in some way.

  16. #16
    You registered but never posted. username to be deleted.
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    134

    Default

    ^ x2

  17. #17
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    2,458

    Default

    perhaps one human could not change the earth's climate, nor could 100, 100 000 humans likely couldn't even change the earth's planet, same thing for one million, and perhaps even one hundred million. But... today we have 6.7 Billion humans. That is going to impact the earth - it is delusional to think otherwise.

  18. #18
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,424

    Thumbs up

    http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
    I like what he has to say- a lot!

  19. #19
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,354

    Default

    ^ He's seeing what he wants to see in the data. The fact that Earth had undergone many episodes of climate change before humans started burning fossil fuels does not mean anthropogenic global warming can't happen and says nothing about whether it is happening now. The lack of warming in the 1950s and 1960s and the 2000s could easily be natural variability (which would otherwise result in significant cooling) superimposed on a general warming trend. He actually pulled up a computer model from 1980, when the world's fastest supercomputers were less capable than the PC on your desk right now. IPCC predictions are based on much more recent models, although even these make too many simplifications.

    The fact is that CO2 absorbs some wavelengths of infrared radiation, and emitted infrared is the only means by which the energy Earth receives from the sun can be returned to space. Higher CO2 levels WILL make Earth warmer than it otherwise would have been. It is uncertain is by how much, and it is also uncertain how much natural variability will be superimposed on the anthropogenic warming.

    The way I look at the issue, anthropogenic global warming has the potential to have serious consequences, which we may or may not be able to predict. There is also a limited global supply of fossil fuels, which will continue to become more expensive as the remaining supply becomes more difficult to extract. Conflicts over fossil fuel supplies can and do lead to war, and many of them have value as chemical feedstocks as well as fuels. For all of these reasons it seems entirely logical to take steps to minimize our use of fossil fuels, even if the effect of increased CO2 levels on our climate turns out to be small.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
    Personally I think its a natural cycle. I dont think humans have as much effect on it as we are lead to think. I do think that the new era of 'green' thought is more political is origins than anything to do with the environment. Just look at Copenhagen for example. It seems more an effort to push forth a form of global government than anything else.

    Ban Ki-moon: “We will establish a global governance structure to monitor and manage the implementation of this.”
    “We need to have a very strong, robust, binding political deal that will have an immediate operational effect. This is not going to be a political declaration, just for the sake of declaration. It is going to be a binding political deal, which will lead to a legally binding treaty next year”

    In a New York Times editorial called 'We Can Do It' (LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/op...iht-edban.html) Ki-moon wrote that efforts to impose restrictions on CO2 emissions “Must include an equitable global governance structure.”

    David Rothschild: "It’s past the point of talking. We know historically that the global governance sort of agenda to these issues is very hard to… with all the best intentions it’s very hard to actually activate.”

    EU President Herman Van Rompuy: "“The first step towards the global management of our planet.”
    Thank you for keeping your eyes open Komrade. You are exactly right. Global warming is the catalyst for global governance. That's why they need the sheeple to believe it. Just as 9/11 was the catalyst for war and tighter "security" controls.

    Global warming is only man-made in the sense that it is a man-made scam.

  21. #21

    Default

    Simple risk management. Here's a video that describes the situation well, imho.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_an...video_response

    It boils down to the fact that the risks associated with not acting are far greater than the risks associated with acting.

    Edit: Here's his original video, that explains his logic a little bit better, imho:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8...eature=channel
    Last edited by lat; 17-01-2010 at 11:40 AM.

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IKAN104 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
    Personally I think its a natural cycle. I dont think humans have as much effect on it as we are lead to think. I do think that the new era of 'green' thought is more political is origins than anything to do with the environment. Just look at Copenhagen for example. It seems more an effort to push forth a form of global government than anything else.

    Ban Ki-moon: “We will establish a global governance structure to monitor and manage the implementation of this.”
    “We need to have a very strong, robust, binding political deal that will have an immediate operational effect. This is not going to be a political declaration, just for the sake of declaration. It is going to be a binding political deal, which will lead to a legally binding treaty next year”

    In a New York Times editorial called 'We Can Do It' (LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/op...iht-edban.html) Ki-moon wrote that efforts to impose restrictions on CO2 emissions “Must include an equitable global governance structure.”

    David Rothschild: "It’s past the point of talking. We know historically that the global governance sort of agenda to these issues is very hard to… with all the best intentions it’s very hard to actually activate.”

    EU President Herman Van Rompuy: "“The first step towards the global management of our planet.”
    Thank you for keeping your eyes open Komrade. You are exactly right. Global warming is the catalyst for global governance. That's why they need the sheeple to believe it. Just as 9/11 was the catalyst for war and tighter "security" controls.

    Global warming is only man-made in the sense that it is a man-made scam.
    True true true. Too many ba ba black sheeps.
    FREE THE LOOPING .GIF MEMES
    youtube.com/GrimEmpire

  23. #23

    Default

    ^ and why is global governance necessarily a bad thing?
    That is what the UN has been trying to do for decades. They just haven't been very good at it.
    There are certain things that must be dealt with on a global level. Climate change is one of them.

  24. #24
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by andy8244 View Post
    ....only here! - Albertans are kind'a slow to pick stuff up.
    You really believe that it's only in Alberta that this debate is ongoing? You really do need to get out more, Andy...

    Quote Originally Posted by IKAN104 View Post
    Thank you for keeping your eyes open Komrade. You are exactly right. Global warming is the catalyst for global governance. That's why they need the sheeple to believe it. Just as 9/11 was the catalyst for war and tighter "security" controls.
    Right, because you two are the only two free-thinking folks here, no one else could possibly have done their own research and come to their own conclusions and formed their own opinions if they don't agree with you. Nope, "sheeple," discussion closed.


    (Credit: XKCD)

    I'd also love for you to explain how you think the scientific community plans for form this "global governance" you speak of. Scientists for the One World Government? Really, that's your argument against climate change?
    Strathcona City Separatist

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    I really hope you guys are kidding with some of your responses.

    Yes of course it's ocurring, and of course we are to blame. It's irresponsible and selfish to think otherwise IMO.

    Yes, there are natural cycles in the Earth's climate, but from the stats I saw, prior to the Industrial Revolution, we were actually starting to get into a cooling period, but went warmer due to the industrial and urban growth. Not only that, but many stats and predictions show that different things with the climate are off the charts and outside of the normal range that has occurred for as far back as we can trace.
    You're basing your argument on the assumption that those "stats" you saw are real and true. Haven't you heard about climategate? Those computer models were falsified. That's a fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    How is it perfectly ok and natural for a river to be turned dark instead of clear blue due to dumping of waste and kill many fish. Yeah, that's normal. Yeah, that was not our fault at all, it was the monkeys of course!
    Now you're just talking about pollution. That negatively affects our environment and our health, but it does not cause global warming and it does not kill the planet. Keep it in perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    How is it perfectly normal for our ice to be cracking up, falling into the ocean, and melting, thus causing sea levels to rise? Especially at the rate it is now. Or how is it normal to have hurricanes as strong as they have become recently? Way outside the normal realm.
    Have you seen the sea levels rise?

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    Oh, and yeah...it's perfectly natural for there to be holes in the Ozone layer, or thinning...yeah perfectly natural, right?
    How do you know there are holes in the Ozone layer?

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    Does everybody just not realize the impact we have on this planet? Look at the midwestern US, it may look like nature from far away satelite images...but it's all HUMAN farms! All the forests we've cut down, and all the pretty green golf courses we've created in Nevada and Arizona...yeah no impact on altering the environment. You keep telling yourselves that.
    Just an FYI: The forests are there for us to use. We are supposed to cut them down. We are supposed to farm the land. We are supposed to use the resources of earth to live. That is what they are there for. This planet was designed to sustain us and it is doing a fine job.

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    Just wow.
    Yes, indeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    One of the saddest things about humans is we only act when somethings starring us in the eye, yet we have the brains to solve something prior to it happening. Well, it's too late now I guess.
    I bet you just saw the movie Avatar didn't you? Evil humans. All they want to do is destroy natural beauty and consume resources. That's the message they want you to hear. Try not to lose your own mind in the midst of the bombardment. Humans are not evil.

    I'm not trying to slam you with my responses here, but I'm trying to make you think about your own statements. Are you really thinking for yourself and using deductive reasoning?

    Remember too, that the people who are feeding you all this stuff are the people with all the power. And those people have an agenda. To think that they would never lie to you or keep things from you is very naive.

    Have you read the draft of the treaty they proposed? I have. And I can tell you that its main focus is to implement a mechanism that will transfer wealth from rich nations to poor nations. They just want to redistribute the wealth. From Edmonton to Uganda. And conveniently they'll need some form of global governance to implement this scheme. Read the document. Here's the link.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...hagen-2009.pdf

    If you can do your own research, with an open mind, and disregard the fact that arguments from either side are coming from people who "should know what they're talking about" or "should have your best interests at heart" because they are politicians or because they are the main stream media or because they are scientists or because we just trust NASA and everything they tell us, and if you then still believe what you now believe then I can respect that, but at this point I think you are just a ventriloquists puppet.

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lat View Post
    ^ and why is global governance necessarily a bad thing?
    That is what the UN has been trying to do for decades. They just haven't been very good at it.
    There are certain things that must be dealt with on a global level. Climate change is one of them.
    It's a bad thing when those that are trying to implement global government are doing so only because they believe they have a divine right to govern because they are better than you (google illuminati). And when that global government implements global communism combined with total control over you and your family and the elimination of all your rights. That's when it's a bad thing.

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    Right, because you two are the only two free-thinking folks here, no one else could possibly have done their own research and come to their own conclusions and formed their own opinions if they don't agree with you. Nope, "sheeple," discussion closed.
    Let's put it this way. Let's say that I'm on side "A" and you're on side "B" of this argument. People who do research into this topic (and I don't mean just watching CBC every night) never move from side "A" to side "B", they only move from side "B" to side "A". Why is that?

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ikan104 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lat View Post
    ^ and why is global governance necessarily a bad thing?
    That is what the un has been trying to do for decades. They just haven't been very good at it.
    There are certain things that must be dealt with on a global level. Climate change is one of them.
    it's a bad thing when those that are trying to implement global government are doing so only because they believe they have a divine right to govern because they are better than you (google illuminati). And when that global government implements global communism combined with total control over you and your family and the elimination of all your rights. That's when it's a bad thing.
    hahahahahaha!!!! Wow.

  29. #29

    Default

    I'm having flashbacks of fluoride, dome houses and tin foil hats.

    I'm sure that global warming is all the Jew's fault too.. That comment is meant VERY sarcastically.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 17-01-2010 at 12:04 PM.

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ikan104 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lat View Post
    ^ and why is global governance necessarily a bad thing?
    That is what the un has been trying to do for decades. They just haven't been very good at it.
    There are certain things that must be dealt with on a global level. Climate change is one of them.
    it's a bad thing when those that are trying to implement global government are doing so only because they believe they have a divine right to govern because they are better than you (google illuminati). And when that global government implements global communism combined with total control over you and your family and the elimination of all your rights. That's when it's a bad thing.
    hahahahahaha!!!! Wow.
    Ah, the laughter of ignorance.

  31. #31
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IKAN104 View Post
    Let's put it this way. Let's say that I'm on side "A" and you're on side "B" of this argument. People who do research into this topic (and I don't mean just watching CBC every night) never move from side "A" to side "B", they only move from side "B" to side "A". Why is that?
    Of my entire post, that's all you had to come back with?
    Strathcona City Separatist

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IKAN104 View Post
    Let's put it this way. Let's say that I'm on side "A" and you're on side "B" of this argument. People who do research into this topic (and I don't mean just watching CBC every night) never move from side "A" to side "B", they only move from side "B" to side "A". Why is that?
    Of my entire post, that's all you had to come back with?
    Ya, it's designed to get you to start thinking for yourself. Have fun.

  33. #33
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IKAN104 View Post
    Ya, it's designed to get you to start thinking for yourself. Have fun.
    Wow, what an insulting and patronizing reply! You assume that I don't think for myself because we disagree about climate change? Nice work. If you plan to change any hearts and minds, don't expect to get any results by making assumptions like this, or by calling the very people you're trying to get through to as "sheeple."

    On that subject, as soon as you brought up the Illuminati, you just did a major, major disservice to the anti-climate-change campaign. I don't know if I should thank you for that or not.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  34. #34

    Default

    Obviously you don't think for yourself. I'm not insulting you, I'm trying to shake you awake. If you had done any research at all you would know that the Illuminati is no fairy tale. I used to be just as ignorant as you. I used to laugh at suggestions of conspiracies, but when you start looking into it you realize that there is a lot of compelling evidence that simply can't be ignored.

    And the point of my responses is not to try to convince you of what I know because you're not going to believe me just because I say it is so. The point of my posts is to try to get people to do their own research. That is the only way you will believe it. You have to see it for yourself.

  35. #35
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ Actually, you are insulting me. The sooner you figure out why, the sooner you'll figure out how to actually communicate an idea in such a way that someone might actually be interested in listening to you.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  36. #36
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    teh city of gold
    Posts
    1,062

    Default

    Global warming is a lefty lie. I have said this all along. The planet warms up and cools down, its all part of the cycle. this has repeated itself several times in the past.


    Cliffnotes: Lefties, STOP your damn lying!!!!!

  37. #37
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    this thread seems so familiar...

  38. #38
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,348

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    Global warming is a lefty lie. I have said this all along. The planet warms up and cools down, its all part of the cycle. this has repeated itself several times in the past.


    Cliffnotes: Lefties, STOP your damn lying!!!!!
    It's no more damn lying than insisting your skirt isn't a skirt, it's a utili-kilt or that your purse isn't a purse, it's a man-bag...

    Global warming or climate change or whatever you choose to call it is what it is by whatever name is used...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  39. #39
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    Yes, IKAN, you are insulting everybody who doesn't agree with your conspiracy thinkings and hoaxes.

    Quote Originally Posted by IKAN104 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    I really hope you guys are kidding with some of your responses.

    Yes of course it's ocurring, and of course we are to blame. It's irresponsible and selfish to think otherwise IMO.

    Yes, there are natural cycles in the Earth's climate, but from the stats I saw, prior to the Industrial Revolution, we were actually starting to get into a cooling period, but went warmer due to the industrial and urban growth. Not only that, but many stats and predictions show that different things with the climate are off the charts and outside of the normal range that has occurred for as far back as we can trace.
    You're basing your argument on the assumption that those "stats" you saw are real and true. Haven't you heard about climategate? Those computer models were falsified. That's a fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    How is it perfectly ok and natural for a river to be turned dark instead of clear blue due to dumping of waste and kill many fish. Yeah, that's normal. Yeah, that was not our fault at all, it was the monkeys of course!
    Now you're just talking about pollution. That negatively affects our environment and our health, but it does not cause global warming and it does not kill the planet. Keep it in perspective.

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    How is it perfectly normal for our ice to be cracking up, falling into the ocean, and melting, thus causing sea levels to rise? Especially at the rate it is now. Or how is it normal to have hurricanes as strong as they have become recently? Way outside the normal realm.
    Have you seen the sea levels rise?

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    Oh, and yeah...it's perfectly natural for there to be holes in the Ozone layer, or thinning...yeah perfectly natural, right?
    How do you know there are holes in the Ozone layer?

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    Does everybody just not realize the impact we have on this planet? Look at the midwestern US, it may look like nature from far away satelite images...but it's all HUMAN farms! All the forests we've cut down, and all the pretty green golf courses we've created in Nevada and Arizona...yeah no impact on altering the environment. You keep telling yourselves that.
    Just an FYI: The forests are there for us to use. We are supposed to cut them down. We are supposed to farm the land. We are supposed to use the resources of earth to live. That is what they are there for. This planet was designed to sustain us and it is doing a fine job.

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    Just wow.
    Yes, indeed.

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    One of the saddest things about humans is we only act when somethings starring us in the eye, yet we have the brains to solve something prior to it happening. Well, it's too late now I guess.
    I bet you just saw the movie Avatar didn't you? Evil humans. All they want to do is destroy natural beauty and consume resources. That's the message they want you to hear. Try not to lose your own mind in the midst of the bombardment. Humans are not evil.

    I'm not trying to slam you with my responses here, but I'm trying to make you think about your own statements. Are you really thinking for yourself and using deductive reasoning?

    Remember too, that the people who are feeding you all this stuff are the people with all the power. And those people have an agenda. To think that they would never lie to you or keep things from you is very naive.

    Have you read the draft of the treaty they proposed? I have. And I can tell you that its main focus is to implement a mechanism that will transfer wealth from rich nations to poor nations. They just want to redistribute the wealth. From Edmonton to Uganda. And conveniently they'll need some form of global governance to implement this scheme. Read the document. Here's the link.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...hagen-2009.pdf

    If you can do your own research, with an open mind, and disregard the fact that arguments from either side are coming from people who "should know what they're talking about" or "should have your best interests at heart" because they are politicians or because they are the main stream media or because they are scientists or because we just trust NASA and everything they tell us, and if you then still believe what you now believe then I can respect that, but at this point I think you are just a ventriloquists puppet.

    I'm not even going to reply to all of this because frankly, it's not worth it, you're not going to change your mind, and I don't have the time.

    Okay, I've bolded the three things I'd like to reply to.

    First, who says we actually have the right to cut down all those forests? Who says that we have the right to? God? I certainly don't think so. That's just stupid to think that just because we have the means to do something, that it's okay. We have the means to kill other people of our own species, so is that okay? Do we have the God Given Right to do that too?

    No I haven't seen Avatar, actually. But I will be honest, it does look pretty interesting, although I don't know too much about it. How are humans not evil? This planet doesn't have a more cruel species! You could argue that animals that do something or another thing which go against [insert cult/religion here] are cruel, but they act in instinct for the most part (this doesn't pertain to all animals though). We have the sophistication to be cruel, it's just that. How are we not cruel when we dehumanize, murder, bully, or destroy anyone or anything?

    That last point I bolded for you is just terrible. So you're saying Uganda should just stay poor? Yeah, that's fair. So you think it's proper and 'right' for there to be such disparity and that the poorer should remain poorer?

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    ^ Actually, you are insulting me. The sooner you figure out why, the sooner you'll figure out how to actually communicate an idea in such a way that someone might actually be interested in listening to you.
    +1.
    Last edited by edmontonenthusiast; 17-01-2010 at 03:26 PM.
    ----

  40. #40

    Default

    When IKAN104 stated that global warming is yet another plot by the "Illuminati" to rule the world, my baloney detector alarm started ringing....

    Check out the Skeptics Dictionary at skepdic.com and click on illuminati...this is an excellent website that debunks a lot of nonsense...

  41. #41
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,960

    Default

    ^ You should check the real dictionary at dictionary.com as it is bologna

  42. #42
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,870

    Default

    From dictionary.com

    "ba⋅lo⋅ney  [buh-loh-nee] Show IPA
    Use baloney in a Sentence
    –noun
    1. Slang. foolishness; nonsense.
    2. Informal. bologna.
    –interjection
    3. Slang. nonsense.
    Also, boloney.

    Origin:
    1915–20, Americanism; 1925–30 for def. 2; alter. of bologna, with substitution of -ey 2 for final schwa
    Dictionary.com Unabridged
    Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009. "

    I had to check, because I use "baloney" sometimes too. Back to the debate.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  43. #43
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,960

    Default

    I was kidding Jimbo, a little comic relief in a pretty heated debate. Does anyone really think they can change the minds of anyone on here regarding Global Warming? It seems that this topic is one of those that no matter what the "other" side says, people will not change their minds no matter what "proof" is presented. This thread is one of many on here that is just going to go in circles and die a slow painful death.

  44. #44
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Victoria
    Posts
    582

    Default

    here's the fact that nobody can dispute: each year we release millions of tonnes of carbon that was previously stored in the earth, into the atmosphere. that has the potential to throw a serious wrench into the natural climate systems. that's the bottom line. no 'climategate' can change this fact.

  45. #45

    Default

    Yes, the forests exist for us to harvest. The planet exists to support humans. hahahahahaha!

    I guess IKAN also thinks that the petroleum resources in the earth are there for us to process into plastic discs, copy a pirated version of "How I Met Your Mother" off the internet, give to a friend, have them watch it, then throw it in the garbage after less than a week. Yes, this is how humanity stewards our planet.

    IKAN104 serves as proof of my theory that anybody spouting extremist or absolutist viewpoints on *either* side of any debate is probably wrong.

  46. #46
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,960

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark View Post
    here's the fact that nobody can dispute: each year we release millions of tonnes of carbon that was previously stored in the earth, into the atmosphere. that has the potential to throw a serious wrench into the natural climate systems. that's the bottom line. no 'climategate' can change this fact.
    Key word is potential and I assume you mean carbon dioxide? Bottom line is yes we are polluting but can it be proven that we are changing the world due to CO2 emissions or is climate change a cyclical process?

    The bottom line is no one knows nor can prove it as it is such a complex system and this will forever be a circular argument.

  47. #47

    Default

    Most people have their ego invested in the argument (on both sides) and no amount of evidence could ever change their mind. I believe it is a total fraud but it is a useless debate. I think people on either side of the debate should be focusing on the "solutions" that our governments have proposed. How is transferring industry to third world countries going to solve the "problem"? Instead of destroying the first world, they should be looking at ways to extinguish volcanoes.

  48. #48
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,348

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by borntohula View Post
    Most people have their ego invested in the argument (on both sides) and no amount of evidence could ever change their mind. I believe it is a total fraud but it is a useless debate. I think people on either side of the debate should be focusing on the "solutions" that our governments have proposed. How is transferring industry to third world countries going to solve the "problem"? Instead of destroying the first world, they should be looking at ways to extinguish volcanoes.
    ??? Extinguish them or "encourage them"? Mount St. Helen's eruption measurably cooled the earth for more than a year following (in addition to curtailing jet traffic until initial ash levels dropped substantially).
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  49. #49

    Default

    ^Volcanoes are hard for humans to control (just like the weather). Something that could be done is a "small" nuclear war though, with say 100 Hiroshima sized detonations. For example a war between India and Pakistan, would leave us with a devastating nuclear winter for a decade or so (or so I read, in Scientific American).

    It is all relative. Compared to what humans faced during the Cold War, we are in a lucky / spoiled age if all we are worried about is a few degrees temperature change from global warming.
    Last edited by moahunter; 17-01-2010 at 06:45 PM.

  50. #50

    Default

    Yet more lies, this time from the UN on climate change:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6991177.ece

    A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

  51. #51
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    It is all relative. Compared to what humans faced during the Cold War, we are in a lucky / spoiled age if all we are worried about is a few degrees temperature change from global warming.
    What's relative here is just how sensitive to climate our ecosystem really is versus how sensitive we are; a few degrees of change here and there doesn't seem like much to us because we perceive those changes on a day-to-day basis, like when today is +4 up from -1 yesterday.

    But over a long, sustained period of time, that change in average means changes in average rainfall, changes in humidity, changes in the water levels of our rivers and changes in windspeeds and directions, etc. Those changes mean plants and trees that are sensitive to those factors may migrate or die out entirely, and the animals that depend on them may go with them. Those plants and those animals are part of our food chain, we are not disconnected from them. What affects them affects us.

    Therefore, if there is even the chance that humans are responsible for climate change, we would have to be pretty damn stupid to risk messing up our food and water supply. Especially on the basis of "the economy." It's hard to have an economy without sufficient food or the water required to produce it.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  52. #52

    Default

    I am not going to get into a massive debate on the possibility of an 'Illuminati' or not, this is not what this thread is about. Plus once you are labeled a 'tin-foil' hat person, there is very little I can say or do that will have any impact.

    In my opinion I do think the recent 'climate change' crisis is more political than everything else. Do i think they will use this 'climate change' crisis to push forward a global government? Yes. Do i think this is a bad idea? Absolutely.
    FREE THE LOOPING .GIF MEMES
    youtube.com/GrimEmpire

  53. #53

    Default

    Interesting comments from a metorology professor at the Massachusettes Institute of Technology:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...917025400.html

    At this point there is no basis for alarm regardless of whether any relation between the observed warming and the observed increase in minor greenhouse gases can be established. Nevertheless, the most publicized claims of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deal exactly with whether any relation can be discerned. The failure of the attempts to link the two over the past 20 years bespeaks the weakness of any case for concern.

  54. #54
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    ^^What's wrong with a global government really? I'm not for or against it, but I don't see too much significant problems with it, but of course disparity in the world would need to be fixed prior to such a thing.

    And I agree (once again ) with RTA...those few degrees of difference mean much more to much more fragile species, especially over a long period of time. It's one thing for palm trees in Vancouver to have to contend with below freezing once or twice a year, but when it becomes the normal, or the average, it can vastly change an ecosystem, and thus humans as well as we depend so much on the ecosystem for life.
    ----

  55. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    ^^What's wrong with a global government really?
    I could compose essays and essays on it. But I would rather foster a face to face conversation on my opinions. To sum it up in a famous quote:

    "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely"

    A global government = absolute power.
    FREE THE LOOPING .GIF MEMES
    youtube.com/GrimEmpire

  56. #56

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Yet more lies, this time from the UN on climate change:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6991177.ece

    A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
    How can the IPCC even hold any credibility after this?

  57. #57
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    No one has yet to explain the formula of climate change = one world government.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  58. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    How can the IPCC even hold any credibility after this?
    Exactly, politicians/activists and even this UN group have been making dire predictions to grab attention / make themselves seem more important, for something that the more we learn, the less significant it turns out it is, at least in the short term (from the same article):

    The revelation is the latest crack to appear in the scientific concensus over climate change. It follows the so-called climate-gate scandal, where British scientists apparently tried to prevent other researchers from accessing key date. Last week another row broke out when the Met Office criticised suggestions that sea levels were likely to rise 1.9m by 2100, suggesting much lower increases were likely.
    If nothing else, what we do seem to be learning is that climate "science" isn't really a science yet. Maybe it will be one day, but right now based on the various predictions that get changed every other day, it is in total infancy with little accuracy or accountability. Certainly not something to make fundamental economic changes on that impact peoples lives, and certainly not something to be treated with religious like zeal.
    Last edited by moahunter; 18-01-2010 at 12:19 PM. Reason: insert fundamental / fix paragraph

  59. #59

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    And I agree (once again ) with RTA...those few degrees of difference mean much more to much more fragile species, especially over a long period of time.
    I agree, but I don't believe for a second that it would be catastrophic.

    I am EXTREMELY reluctant to support any initiative to completely turn our lives and economy upside down, based on the fact that carbon dioxide is now considered pollution.

    And this "economy" that I am concerned about protecting is what we work very hard and long to keep this level of comfort and quality of life. Plants aren't going to stop growing just because there is more CO2 in the air (as a matter of fact, most plants grow BETTER, even under stressful conditions, when there is more carbon dioxide available to them).

  60. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark View Post
    here's the fact that nobody can dispute: each year we release millions of tonnes of carbon that was previously stored in the earth, into the atmosphere. that has the potential to throw a serious wrench into the natural climate systems. that's the bottom line. no 'climategate' can change this fact.
    That part you bolded is correct, but given the fact that it amounts to only a fraction of a percent of all the carbon in our atmosphere it's really quite insignificant in terms of how it impacts our climate.

  61. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    No one has yet to explain the formula of climate change = one world government.
    I posted earlier in the thread the quotes from the world leaders. The UN. Many of these people have gone on record to say the "only way" to solve/deal with this "problem" is a global government structure. And it seems the majority of people who believe in this "problem" see a global government structure as the "only way" to "solve it"
    FREE THE LOOPING .GIF MEMES
    youtube.com/GrimEmpire

  62. #62

    Default

    ^basically an excuse to set up such a body, or expand existing bodies. That's the whole point about this, it is appearing more and more self serving. Ever since Al Gore got on his paupit, it has been in his personal interest to play up the issue. Same with the activists, and same with the climate scientists per the UK scandal - the worse it seems, the more attention this issue will get, which makes themselves more important.

    Fortunatley some scientists are doing the reasonablness test, like the guy from Calgary who identified the glacier flaw.

  63. #63
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    ^^Well it is a perfectly good way to stop it. But it isn't the only way. Humans reach their potential when they work together, so you don't want that?

    Like some others have said, the actions of not doing anything and something happening are far greater than acting on this issue and nothing happening. Plus, this economy so many of you praise...guess what? Without a planet, there won't be any 'economy' to use. The planet and it's life definitely comes before some human system of greed and wealth (& disparity).
    ----

  64. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark View Post
    here's the fact that nobody can dispute: each year we release millions of tonnes of carbon that was previously stored in the earth, into the atmosphere. that has the potential to throw a serious wrench into the natural climate systems. that's the bottom line. no 'climategate' can change this fact.
    The thing is, it all goes back into the ecosystem. Almost all studied plant life extracts more CO2 (and grows more) if it is there, regardless of stressing factors such as dryness, humidity, and warmer temperature. Its not like carbon dioxide accumulates like mercury, eventually poisoning all of us.

    The assumed "potential" of this activity to dangerously change the climate is an extremely important detail. And it looks like supporters of the science are starting to reject that claim.


    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj


    This blog contains the emails that were published in the original scandal that is now known as 'Climategate':
    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../11/024995.php

    These emails are incredibly damning. There are discussions on how to avoid questions, who to respond to challenges (who is more "reliable), and talk about all manner of things to hide the truth.

    Man-made global warming is far, far from settled science. And now that we've found that the very basis, the foundation for almost all the claims of it, are either non-verifiable or have been made from whole cloth, I think we can fairly safely say that it's a sham of the highest order.

    Also, why has NASA refused years of FOI requests:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-climate-data/

    What the heck does NASA have to hide with climate data? Why did it take these email hackers to force the CRU to actually admit that most of their raw data had been combined or outright destroyed?

  65. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    The planet and it's life definitely comes before some human system of greed and wealth (& disparity).
    The planet is ultimately doomed EE, either the sun will die out and it freezes, or it will be blown up in a supernova. We are here for a speck of time, plants and wildlife, and us, are all products of evolution, but the end result is known, the sun will die, that's real science. On climate change though, we don't know what will happen to the climate if we do slow down CO2, or we don't. For all we know, the sun my cool down, an asteroid might hit us, a bunch of volcanoes may erupt, a nuclear war might start. Sometimes it pays to step back and look at the big picture of how insignificant our world, and our place on it, is. Given that, we might as well focus on making our lives, and those less fortunate, as happy as we can, and the only way to do that, is through a strong economy where everyone can benefit from a better lifestyle. A strong economy ultimatley results in better science too, better technology, and eventually a "cleaner" world.
    Last edited by moahunter; 18-01-2010 at 12:47 PM.

  66. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    Without a planet, there won't be any 'economy' to use.
    There you go with the threats and fear-mongoring.

    What do you mean when you say "without a planet"? Carbon dioxide doesn't somehow remove the planet we live on.

    Scientists are now reaching a consensus that human-based carbon dioxide emissions have negligible effect on climate, and life on Earth has survived just fine for thousands of years with fluctuations in both global carbon dioxide levels and temperatures.

  67. #67
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    I am EXTREMELY reluctant to support any initiative to completely turn our lives and economy upside down, based on the fact that carbon dioxide is now considered pollution.
    Whomever equates the two is committing a fallacy, we can agree on that. CO2 is categorized as a greenhouse gas, not as pollution.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    And this "economy" that I am concerned about protecting is what we work very hard and long to keep this level of comfort and quality of life. Plants aren't going to stop growing just because there is more CO2 in the air (as a matter of fact, most plants grow BETTER, even under stressful conditions, when there is more carbon dioxide available to them).
    You seem to have missed the part about sustained changes to the environmental climate that can negatively affect plant life. Anyone who has cared for a houseplant before can attest to how nitpicky a plant can be - to much or too little sunlight, too much or too little water, too much or too little humidity, slightly too warm or slightly too cold, etc., and poof.

    Not to mention that at the rate we harvest, slash, and burn forests across the globe means less CO2 absorption, not more.

    I'm comfortable with my quality of life, too. That's why I want to make sure it can be sustained not just for me, but for future generations as well.
    Last edited by RTA; 18-01-2010 at 12:53 PM.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  68. #68
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    ^^How is that even a threat? Your pulling crap from thin air. Yes, the planet as a ball of rock revolving the Sun will still exist if we kill everything living here, but the planet as in a place of life will be extinct. Maybe I should have rephrased it to without life, there is no economy, but still it is in no way a threat.

    Also moa, that's pretty likely that no matter what we do, the world will end in some way. But who is to say we have the right to decide for all the living species on this planet when that is? We should instead prevent it for as long as we can.

    Also the idea that the sun freezes out and dies is a theory, not proven real science. It's just like hundreds of years ago people were ABSOLUTELY certain the world was flat. We haven't studied the Universe for a long enough time to know, whereas with global warming/climate change/etc. there is substantial evidence pointing to it, and we know much more and can learn much more from our own environment than the big open Universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    (...)

    I'm comfortable with my quality of life, too. That's why I want to make sure it can be sustained not just for me, but for future generations as well.
    I agree, but I'd also like to add that this quality of life we have become so accustomed to in the Western world, hopefully in the future will be spread to peoples who haven't had it before.
    Last edited by edmontonenthusiast; 18-01-2010 at 01:00 PM.
    ----

  69. #69

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    ^How is that even a threat? Your pulling crap from thin air. Yes, the planet as a ball of rock revolving the Sun will still exist if we kill everything living here, but the planet as in a place of life will be extinct. Maybe I should have rephrased it to without life, there is no economy, but still it is in no way a threat.

    Also moa, that's pretty likely that no matter what we do, the world will end in some way. But who is to say we have the right to decide for all the living species on this planet when that is? We should instead prevent it for as long as we can.

    Also the idea that the sun freezes out and dies is a theory, not proven real science.
    It is proven science, astronomers see other stars dying all the time. Of course we want to make the earth as pleasent as we can. If we screw it up it will provide the opportunity for some other species one day, which probably won't be my offspring. A few degrees up or down though, doesn't seem to be a big impact per the "real research" (i.e. not the stuff out of the UN, Greenpeace, or Al Gore). We have more important things to worry about that do impact people with certainty, like toxic chemicals in the developing world.

    Once we have cleaned real pollution up, we can start trying to control and maniupulate the climate to create your and Al Gores, ideal temperature fluctuation. Until we have the technology to do that, just like our ancestors, and the dinosaurs and other species before them (who also might have impacted climate by eating trees, dying which lead to oil, etc.), the best we can do is to roll with it.
    Last edited by moahunter; 18-01-2010 at 01:12 PM.

  70. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    Maybe I should have rephrased it to without life, there is no economy, but still it is in no way a threat.
    Then I have to ask - what does "no life" have to do with global warming?

    If you are throwing that out there, and you support the "man-made global warming" theory, I can only assume that you are talking about the same thing.

    Why would you even say such a thing unless it was a "threat" as to what could happen if we don't take the theory of man-made global warming seriously?

  71. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmontonenthusiast View Post
    Also the idea that the sun freezes out and dies is a theory, not proven real science. It's just like hundreds of years ago people were ABSOLUTELY certain the world was flat.
    What a horrible analogy. Very few scientific disciplines can boast the reliability of observation, accuracy, and prediction of astronomy. And taking a simple inventory of the existence of heavy elements that exist in our solar system has proven that our sun (the source of heavier elements) has exploded into a supernova and re-accreted into a new solar system at least twice in the past.

    If you want to ignore these facts, you are ignoring three centuries worth of astronomy, cosmology, physics, and mathematical data.

    By contrast, climate research is very much in its infancy and surrounded by confusion and conflicting data. It is not really predictable at this point at all. If anything is a new "flat Earth theory" it is climate modeling.


    We haven't studied the Universe for a long enough time to know, whereas with global warming/climate change/etc. there is substantial evidence pointing to it, and we know much more and can learn much more from our own environment than the big open Universe.
    This statement is utterly false. See above.

  72. #72
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,585

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rseven View Post
    When IKAN104 stated that global warming is yet another plot by the "Illuminati" to rule the world, my baloney detector alarm started ringing....

    Check out the Skeptics Dictionary at skepdic.com and click on illuminati...this is an excellent website that debunks a lot of nonsense...
    He's made equally bizarre posts about creationism etc in the past as well.

    The fact is even with these couple recent scandals, there is still an overwhelming body of evidence clearly demonstrating that we are conducting a massive chemistry experiment in our own atmosphere day by day.

    It is a fact that CO2 levels have risen because of industrialization. Period. That same evidence Mr.Oilers mentioned regarding the sun and it having gone nova in the past can also be used to quite clearly determine that the extra CO2 in our atmosphere today is from the burning of fossil fuels (isotopic signatures). There's several other lines of evidence as well. Higher CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere today are a direct result of mankind's action, and there is zero debate whatsoever amongst even the most strident climate change skeptics about this.

    And virtually everything we know about climatology pretty clearly indicates that raising CO2 will raise the temperature of the Earth, on average. It's a matter of how big that affect is that they're still trying to pin down, as well as the finer details like which areas will have the biggest changes, positive/negative feedback cycles and the like.

    I believe there's a lot of alarmism and downright fear mongering going on, that much is most definitely true. But to think that we can pump out an absolutely phenomenal amount of GHG every year (not just CO2!) without affecting our atmosphere or climate is just plain ignorant.

  73. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rseven View Post
    When IKAN104 stated that global warming is yet another plot by the "Illuminati" to rule the world, my baloney detector alarm started ringing....

    Check out the Skeptics Dictionary at skepdic.com and click on illuminati...this is an excellent website that debunks a lot of nonsense...
    He's made equally bizarre posts about creationism etc in the past as well.
    Right, creationism is so bizarre.

  74. #74
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,354

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IKAN104 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mark View Post
    here's the fact that nobody can dispute: each year we release millions of tonnes of carbon that was previously stored in the earth, into the atmosphere. that has the potential to throw a serious wrench into the natural climate systems. that's the bottom line. no 'climategate' can change this fact.
    That part you bolded is correct, but given the fact that it amounts to only a fraction of a percent of all the carbon in our atmosphere it's really quite insignificant in terms of how it impacts our climate.
    Earths preindustrial CO2 level was about 280 ppm. Now it is near 380 ppm, a 35% increase. Much more than "a fraction of a percent of the carbon in our atmosphere". Yes, the impact on climate is still uncertain, but it is unlikely to be insignificant.

  75. #75
    In Guantanamo (Banned)
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    1,769

    Default

    It's nice to see the poll showing Edmontonians to be just as "smart" as Albertans in general.

  76. #76
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,960

    Default

    So because we don't agree with your position on the matter, Edmontonians are stupid? Maybe it is you who is "smart".

  77. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    And virtually everything we know about climatology pretty clearly indicates that raising CO2 will raise the temperature of the Earth, on average. It's a matter of how big that affect is that they're still trying to pin down, as well as the finer details like which areas will have the biggest changes, positive/negative feedback cycles and the like.
    Thank you for posting this. The bold portion is the most important point in this entire debate, and the point that nobody can come to a consensus on.

    No sensible person would deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But even with the best data available, nobody knows if humans produce enough CO2 to make any discernible difference in our planet's climate or not. And even if it does make a significant difference, nobody can determine if that would actually be problematic or not.

  78. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IKAN104 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rseven View Post
    When IKAN104 stated that global warming is yet another plot by the "Illuminati" to rule the world, my baloney detector alarm started ringing....

    Check out the Skeptics Dictionary at skepdic.com and click on illuminati...this is an excellent website that debunks a lot of nonsense...
    He's made equally bizarre posts about creationism etc in the past as well.
    Right, creationism is so bizarre.
    Only "bizarre" in the fact that it is now the equivalent of believing in a flat Earth. Maybe not among the average public (who actually sadly tend to have a very poor understanding of mutation, natural selection, and biological evolution). But for anyone who actually has a rudimentary understanding of paleontology, geology, genetics, botany, physics, comparative anatomy, ecology, chemistry, or world religions (!); belief in creationism itself is obviously contingent upon religious belief, not any understanding of modern and solid science.

  79. #79

    Default

    ^Isn't there enough fodder for "debate" without letting the thread derail?
    Last edited by JOA; 18-01-2010 at 09:29 PM. Reason: Typo!

  80. #80
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    2,958

    Default

    ^^I don't see why it needs to be creationism vs evolution. Both can meld into the same story the way I see it.
    ----

  81. #81
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,348

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JOA View Post
    ^Isn't there enough fodder for "debate" without letting the thread detail?
    for perspective ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenho...s#cite_note-11 ):


    "In order, Earth's most abundant greenhouse gases are:
    The contribution to the greenhouse effect by a gas is affected by both the characteristics of the gas and its abundance. For example, on a molecule-for-molecule basis methane is about eight times stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide[6], but it is present in much smaller concentrations so that its total contribution is smaller. When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[7]
    • water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
    • carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
    • methane, which contributes 4–9%
    • ozone, which contributes 3–7%
    It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse effect. This is because some of the gases absorb and emit radiation at the same frequencies as others, so that the total greenhouse effect is not simply the sum of the influence of each gas."

    not included in the above are the influences of things like cloud cover and particulates. it is also worth noting that without any greenhouse gases, the earth's surface would be on average 33c degrees colder than at present. the link is actually a pretty good primer for anyone that thinks this a simple issue with simple answers.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  82. #82
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by JOA View Post
    ^Isn't there enough fodder for "debate" without letting the thread detail?
    for perspective ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenho...s#cite_note-11 ):


    "In order, Earth's most abundant greenhouse gases are:

    The contribution to the greenhouse effect by a gas is affected by both the characteristics of the gas and its abundance. For example, on a molecule-for-molecule basis methane is about eight times stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide[6], but it is present in much smaller concentrations so that its total contribution is smaller. When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[7]
    • water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
    • carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
    • methane, which contributes 4–9%
    • ozone, which contributes 3–7%

    It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse effect. This is because some of the gases absorb and emit radiation at the same frequencies as others, so that the total greenhouse effect is not simply the sum of the influence of each gas."

    not included in the above are the influences of things like cloud cover and particulates. it is also worth noting that without any greenhouse gases, the earth's surface would be on average 33c degrees colder than at present. the link is actually a pretty good primer for anyone that thinks this a simple issue with simple answers.
    Thank you Ken.

    I think anyone who has seriously taken a look at this subject realizes that what is involved in influencing climate is much more complex than can be captured in a quaint sound-byte or flippant retort. Certainly, attempting to influence someone via this medium is difficult.

    It's been my experience in reading this thread that it's difficult for many to take the emotion out of the conversation. I hesitate to call it a debate as debates typically have more decorum, but I'll digress.

    I've never been sure why the discussion gets so emotional and so wildly tangential. I think in the end though it's a measure of how ignorant either side is to the facts and how difficult it has been to clearly and effectively communicate these facts to one another. Dare I say that much of what shapes many opinions on this topic is biased, and I'd say there isn't enough intellectual honesty to be humble enough to simply say "You see it that way? Please tell me why. I see it completely the opposite way, but I guess it's possible that I could be incorrect."

    Some important subjects to have at least a modicum of understanding to be fully engaged in the discussion are:
    Biology, Geology, Chemistry, Physics, Geography, Statistics / Data Analysis & Experimental Design

    Obviously there are some other subjects to grasp, however these do provide a solid basis by which to understand the problem and at least have a productive discussion.

    Lastly, I just wanted to express my general concern about the lack of access to quality scientific journals. I understand that there needs to be funding to support their existence, but there is a lot of very good information / literature that is available in these journals that simply is not accessed by the general public when it could very well help in the process of understanding what is actually going on. Access to these journals, in my opinion, is grossly overpriced (unless you're a student, in which case you pay for it as part of your tuition) and does contribute to the ongoing "debate" unfortunately.

  83. #83

    Default

    In regards to those Journals, you guys might remember, that climategate proved that there was a conspiracy to keep anti global warming articles out of scientific journals.

    You're right that in order to fully understand the issue you need a thorough understanding of a lot of subjects, but the very fact that one side has been manipulating data, falsifying graphs and working to discredit scientists on the other side of the debate, tells me that one side is more believable than the other, regardless of whether or not I'm an expert in any of those fields.

  84. #84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    He's made equally bizarre posts about creationism etc in the past as well.
    I think you should debate the topic and the opinions expressed on the thread, not try to run somebodies credibility down. I don't believe in creationism, but I am skeptical about the doomsday message of "urgent action needed" on global warming. The topics are unrelated.

    If you search through anybodies posts hard enough you will find bizarre statements of things you don't agree with, we don't all share the same views. When somebody starts to focus on credibility of the poster on a thread (as opposed to the source of a quote), I start to think it indicates they are losing the deabte / don't have strong arguments to support their position.

  85. #85
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IKAN104 View Post
    In regards to those Journals, you guys might remember, that climategate proved that there was a conspiracy to keep anti global warming articles out of scientific journals.
    What I remember from 'climategate' is that one side of the issue has claimed some sort of conspiracy, that anti global warming articles are being kept out. I can't say I've read all of the information, in context (have you?) but I do know that without reading something in context (which is pretty tough to have, as these are emails, a lot of context gets left out) you can only try and reason out a meaning. If you're biased (ie, anti global warming) you'll read all these emails with tinted glasses.

    What side am I on? I'm not sure one way or the other, because I am not an expert in climatology. However, I don't think it matters if it's true or not. The things we should do to lessen our release of greenhouses gases, like conserving energy, using renewable resources, etc. should be done either way.

    Think of it this way.

    Global warming is false. You do nothing, nothing bad happens. You do something, you make positive changes to things like energy usage, renewable energy, and a reduction in consumption. [PS, a lot of these things DO NOT cost you more money, over a period of a few years]

    or

    Global warming is true. You do nothing, there may be some negative consequences. (Perhaps minor, maybe severe) You do something, you make positive changes to things like energy usage, renewable energy, and a reduction in consumption, and you may reduce any negative consequences. (maybe we don't reverse the negatives, maybe we do)

    The only way we lose for sure is if we do nothing. Why not do something?

  86. #86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    The only way we lose for sure is if we do nothing. Why not do something?
    Because there is a cost of doing something. What is the cost of doing something, versus the benefit? We can measure the cost reasonably accurately, and depending on how much we do, it could be huge. For example, if we shut every coal burning plant tomorrow, people will freeze. Or we could phase them out over the next decade for billions of dollars of cost. Or we could spend billions on Carbon capture. Or we could shut down the Oil sands and refuse to import oil from the middle east, everyone walking everywhere...

    So, we can quantify that. We can see the GDP impact. Our economists could try to work out from that how many people will lose jobs, how many more will be homeless or unable to afford heating. We can even see the reduction in CO2 emissions that would result. But what is the benefit? If the scientists can't tell us the temperature change, and the impact that will have, how do we decide how much cost to take on? Until we know that, for all we know, doing "something" may do more harm in terms of cost, than benefit. And that's not even factoring in the developing world who today would like to opportunity to live a lifestyle as good as ours - don't they deserve the same opportunity?
    Last edited by moahunter; 19-01-2010 at 10:49 AM.

  87. #87
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Because there is a cost of doing something. What is the cost of doing something, versus the benefit? We can measure the cost reasonably accuratley, and dependnig on how much we do, it could be huge. For example, if we shut every coal burning plant tommorow, people will freeze. Or we could phase them out over the next decade for billions of dollars of cost. Or we could spend billions on Carbon capture. Or we could shut down the Oil sands and refuse to import oil from the middle east, everyone walking everywhere...

    So, we can quantify that. We can see the GDP impact. We can see the reduction in C02 emissions that would result. But what is the benefit? If the scientists can't tell us the temperature change, and the impact that will have, how do we decide how much cost to take on?
    No need to claim the sky will fall.

    You've picked the expensive things to do. I said above, there are a lot of zero cost (when looked at over a period of time) fix.

    For example, Bill 50 wants us to spend a lot of money upgrading our electrical distribution system. All because our supply is not next to our loads. What if we instead invested that money (that we need to spend) on providing micro turbine power for commercial/industrial buildings, that can then use the excess heat for heating? Combine that with energy efficiency upgrades (reskinning bulidings, upgrading HVAC, solar (passive and/or active), etc.) and now we can maybe shut down an old coal fire powered plant.

    Note that this example may not be the answer, but there are other examples that might be.

  88. #88

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    For example, Bill 50 wants us to spend a lot of money upgrading our electrical distribution system. All because our supply is not next to our loads. What if we instead invested that money (that we need to spend) on providing micro turbine power for commercial/industrial buildings, that can then use the excess heat for heating? Combine that with energy efficiency upgrades (reskinning bulidings, upgrading HVAC, solar (passive and/or active), etc.) and now we can maybe shut down an old coal fire powered plant.
    But even your example is an exhibit of the complexity. If we want more "clean" options for electrical generation, there are two choices per your suggestion:

    1. improve the electrical infrastructure to provide more choice as to the source of green energy which can be built on scale (e.g. more wind farms from areas better suited to wind generation), or
    2. direct subsidies to improve energy efficiency.

    Doing 1., doesn't stop us doing 2, both could be useful not just from an environmental perspective, but also from an economic one. Where I take issue with the doomsday environmental movement, is that 1. and 2. isn't good enough for them, they also want to see the Oil Sands shut down (which will just push the problem to the Middle East, until better technology is developed, e.g. better electric cars)

  89. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    The only way we lose for sure is if we do nothing. Why not do something?
    I know what you're saying, but the problem with doing "something" is it might have unintended consequences as well.

    Even if you accept that there is climate change that is indeed man-made, it still remains more than questionable what all the currently employed and proposed measurements against it are actually going to achieve in the end.

    For example, I recall reading last fall (sorry, I forget the publication, but it still hypothetically illustrates my point) that the German government is enacting legislation that involves investing (i.e. spending) something like 50 billion Euros of taxpayer money on subsidies to equip private homes with solar panels to reduce CO2 emissions. The same article pointed out that climatologists estimate that with all the energy required to produce and upkeep the solar panels, this initiative will delay climate change by only one hour.

    If this has any truth to it, it seems that simply dealing with climate change and its consequences as they happen would be a lot cheaper than messing around with the global economy and destroying jobs with futile attempts to delay what just might be inevitable anyway.

  90. #90
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Where I take issue with the doomsday environmental movement, is that 1. and 2. isn't good enough for them, they also want to see the Oil Sands shut down (which will just push the problem to the Middle East, until better technology is developed, e.g. better electric cars)
    Then we agree. Let's deal with issues we can handle, energy efficiency, sustainable buildings, sustainable communities, reduction in consumption, and agree that turning off the oil isn't the solution. I mean oil will become prohibitively expensive in the not so distant future anyways, as supply is reduced (or not) and demand increases. I'd rather we not spend money on band-aid solutions to problems that can be handled on the demand side(ie, carbon capture storage vs reducing energy use)

  91. #91
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    I know what you're saying, but the problem with doing "something" is it might have unintended consequences as well.

    Even if you accept that there is climate change that is indeed man-made, it still remains more than questionable what all the currently employed and proposed measurements against it are actually going to achieve in the end.

    For example, I recall reading last fall (sorry, I forget the publication, but it still hypothetically illustrates my point) that the German government is enacting legislation that involves investing (i.e. spending) something like 50 billion Euros of taxpayer money on subsidies to equip private homes with solar panels to reduce CO2 emissions. The same article pointed out that climatologists estimate that with all the energy required to produce and upkeep the solar panels, this initiative will delay climate change by only one hour.

    If this has any truth to it, it seems that simply dealing with climate change and its consequences as they happen would be a lot cheaper than messing around with the global economy and destroying jobs with futile attempts to delay what just might be inevitable anyway.
    Again, then we agree. Spending money on solutions that don't work, or don't fix problems is fruitless. I said there are some zero cost (over a period) solutions.

    Going back to the transmission line example (only an example, I am not sure this could actually work) Enmax says the cost of tranmission lines could be $20 Billion or more. How much solar power or other solution could we build for $20 Billion? (Even Enmax agrees that we need to get the source closer to the supply)

    Sure the German government might be spending $50 Billion on solar, but what are they saving? Maybe they have aging powerplants/transmission lines that need replacement? Where is that side of the equation?

  92. #92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    How much solar power or other solution could we build for $20 Billion? (Even Enmax agrees that we need to get the source closer to the supply)
    Not enought to provide us with secure energy supply, the idea that everyone can provide energy locally for themselves in their backyard without the economies that come with scale, is frankley, absurd. Enmax is trying to corner the market. Reducing transmission (which is what doing nothing means as it is aging), means fewer suppliers, means less choice including environmental choice.

  93. #93
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Not enought to provide us with secure energy supply, the idea that everyone can provide energy locally for themselves in their backyard without the economies that come with scale, is frankley, absurd.
    I'm pretty sure those that build net-zero type homes disagree.

    The only reason we don't do that more often here is we have CHEAP electricity. Solar payback is low, because it's cheap. But we're damn close to have reasonable payback on solar now.

    If the cost of our electricity doubles or triples...

  94. #94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    I'm pretty sure those that build net-zero type homes disagree.
    ...
    Can the average Edmontonian afford a brand new net zero type home that uses no electricity from the grid? And if we move to a battery electric auto economy, will your net zero homes produce enough energy to power autos? Without electric infrastructure to enable econoimies of scale, most people will never be able to afford clean wind or solar energy. Right now, that infrastructure is in decline.

  95. #95
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    I'm pretty sure those that build net-zero type homes disagree.
    ...
    Can the average Edmontonian afford a brand new net zero type home that uses no electricity from the grid? And if we move to a battery electric auto economy, will your net zero homes produce enough energy to power autos? Without electric infrastructure to enable econoimies of scale, most people will never be able to afford clean wind or solar energy. Right now, that infrastructure is in decline.
    Some of the infrastructure may need to be replaced. Same way roads need repair. But I'd rather we build a new LRT than a new freeway in the City.

    What is the point you are trying to argue with me? That we're already doing our best? That we don't need to question the status quo? That there is NO WAY we can spend our money better?

  96. #96
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,348

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Not enought to provide us with secure energy supply, the idea that everyone can provide energy locally for themselves in their backyard without the economies that come with scale, is frankley, absurd.
    I'm pretty sure those that build net-zero type homes disagree.

    The only reason we don't do that more often here is we have CHEAP electricity. Solar payback is low, because it's cheap. But we're damn close to have reasonable payback on solar now.

    If the cost of our electricity doubles or triples...
    Net-zero homes are not off-grid homes and in fact are reliant on the grid. Over the course of a year they are intended to contribute as much to that grid as they consume from the grid but they are inextricably linked.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  97. #97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    What is the point you are trying to argue with me? That we're already doing our best? That we don't need to question the status quo? That there is NO WAY we can spend our money better?
    You raised that as an example of where we are making the wrong choice with a view to CO2 reduction, and I disagreed. My point is that I think we are already moving in the right direction, that we don't need to panic, that technology is improving. I don't want to live in a future society like Cuba with nightly blackouts just because Enmax wants to corner the market, or because an environmentalist wants us to all take out loans to buy backyard solar panels (that don't even work that well in Edmonton yet). In the same way, I don't want to see a world government impose taxes or other targets without us first having a better understanding of what benefit that will bring.
    Last edited by moahunter; 19-01-2010 at 11:51 AM.

  98. #98
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Net-zero homes are not off-grid homes and in fact are reliant on the grid. Over the course of a year they are intended to contribute as much to that grid as they consume from the grid but they are inextricably linked.
    We're deviling into specifics of an example and nit picking on issues like this. That's now what I wanted. My point is we can reduce greenhouse gases without spending money.

    Ken you must somewhat already agree that we can do more without it costing us more. Qualico is building the EPCOR tower to achieve LEED Silver for a reason.

  99. #99
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    You raised that as an example of where we are making the wrong the choice with a view to CO2 reduction, and I disagreed. My point is that I think we are already moving in the right direction, that we don't need to panic, that technology is improving. I don't want to live in a future society like Cuba with nightly blackouts though just because Enmax wants to corner the market, or because an environmentalist wants us to all take out loans to buy backyard solar panels (that don't even work that well in Edmonton). In the same way, I don't want to see a world government impose taxes or other targets without us first having a better understanding what benefit that will bring.
    Maybe I wasn't clear enough when I tried to keep saying my example was only that, and that I don't have all the facts. I'm questioning the path we are deciding, because that's what we need to do. Challenge ourselves and each other to come up with better solutions.

    I'm not saying that we must all be on solar power, or that we need a world government.

    I'm saying we can do better than we can be doing. How can you say what we are doing is fine? You even say that you're waiting for technology to improve. Those people are doing NEW things to make things better.

    You're arguing with the wrong guy, I think we agree.

  100. #100
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,348

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Net-zero homes are not off-grid homes and in fact are reliant on the grid. Over the course of a year they are intended to contribute as much to that grid as they consume from the grid but they are inextricably linked.
    We're deviling into specifics of an example and nit picking on issues like this. That's now what I wanted. My point is we can reduce greenhouse gases without spending money.

    Ken you must somewhat already agree that we can do more without it costing us more. Qualico is building the EPCOR tower to achieve LEED Silver for a reason.
    as far as delving into details or nit-picking, it was not i who chose net-zero homes as an example. and over and above the points noted on net-zero homes, i'm not sure that the energy savings and the green house gas savings over their life will compensate for the additional green house gases generated in manufacturing many of their components as they are net-zero on an annual operating basis after completion, not on their life-cycle basis.

    i would agree that we can - and in many cases should - do more but it's not "free" and it does cost more money initially (sometimes substantially more) and often with no real payback.

    our office building on the south side would probably have been "gold" if registered and the epcor tower is likely going to end up certified as "gold" rather than "silver". in both cases however, this is primarily a result of making good (hopefully) life-cycle design decisions that are simply being reflected by a somewhat arbitrary rating, not from chasing a particular certification rating or nomenclature simply for the sake of being "certified".

    good design decisions are often as much or more to do with the comfort and well-being of those working in the buildings and the simplicity of ongoing operations and maintenance while also attempting to minimize the owner's future risks as much as possible. as for any kind of specific "payback" target, although that is sometimes an added side-benefit it is not always a first consideration.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

Page 1 of 17 1234511 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •