Liberal Minority Government 2019 - ????

[Lumber]

It is the biggest fraud in the history of manpeoplekind.

Sigh.

Well, this wasn't the reply that first came to mind, but I don't feel like getting muted, so:

Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?

Climate change: evidence and causes | Royal Society

Evidence for climate change

Fact check: NASA did not ‘admit man-made climate change is a hoax’

 

[YZT580]

There is an abundance of evidence proving climate change. There is a dearth of evidence linking CO2 to those changes. And even if there were, the price that is being paid far exceeds the potential benefits. How about pollution: that is visual pollution from all those windmills. Did you read about the battery fire in a Tesla. Had to let it burn itself out. They poured thousands of gallons of water on it. There is no way to extinguish a lithium fire unless one can totally smother the entire area. What are you going to do with all the discarded batteries? Almost as bad as nuclear fuel but certainly not as compact. Take a trip to Kenya. They are still manufacturing charcoal in roadside kilns. They don't want to but us superior types attending the environmental conferences in our falcons and citations are financially discouraging them from developing oil, coal, or natural gas electricity services anywhere but in the major centres. As a result, health issues are significant. Take a drive along Lake Erie (used to be beautiful now the towers block the view. Speaking of which, a certain baseball player was charged for killing a sea gull with one swing of his bat. When will the government charge the power companies for killing the hawks, geese, eagles, every single day. Read the news and if it is cold, that is climate change, if it is hot, that is climate change. If there are floods why that is climate change. How about drought why, that is climate change too. And that is very true. It is climate change. Its been changing for thousands of years and it will go on changing with or without us. Only our arrogance combined with our stupidity could ever imagine that we have influenced the weather except in a very small localized way. Air quality most certainly is something we can deal with but the complexity of climate: never. As for our current thinking: there is is no scientific proof whatsoever. It is all based upon mathematical models that can't even re-produce historical events. Did you know that they have discovered mineral-laden dust in the Amazon delta that originated in the Sahara? Scientists (real ones) were astonished and took months to establish the wind patterns that could produce such a phenomena. And that is just one small example of air flow. So which are you? Are you arrogant, stupid or searching for answers. Anyone who claims that the science is settled is one of the first two.

 

[SupersonicMax]

When it comes to science, I trust NASA. There is scientific evidence that humans influenced climate. Read the link that Lumber provided:

Evidence

Takeaways The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia. Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking...

climate.nasa.gov

Would the Earth die because of us? No. It would make itself whole again once we're gone. But to say that we have no impact on climate on a large scale is like burying one's head into the sand. And this would lead us to our demise. And only then would the Earth fix itself.

I feel that the deniers use the "no proof" and "it's just normal cycles" arguments to avoid changing and preserving their own status quo rather than for the greater good.

 

[Remius]

When it comes to science, I trust NASA. There is scientific evidence that humans influenced climate. Read the link that Lumber provided:

Evidence

Takeaways The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia. Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking...

climate.nasa.gov

Would the Earth die because of us? No. It would make itself whole again once we're gone. But to say that we have no impact on climate on a large scale is like burying one's head into the sand. And this would lead us to our demise. And only then would the Earth fix itself.

I feel that the deniers use the "no proof" and "it's just normal cycles" arguments to avoid changing and preserving their own status quo rather than for the greater good.

The deniers use the “no proof” argument exactly for that reason. And they’ll use any confirmation bias they can find to support it. NASA? Lunar landing deniers are very similar.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The thing is that in the west, before the Climate Change thing dejour came along, we were making big strides in cleaning up the environment and air pollution, that was without social restrictions. People might also be a bit more willing to adapt if they didn't see the obvious political agendas being played out. You can argue if Climate Change concerns came first and the agenda's second or vis versa. You want to save the climate, get rid of non-essential travel by plane, large luxury yachts, tax the crap out of carbon heavy goods from China and increase domestic production. When you see something like the shell game of "carbon credits" being sold and traded, it's hard not to think of it as a scam.

 

[Brad Sallows]

There is scientific evidence that humans influenced climate.

That statement is uncontroversial. For example, cutting forests influences climate. Controversy arises because the claims of people sounding alarms exceed any reasonably likely forecasts, and the measures they propose as mitigation exceed any reasonable resources available. People can see that, so they deny the alarmist view. Then the alarmists call them "deniers". I suppose there are people who choose to absolutely disbelieve that there is any kind of human influence, or any change at all, but most people branded as "deniers" are just skeptical of the outlandish and never-eventuating claims. It's just playground name-calling.

Some people like to mind others' business, so there is a social amplifier of the alarmist view.

Adherents of some political philosophies are attracted to any reason to exert more positive control over the affairs of people, so there is also a political amplifier of the alarmist view.

The amplification of doubtful possibilities into absurdities simply further discredits whatever useful underlying message exists and distorts it beyond a reasonable understanding of what is happening and what might be done. All of the people participating in the amplification of nonsense are fools and hindrances to useful action.

If the people who want to understand and mitigate climate (and weather) externalities are unable to accept the weakness of the alarmist case and categorize skeptics honestly, they are as guilty of ignorant extremism as the true deniers who insist there is no change of any account at all.

 

[Loachman]

I would give the warmistas a teensy bit of credibility if just one of their endless and recycled prophecies of doom had come to pass over the last four decades - which were preceded by several years of equally overhyped new-ice-age prophecies of doom.

The latter did not last long - they weren't smart enough to find anything taxable to blame it on.

 

[YZT580]

We do influence local conditions but globally, I doubt it very much as I stated earlier and this can be validated by examining the temperature charts for various weather stations. The majority of the temperature increases have been in urban areas where pavement and large concrete structures have replaced trees and farms. Want proof? Leave Toronto or any other large population centre at sunset or a little later, turn off your air conditioning and open the windows. There will be a notable drop in temperature coincidental with the last row of houses where the fields a brush starts. It is particularly noticeable if you follow secondary roads out of town which don't have the concrete mass that major highways do.

Now consider how green house gases work. The one being blamed for everything is carbon which is less than 500 parts per million. So what happens to temperature when green house gases increase. First off, the sun is responsible for the heat and it is a radiant type of warming. For a while the warmists tried to deny that but eventually they stopped but now they say that because of the upper layer of gas, temperature is compounded. This has been proven false but it is true that temperature can be trapped. When it is trapped and temperature goes up more water evaporates and rises as well. Water vapour rises to the point where the atmospheric temperature can no longer support it and it is transposed from a gas to a liquid and forms a cloud layer. When a cloud layer forms the suns rays are at least partially blocked from striking the earth's surface and this reduces the heat causing a cooling effect. Our earth has a built-in temperature regulating mechanism and it is composed of green house gases.

If you want to counter-balance our effect on nature, get rid of the concrete. All of this is not to say that we shouldn't be trying to clean up our environment. Absolutely, but focus on pollutants and not a relatively harmless gas. Historically, from what I have read, increases in carbon dioxide levels have never changed the temperature. The recorded warm periods occurred centuries after the CO2 rise; too long after to have been influenced at all by the carbon changes.

 

[suffolkowner]

I've been a "warmist" since the mid 80's, so I always find this topic of interest. In all that time I continue to hear or read alternative theories that get rehashed over and over despite having been refutted numerous times in the past 40 years. But some people have been extremely confident in their positions..

A Climate Bet Impossible to Lose

Ten years ago I was just doing what I often do: following various links and conversations online where people are denying man-made climate change. I ended up on the German website NoTricksZone where I got caught up in a discussion related to climate projections. I made an off-handed comment...

skepticalscience.com

For the truly alarmist position on AGW see the following

Climate Code Red

The climate emergency requires actions at emergency speed for a rapid transition to a post-carbon, safe-climate future.

www.climatecodered.org

Arctic News

Blog edited by Sam Carana, with news on climate change and warming in the Arctic due to snow and ice loss and methane releases from the seafloor.

arctic-news.blogspot.com

Nature Bats Last – Our days are numbered. Passionately pursue a life of excellence.

guymcpherson.com

to be honest this issue makes me despair of the Conservatives ever challenging for the majority of seats, even with their new carbon policy

 

[daftandbarmy]

I think they have an undisclosed majority but are keeping it quiet

 

[Altair]

I think they have an undisclosed majority but are keeping it quiet

View attachment 64987

Official coalitions went out of style at the federal level after 2008.

Unofficial ones are much more convenient for all involved.

 

[Loachman]

I've been a "warmist" since the mid 80's, so I always find this topic of interest. In all that time I continue to hear or read alternative theories that get rehashed over and over despite having been refutted numerous times in the past 40 years. But some people have been extremely confident in their positions..

A Climate Bet Impossible to Lose

Ten years ago I was just doing what I often do: following various links and conversations online where people are denying man-made climate change. I ended up on the German website NoTricksZone where I got caught up in a discussion related to climate projections. I made an off-handed comment...

skepticalscience.com

For the truly alarmist position on AGW see the following

Climate Code Red

The climate emergency requires actions at emergency speed for a rapid transition to a post-carbon, safe-climate future.

www.climatecodered.org

Arctic News

Blog edited by Sam Carana, with news on climate change and warming in the Arctic due to snow and ice loss and methane releases from the seafloor.

arctic-news.blogspot.com

Nature Bats Last – Our days are numbered. Passionately pursue a life of excellence.

guymcpherson.com

to be honest this issue makes me despair of the Conservatives ever challenging for the majority of seats, even with their new carbon policy

The Conservatives will lose votes rather than gain in the next election because of Erin O'Toole's policy announcement - which even took most of his MPs by surprise. Pierre Poilievre is probably regretting dropping out of the leadership race - I certainly am.

I recommend Tony Heller on Youtube, or tonyheller on Rumble. He's a geologist who has been pointing out the numerous flaws in the warmista position for a long time. That includes putting up newspaper clippings from as far back as the 1800s showing remarkably similar prophecies of doom.

Peak temperatures in the US occurred in the 1930s, with temperatures reaching 130F in the midwest. I remember studying the Dust Bowl and reading Grapes of Wrath in school years ago.

 

[YZT580]

The Conservatives will lose votes rather than gain in the next election because of Erin O'Toole's policy announcement - which even took most of his MPs by surprise. Pierre Poilievre is probably regretting dropping out of the leadership race - I certainly am.

I recommend Tony Heller on Youtube, or tonyheller on Rumble. He's a geologist who has been pointing out the numerous flaws in the warmista position for a long time. That includes putting up newspaper clippings from as far back as the 1800s showing remarkably similar prophecies of doom.

Peak temperatures in the US occurred in the 1930s, with temperatures reaching 130F in the midwest. I remember studying the Dust Bowl and reading Grapes of Wrath in school years ago.

try not to confuse people with facts.

 

[brihard]

I mean, people can talk about it being science or not science, but I think the more pertinent point is how every single party in the HOC now supports some form of a carbon tax.

The only party of note that doesn't is the PPC, and I don't see all the non carbon taxers flocking to them for some reason.

The discussion, politically, is over. Much like abortion.

At what point did PPC become a ‘party of note’?

 

[CBH99]

Regardless of whether or not global warming is significantly influenced, or only minorly influenced, by human civilization - I think we can all agree that we, as a species, needs to treat our planet significantly better than how we do. CO2 emissions and their affect on the global climate is only part of the picture... an abundance of plastic trash in our oceans & landfills (and everywhere else), deforestation, over fishing, other greenhouse gas emissions, etc etc all play a factor in our planet becoming a less hospitable, and hence, more toxic place for us to live.

It was recently discovered that the reason for the significant drop in male fertility and the shrinking area of the 'taint' is due to microplastics being in our water supply and food supply. This has a direct impact on the human ability to reproduce.

What about the affects of chemicals and plastics in everything we eat, drink, apply to our bodies, and wear? It has a significant impact on cancer rates.


I wouldn't have such a huge issue with the carbon tax if the money collected from it went directly to funding and finding ways to not only reduce our carbon emissions, but in safer alternatives to things we use every day that are hurting us in the long term.

We also have to remember that humans, by our very nature, tend to jump on one bandwagon or the other. We tend to say "yes I agree with this" or "no, I don't agree with it" -- and then inherently find reasons to justify our positions, even if it is subconciously. We tend to forget that it is okay, and sometimes more wise, to look at an issue and remember that both sides have valid points - and the truth/solution is somewhere down the middle.

0.02

Edit - Oh wow, I didn't think the thumbnail of the video would show here, just the link!! Well, with a headline like that, should be an attention grabber

 

[Remius]

The climate change deniers use the same old tired arguments that were created to sow doubt about climate change. Big oil borrowed from big tobacco propaganda tactics. The same type of argument they used to create doubt that cigarettes weren’t really dangerous and that they’re was “no evidence” despite what science and experts had determined.

 

[Altair]

At what point did PPC become a ‘party of note’?

I say any party that can get 1 out of every hundred people to vote for them deserves to at least be mentioned.

The greens used to poll at 1 percent.

 

[brihard]

I say any party that can get 1 out of every hundred people to vote for them deserves to at least be mentioned.

The greens used to poll at 1 percent.

I draw a line at seats in parliament, but fair enough. The Greens have their own true constituency versus simply being an organized tantrum...

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The climate change deniers use the same old tired arguments that were created to sow doubt about climate change. Big oil borrowed from big tobacco propaganda tactics. The same type of argument they used to create doubt that cigarettes weren’t really dangerous and that they’re was “no evidence” despite what science and experts had determined.

that sets up a strawman argument.

Petroleum literally powers modern civilization and makes it possible. It has lifted billions of people out of abject poverty. There are externalities associated with it, but the Green lobby assertion that petroleum usage is completely harmful and can be done away with tomorrow misrepresents how useful a substance it is both as an energy source and feed stock for manufacturing literally everything.

Tobacco, on the other had, is highly addictive substance that has no use beyond consumption of it for its own sake. If it disppeared tomorrow, civilization would not collapse.

To continually compare petroleum with tobacco is intellectual laziness.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The climate change deniers use the same old tired arguments that were created to sow doubt about climate change. Big oil borrowed from big tobacco propaganda tactics. The same type of argument they used to create doubt that cigarettes weren’t really dangerous and that they’re was “no evidence” despite what science and experts had determined.

It's easy to run tests on human beings. It's really hard to model nature. I have seen elaborate (and expensive) modelling of a well known and studied river by a very experienced company fail to predict the actual results of putting a bridge pier in. Now expand that to global and to the solar system and the reality is we barely have a clue as to what, how and when things are playing a part. We know climate changes, we know Humans have an effect. However we don't know for certain how big our effect is beyond the other natural occurring events going on. We also disagree on how best to limit those effect. When many of the solutions conveniently result in limiting peoples choices and having minimal effect on the lifestyles of the rich and powerful, then there is likley to be suspicion as to why certain things are forced onto people.