Raise the Hammer

There are some lefty radical environmentalists who don't agree too. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...

(Why did I get a mental picture of Mister Burns sitting down at a Greenpeace meeting "I too am a fellow environmentalist and here to help! E....xcellent.")

Yes, there is also a third side that never makes into mainstream press. This side says that current climate projections are too conservative, and the consequences of anthropogenic climate change will be more devastating that those predicted by the IPCC. Some predict extreme drought, flooding, catastrophic storms, followed by uprisings, anarchy and war.

Great article, Don. It is definitely discouraging when there is such a disparity between our planet's needs (which are really no different from our own!) and human policies/actions/behaviour. Climate change is scary and it means those in power are likely to lose a lot of money. Hence the denial. Moving forward will be difficult, but we must not give up.

"Corruption has appeared throughout the land and sea because of what the hands of men have earned, that He may make them taste a part of that which they have done, in order that they may return." (Qur'an 30:41)

I sure hope you clowns are getting paid to scour the Internet looking for articles about global warming to troll. If you're doing it for free on your own time, that's just sad.

Tone and stereotyping aside, this part of your comment is spot-on:

put their efforts into alternatives discovery and that's how the hydrocarbons will be nullified

This is already well underway. Solar power is starting to become cheaper than fossil fuel. Divestment from fossil fuels and into renewables continues to accelerate. I've been watching this stuff for a while, and global shift to renewables is happening faster than I imagined possible. Awesome stuff.

So the amount of oil we are burning into the atmosphere can certainly start to decline in coming decades. From electricity generation, certainly.

And guess what? Like any resource or mineral, oil is still in the ground to use for appropriate applications. And the industry, like any, will scale back to demand, as the new industries boom.

So just because it will take a little longer to replace plastic with biodegradables, does not mean we should not start addressing what we can. And the "enviros", as you call people who care about our biosphere, are a source of pressure to make it happen faster.

Having a cell phone or computer does not disqualify one from advocating that we do not put all the oil that is under the ground, into our atmosphere and water.

Comment edited by mikeonthemountain on 2015-03-23 19:44:06

I love the anti-global warming conspiracy theories.

"Global warming is a natural phenomenon! We didn't do it! I love my Hummer! Stop trying to force long-term savings and sustainability on me!"

1. It is, but it's being greatly accelerated and exaggerated by man. And even if it were natural, who cares? Comets are a natural phenomenon, should we let them send us the way of the dinosaurs too?

2. Hummers are for douche bags and PR firms pushing energy drinks.

3. ...... well, I don't know quite what to say about that. Money and economic stability is good?

Comment edited by Dylan on 2015-03-24 07:41:41

If you are only skeptical of those things which attack your already established beliefs, you are not making much of your skepticism. Question everything. Anon.

"Where does denial stop? One can sort of sympathize with Hamilton Spectator editor Paul Berton's reluctance to stop publishing climate change denialists."

Now you know why people don't buy newspapers anymore.

Agreed, and this is actually very important.

However, science is not a belief system. Math is not a belief system. It is a rigorous, constantly self-correcting description of reality. By definition, not open for debate, by definition, doesn't care what anyone "thinks".

Unfortunately, interpretation of data can be a belief system, and there is where people's filters are creating quite the argument - among those who aren't immersed in the science.

Comment edited by mikeonthemountain on 2015-03-24 12:46:40

I know Don was being sardonic, but I'm not sure whether in your comment, you, Cptlst, think people stopped buying papers because of sad, even silly ideas like Berton Jr.'s, or for some other reason. Some online responses to Berton's column were good, others part of that odd & worse cess-pool that much of the Spec's "permitted" comments are. If you are a right wing crackpot [e.g. Steve from Burlington: commies Islamicists, on & on], good. If you respond harshly to that, we won't see your "name" in the Comments again. [Re his hurray Netanyahu right or wrong, somebody wrote recently that the 'Steve' isn't Jewish. Hurray for small mercies.

Phlogiston.

Fascinating that you bring that up! If you read the hypothesis, it's actually a decent early guess. You could replace the word phlogiston with "carbon dioxide" and it is an incomplete but approximate description. Trying to figure out what phlogiston was, led to uncovering of more and more of the periodic table; speaking of alchemy in general.

We've progressed from phlogiston theory, to understanding oxidation, to understanding carbon dioxide, to understanding greenhouse effect, to experimentally verifying it in labs and on earth and on other planets, to quantifying historical norms in our current agriculturally friendly epoch, to using quantum mechanics to create computers that can process gargantuan amounts of computations and make some (admittedly non-linear) extrapolations, with multiple models checking for conflicts wherever possible.

Current climate science is as far removed from phlogiston, as our trip to the moon is from early naive attempts to cross the Atlantic - far from complete, but starting to establish some rigor and predictability against real world experiments and observation that tell us what we need to know.

Comment edited by mikeonthemountain on 2015-03-24 16:16:50

There's nothing inherently wrong with skepticism, but how exactly does one "question everything"?

We're not experts, so the questions to be asked in this case are:

Q. What do the experts say? A. Overwhelming agreement on man made or at least facilitated climate change.

Q. Is the data and methodology they use sound?
A. Difficult for a layman to answer, but ice and geological sampling would seem to be a pretty established science with quantifiable results. Objective comparisons, extrapolations, and conclusions should easily achievable.

Q. Is there reasonable suspicion that the experts would try to deceive the public? A. Unless the overwhelming majority of climatologists have investments in solar cell technology, I highly doubt it. People with money like to keep their money and maintain the status quo. Is declaring a climactic doomsday maintaining the status quo? No. Is denying it? Yes.

People with money like to keep their money and maintain the status quo

This is exactly why we are at risk of getting one of the most evil trade agreements ever devised on Earth to date. The TPP.

People have absolutely no idea the sh*tstorm that is coming for Canada's (our democratic) attempts to protect its people and environment. Already multiple countries are getting sued for putting warnings on cigarette packs. Sane people who are not psychopaths, all over the world, are astonished and wondering if this is a joke. It's not. Psychopaths intend to codify profit trumping all life on earth.

Comment edited by mikeonthemountain on 2015-03-24 19:53:56

The point of raising Phlogiston in Kuhn's theory of paradigms was that people held and lost academic careers over their wedding to the theory when in fact we now know that there never has been any such element.

The current climate models are based on numerous assumptions and do not answer all questions. Like in all areas of science, the debates get heated as careers ride on the theories. I raised the point for Dylan because this has all happened before historically (think of Giordano Bruno who died, in part, because he opposed the Ptolemaic theory of cosmology.) Time will tell as to the degree to which human existence influences the climate.

For my part, arguments against waste are far more convincing than global climate change being caused by CO2. Cutting down forests and destroying the oceans may prove to be far more influential on climate than CO2 emissions, but who will care when Hamilton is under a kilometer of ice.

Comment edited by CharlesBall on 2015-03-25 13:06:54

That is the danger, I suppose, of using one words answers. I was not clear and you indeed make my point.

Phlogiston was not initially discredited when Lavoisier proposed that a gas was required for combustion in 1780. In fact, for over 50 years people denied oxidization in the face of the steadily accumulating data. That is exactly my point.

Unlike Chemistry, which is indeed a mature science, climatology, remains an immature science in spite of giant leaps over the past 30 years. It was a mere 40 years ago that some of the same scientists were proposing the impending emergence of an ice age.

But I give in. Instead of questioning everything, Anon should have said what? Question everything except current climate science?

Like I said, for me it does not matter, wasting energy and polluting are wrong regardless of climate science.

Comment edited by CharlesBall on 2015-03-25 15:24:12

Like I said, for me it does not matter, wasting energy and polluting are wrong regardless of climate science.

That really is the heart of the matter. And like you said, comments lead to wording issues - I know very well that forest loss removes carbon sinks, and the oceans absorb carbon which is acidifying them enough that creatures's shells are already weakening and we risk a jellyfish dominated ocean.

I agree with the root of your point completely. Good stewardship.

In fact, for over 50 years people denied oxidization in the face of the steadily accumulating data. That is exactly my point.

Ironically, it is also exactly my point.

Data is showing a warming trend that accelerated dramatically in the 20th century. Arctic ice loss is accelerating. Antarctic ice loss is accelerating. CO2 has been WAY below 400ppm for at least a million years. Oceans are acidifying.

From my point of view, it is the deniers that refuse to accept oxidation in the face of mounting evidence. And when you look and who and why, one could even extend the analogy further, it's like the Church attacking astronomy because it undermines the established orthodoxy.

This is actually a fun conversation. I am delighted that we can agree on responsible use of resources, good stewardship, and waste reduction.

Comment edited by mikeonthemountain on 2015-03-25 16:25:55

Acid rain was mitigated because we did something about it when observation indicated a problem. Emissions causing it began to be much more strictly regulated.

The ozone loss was mitigated because we did something about it when observation began to indicate a problem. HFCs began to be more strictly regulated and replaced with non ozone destroying variants.

See how that works? Identify problem, act on it, warning does not play out.

As for your comments on climate, your word play is not only illogical, it is unworthy of response.

mikeonthemountain must be king or don or something.

Acid Rain has NOT been resolved, it has been memory holed. Test the rain yourself with your tongue or your pool test kit. It's like vinegar most times.

There is a book called "Global Warming and Global Feudalism", a discourse by G. Edward Griffin. Without notes or preparation, G. Edward Griffin fields tough questions about the United Nations, global warming, and how these topics are tied together. Here are some of the issues covered:

Is the UN mankind's last best hope for peace or the foundation for global feudalism?

Is the UN controlled by leaders of member nations or by hidden structures and power brokers? If the latter, who are they?

Are American elitists motivated by love of country, devotion to international harmony, or something less admirable?

Do we have an obligation to the UN? If so, what is it and why?

Is it possible to get out of the UN, or have we passed the point of no return?

With regard to global warming, what is Agenda 21?

Is forced population-control justified to save the planet?

Is the UN's report on global warming based on valid science? If not, then what?

If the mission of the World Health Organization is not world health, then what?

What are the IMF and World Bank, and why should anyone care about them?

What is the Freedom Force strategy for reversing the trend toward global feudalism?

I haven't read it myself but at $19.50US, I think you should.
realityzone(dot)com/glwaglfe.html

"What do you think of the Obama administration"

I read a bit about the author. I'd like to hear from scientists, thanks. I stopped listening to Alex Jones a long time ago. The problem with conspiracy theorists, is that legitimate concerns get lost in the crazy. And if I'm Don, then you're smart.

As for acid rain, despite significant improvements, we stop trying because things don't self-repair immediately?

Some lakes (particularly in the East) have more trouble neutralizing acid on their own because of the granite bed. So when we pump SO2 and NO into the air, those lakes can't handle it. Canada, in particular, has reduced SO2 emission by two-thirds since 1980. What does this have to do with Elites stuffing us into woodchippers?

And the ozone hole? NASA doesn't expect it to heal until 2070. But by removing the offending emissions, we reduced the damage we were causing, and it has started healing, so we get to still HAVE an ozone layer.

I haven't read it myself but at $19.50US, I think you should.

There ya go. I didn't think your comment was informed.

Comment edited by mikeonthemountain on 2015-03-28 08:38:32