There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?
Recent Articles
- Justice for Indigenous Peoples is Long Overdueby Ryan McGreal, published June 30, 2021 in Commentary
(0 comments)
- Third-Party Election Advertising Ban About Silencing Workersby Chantal Mancini, published June 29, 2021 in Politics
(0 comments)
- Did Doug Ford Test the 'Great Barrington Declaration' on Ontarians?by Ryan McGreal, published June 29, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- An Update on Raise the Hammerby Ryan McGreal, published June 28, 2021 in Site Notes
(0 comments)
- Nestlé Selling North American Water Bottling to an Private Equity Firmby Doreen Nicoll, published February 23, 2021 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- Jolley Old Sam Lawrenceby Sean Burak, published February 19, 2021 in Special Report: Cycling
(0 comments)
- Right-Wing Extremism is a Driving Force in Modern Conservatismby Ryan McGreal, published February 18, 2021 in Special Report: Extremism
(0 comments)
- Municipalities Need to Unite against Ford's Firehose of Land Use Changesby Michelle Silverton, published February 16, 2021 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Challenging Doug Ford's Pandemic Narrativeby Ryan McGreal, published January 25, 2021 in Special Report: COVID-19
(1 comment)
- The Year 2020 Has Been a Wakeup Callby Michael Nabert, published December 31, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- The COVID-19 Marshmallow Experimentby Ryan McGreal, published December 22, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- All I Want for Christmas, 2020by Kevin Somers, published December 21, 2020 in Entertainment and Sports
(1 comment)
- Hamilton Shelters Remarkably COVID-19 Free Thanks to Innovative Testing Programby Jason Allen, published December 21, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
- Province Rams Through Glass Factory in Stratfordby Doreen Nicoll, published December 21, 2020 in Healing Gaia
(0 comments)
- We Can Prevent Traffic Deaths if We Make Safety a Real Priorityby Ryan McGreal, published December 08, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(5 comments)
- These Aren't 'Accidents', These Are Resultsby Tom Flood, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report: Walkable Streets
(1 comment)
- Conservation Conundrumby Paul Weinberg, published December 04, 2020 in Special Report
(0 comments)
- Defund Police Protest Threatens Fragile Ruling Classby Cameron Kroetsch, published December 03, 2020 in Special Report: Anti-Racism
(2 comments)
- Measuring the Potential of Biogas to Reduce GHG Emissionsby John Loukidelis and Thomas Cassidy, published November 23, 2020 in Special Report: Climate Change
(0 comments)
- Ontario Squanders Early Pandemic Sacrificeby Ryan McGreal, published November 18, 2020 in Special Report: COVID-19
(0 comments)
Article Archives
Blog Archives
Site Tools
Feeds
By JonC (registered) | Posted July 31, 2009 at 17:29:41
Yes you did. To his quote you said "I thought there was scientific consensus that human carbon emissions were DEFINITELY causing the earth to warm", which implies that he's indicated otherwise. I suppose it's possible that you don't understand the grammatical implications of your words, based on overall comprehension.
"Nor did he indicate that it was". I never indicated that I know ten year old children that can reason better than you, but I have.
"If the climate is changing in ways that climate models can't predict, this indicates that the climate models are unreliable." Wrong again, all climatic models out of the past three decades have predicted increased irregularity in weather patterns. Environment Canada can't tell you for sure whether it's going to rain tonight, I can't imagine what makes you think that a model that takes on a planet wide scale area over decades to centuries time line can predict rainfall any better. It's obvious that you have no idea what a model actually does. We can't definitively predict where an electron will be, so they don't exist? To re-iterate, climactic models have predicted increased irregularity, which has been observed. This in no way means that there isn't error associated with all of these models. But even the minimum (assuming maximum error in the models, shows a change.
"If the effects of burning fossil fuels are unknowable, then there is no scientific basis for limiting their use". Again, wrong, and plenty of 10 year olds are definitively better scientists than you, at a minimum. If you've ever used a lighter, you know at least one effect of burning fossil fuels. Increased heat. Scientists, the people that make the models you deride, have measured the output of this flame, CO2, CO, NOx, CH4, and some other stuff. Scientists have also observed the heat capacity of these gases, and compared them to atmospheric gases. Scientists have also simulated the effects of these changes using both mathematical models and actual real life simulations. We also have relatively accurate measures of GHG emissions that are a result of human activities. So even if you don't believe in all the markers that climatologists use to show historical patterns, there at a bare minimum should be no doubt that a) people emit GHG b) GHG behave differently than air and c) a combination of those two statements.
"Limit the rate of change and you limit progress." This is precisely the idea. Limit the rate of change in atmospheric composition and limit the progress of climate change.
Permalink | Context