Global warming: Real or Fraud?

[CDL.TO]

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/#more-1224

Of course! It's all so simple! Why didn't I see it earlier?

 

[ganjavih]

Your opinion on this matter likely reflects where you get your information from. I get it from scientific literature, not political columns. It has long been established and accepted that human activity is contributing to climate change.

 

[wonderboy416]

Your opinion on this matter likely reflects where you get your information from. I get it from scientific literature, not political columns. It has long been established and accepted that human activity is contributing to climate change.

By whom exactly? There is no consensus among climatologists - not even close.

 

[GraphicMatt]

By whom exactly? There is no consensus among climatologists - not even close.

There are no scientific bodies anywhere in the world that disagree with the conclusions of the IPCC, which state:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

 

[wonderboy416]

There are no scientific bodies anywhere in the world that disagree with the conclusions of the IPCC, which state:

But there are hundreds of notable scientists on record who do dispute that.
A scientific body as a whole does not encompass every scientists belonging to that, especially when most rely on commercial and political funding for survival.

 

[LordWanker]

For instance, getting rid of all coal fired power plants, and replacing fossil-fuel power plants with renewable energies, such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric.

Considering Canada's climate, wind/solar dependent energy sources can be at best, supplementary. Hydroelectric is possible but from what source?

Another might be encouraging rail transportation (something like HSR would be great,) over air and car travel.

It would be great but try convincing businesses that there would be a healthy profit margin in it.

But dumping $10 billion for eco-friendly things straight into public transportation is just stupid, to be blunt. There's so many things the government should be indirectly starting instead. I'm not saying public transport is unimportant, but this money shouldn't be going towards it, unless it can get 30% of all cars off the road.

Without a reliable efficient public transportation system, how are you going to convince people to stop using cars?

 

[Second_in_pie]

Considering Canada's climate, wind/solar dependent energy sources can be at best, supplementary. Hydroelectric is possible but from what source?

Hah, are you kidding me? Do you think that solar needs a warm climate or something? There are plenty of places in Canada that are sunny for long periods of time, at least enough to be a good investment in solar. Solar energy could even come in the form of rooftop photovoltaic panels, or rooftop heating panels, which could all easily be subsidized by the government to give people even more reason to buy them.

And I can't believe you don't think that wind energy is a good choice. All across the Prairies, there is countless potential for wind energy. Off the coast of Newfoundland, BC and Hudson's Bay are all great areas for offshore wind energy.

Hydroelectric could either come from the tonnes of rivers in the Canadian Shield and HB Lowlands, or from tidal sources such as the Bay of Fundy. If you want to cut it close, even at the lakeheads of the Great Lakes, or the St. Lawrence and Fraiser Rivers.

It would be great but try convincing businesses that there would be a healthy profit margin in it.

No, I'm saying just make rail improvements. Since when do businesses have to get involved? Perhaps investing $2 billion in VIA improvements, like improving switches and giving VIA more rights along major corridors, notably the Toronto-Montreal route. But even such a route is cutting it close in terms of importance compared to other projects. Full blown HSR on the Toronto-Montreal route would have huge environmental benefits, but I'd leave GHG-cutting dollars to bigger things. But Air Travel alone contributes to about 10% of all CO2 being emitted by humans, and cutting out planes from the Toronto-Montreal corridor would see huge benefits in terms of Greenhouse Gasses.

Without a reliable efficient public transportation system, how are you going to convince people to stop using cars?

It's just that public transit takes a lot more of an investment. It's certainly important and justified in the sense that it reduces congestion and helps build cities, but frankly there's much better things to put it towards. For $10 billion, you could get average of about 60 km of RT. Ok, so you put in 30 km in Toronto, 10 km in Vancouver, and 20 km in Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton. But the amount of greenhouse gas you've reduced by getting cars off the road is quite negligible compared to getting rid of a coal-fired power plant, and probably quite comparable to taking 50 planes a day out of the sky.

From a national level, investing Green dollars in public transit is a poor choice. The government should be helping out with public transit, but money spent to reduce GHGs should have a much bigger bang for their buck in the GHG sector than transit investments do.

 

[urbanboom]

But there are hundreds of notable scientists on record who do dispute that.
A scientific body as a whole does not encompass every scientists belonging to that, especially when most rely on commercial and political funding for survival.

I once met a biologist that told me that Darwin was full of shit. Those climatologists that you're referring to must the equivalent of that biologist I met: They passed the tests in school, but really don't have a clue. Or they like to stir the pot.

If you ask any reputable scientist, the answer will be the same. The Dr. Frankensteins of the world don't count.

 

[gristle]

The troubling thing with regards to these "hacked" files is the alleged effort of some scientists to destroy emails, hide information from Freedom of Information requests, call the reputation of other scientists into question because they disagreed, rig the peer review process and other such shenanigans. There is also a suggestion that data was being altered to generate desired results.

Another story I read elsewhere suggests an inside job, wherein these files were, in effect, left available to an informed hacker.

If the scientists in question want their names cleared, they should welcome an open investigation and cooperate as soon as possible. I would imagine that most - if not all - have received public money for their research. That would mean that there could be criminal consequences if some of the more serious charges turn out to be true.

 

[gristle]

Of course! It's all so simple! Why didn't I see it earlier?

Monbiot was/is one of the most ardent "crusaders" regarding human-caused climate change (just read his articles on the subject). For him to suggest some of things that he does actually says a lot about what these hacked files might indicate.

This whole thing should be considered as quite troubling.

 

[Kamuix]

Aw balance. Thanks wonderboy and others!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwkR3uuZMIM

great move in chicago. Al gore exposed once again

 

[Dilla]

We're going to need more tinfoil...

Aw balance. Thanks wonderboy and others!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwkR3uuZMIM

great move in chicago. Al gore exposed once again

Wow, that was...informative...

These videos are for entertainment purposes only, Kamuix. They don't prove anything about anything. Do you not notice the scary music on throughout? How about "Did you know the IPCC isn't really a bunch of scientists, it's a bunch of UN globalists." I mean...really.

Just more paranoia from the new world order crowd. This video contains nothing of value.

 

[LordWanker]

Hah, are you kidding me? Do you think that solar needs a warm climate or something? There are plenty of places in Canada that are sunny for long periods of time, at least enough to be a good investment in solar. Solar energy could even come in the form of rooftop photovoltaic panels, or rooftop heating panels, which could all easily be subsidized by the government to give people even more reason to buy them..

You forget that the electricity is stored in batteries and then used as needed. Those batteries have a finite lifespan where they can be recharged and afterwards they are useless. To my knowledge, those batteries are not recycleable and the material used to produce them are not entirely environmentally friendly. However correct me if I'm wrong.

And I can't believe you don't think that wind energy is a good choice. All across the Prairies, there is countless potential for wind energy. Off the coast of Newfoundland, BC and Hudson's Bay are all great areas for offshore wind energy.

Hydroelectric could either come from the tonnes of rivers in the Canadian Shield and HB Lowlands, or from tidal sources such as the Bay of Fundy. If you want to cut it close, even at the lakeheads of the Great Lakes, or the St. Lawrence and Fraiser Rivers....

True but to harness the hydroelectric power would it not require drastic changes to the existing environment and disrupt the ecosystem?

No, I'm saying just make rail improvements. Since when do businesses have to get involved? Perhaps investing $2 billion in VIA improvements, like improving switches and giving VIA more rights along major corridors, notably the Toronto-Montreal route. But even such a route is cutting it close in terms of importance compared to other projects. Full blown HSR on the Toronto-Montreal route would have huge environmental benefits, but I'd leave GHG-cutting dollars to bigger things. But Air Travel alone contributes to about 10% of all CO2 being emitted by humans, and cutting out planes from the Toronto-Montreal corridor would see huge benefits in terms of Greenhouse Gasses.

It's just that public transit takes a lot more of an investment. It's certainly important and justified in the sense that it reduces congestion and helps build cities, but frankly there's much better things to put it towards. For $10 billion, you could get average of about 60 km of RT. Ok, so you put in 30 km in Toronto, 10 km in Vancouver, and 20 km in Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton. But the amount of greenhouse gas you've reduced by getting cars off the road is quite negligible compared to getting rid of a coal-fired power plant, and probably quite comparable to taking 50 planes a day out of the sky.

From a national level, investing Green dollars in public transit is a poor choice. The government should be helping out with public transit, but money spent to reduce GHGs should have a much bigger bang for their buck in the GHG sector than transit investments do.

I agree with necessary improvements to the rail infrastructure especially a HSR line but without the business justification for it and some gov't assistance this just will not happen. As for the RT, if they can figure out how to deal with the winter climates it would be a bonus.
What has not been considered is a major change in human behavior to what is considered as the modern lifestyle. Not only is it heavily dependent on oil but increasingly on all things electrical. It is appalling on the amount of electricity being needlessly wasted.

 

[Second_in_pie]

You forget that the electricity is stored in batteries and then used as needed. Those batteries have a finite lifespan where they can be recharged and afterwards they are useless. To my knowledge, those batteries are not recycleable and the material used to produce them are not entirely environmentally friendly. However correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, but that's really not something huge. Compared to keeping a coal generating station alive for just a year, a decade-lasting battery for a group of wind turbines is a walk in the park.

For solar power, they're actually making a pilot system that would store it's energy in a salt water tank instead of a battery, making power storage totally eco-friendly, and actually more efficient. This system is being piloted in Australia, and I think it's set to go commercial within 2 or 3 years, assuming there are no difficulties. This could be great for more northern cities such as Calgary and Edmonton, where the hot water could be fed into district heating systems, much the same way that we use Lake Ontario to cool buildings in the downtown core.

True but to harness the hydroelectric power would it not require drastic changes to the existing environment and disrupt the ecosystem?

Yes, but one could argue that open pit mining coal or oil sands for a generating station creates drastic changes to the existing environment as well. The generating stations themselves consume a large amount of space anyways, requiring a lot of space to store coal, and requiring tonnes of GHGs to be emitted by simply transporting the fuel, which of course will be burned and create even more GHGs.

Some places, such as Winnipeg, could actually benefit from having a hydroelectric station nearby. Having a large hydroelectric complex upriver from Winnipeg could provide the flood control needed for the city, as well as a huge power supply.

I agree with necessary improvements to the rail infrastructure especially a HSR line but without the business justification for it and some gov't assistance this just will not happen.

Obviously, HSR would require a lot of government assistance. But study after study has proved a great business case for it. It's all up to the government to stop dragging their feet on this issue and get it started. Make track improvements first, then electrify, then get the Toronto-Montreal Corridor up to real HSR standard. Instantly, you've gotten at least 30 planes a day out of the air and thousands of cars a day off the road.

As for the RT, if they can figure out how to deal with the winter climates it would be a bonus.
What has not been considered is a major change in human behavior to what is considered as the modern lifestyle. Not only is it heavily dependent on oil but increasingly on all things electrical. It is appalling on the amount of electricity being needlessly wasted.

No, when I mean RT, I mean generic Rapid Transit. I did a quick average of LRT costs + subway costs + other RT costs and came up with a generic $150. Of course, if Calgary and Edmonton want to continue to grade separate their LRT, Vancouver wants to continue having Skytrain, and Toronto and Montreal still want to continue with subway, those costs are going to be higher, probably closer to $200 or 250 million per kilometer on average.

I totally agree 100% that it's human behaviour that needs to be changed, and that can be another government investment; reminding people to turn off their lights, encourage to buy eco-friendly products (locally produced, organic, low-energy, low packaging, etc.) encourage people to ride their bikes, and generally live an eco-friendly lifestyle. I myself have prepared for this shift for living the perfect eco-friendly lifestyle, so I don't have to do any changing once it becomes the norm

 

[Kamuix]

Wow, that was...informative...

These videos are for entertainment purposes only, Kamuix. They don't prove anything about anything. Do you not notice the scary music on throughout? How about "Did you know the IPCC isn't really a bunch of scientists, it's a bunch of UN globalists." I mean...really.

Just more paranoia from the new world order crowd. This video contains nothing of value.

I know but it's gotta make you think. I think there's too many people who dismiss the idea of being under a huge deception before giving it a chance because it just doesn't seem possible at all from their point of view at the time.