Climate change , a neutral perspective

[furrowtickler]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ew05sRDAcU

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Furrow, you should know by now that there is no such thing as "Neutral" in this debate. There is the believers, who have the moral high ground and are by default right, and then there is everyone else who therefore must be wrong because we don't agree with those who anointed themselves right. There is no middle ground according to those who wrote the rules. Good video, thanks for posting, I never seem to find what I want on SO site, but should keep looking.

[mustardman]

The Reason that climate change is accepted by Most is Peer reviewed science.
There are a few Denial Scientists out there, trouble is they Have No One backing them up on their Opinions

[grassfarmer]

Majority consensus on Agriville



Consensus in the real world.

[riders2010]

There really are 2 issues at hand

1 is the carbon thing a factor of climate change?
2 supposing it is yes. Then what is the realistic answer. When you are such a small emitter as Canada is does it make much sense to destroy our economy to be a leader in changing something when our effect is very little a part of the answer?

If all of the major emitting countries has the same equal tax burden etc applied as to their level of the cause then it would be a hell of a lot easier to justify a tax or whatever. Until then not realistic.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Majority consensus on Agriville
[ATTACH]919[/ATTACH]


Consensus in the real world.
[ATTACH]918[/ATTACH]

You are ignoring the fact that until the AGW issue, consensus was not considered the only deciding factor in the scientific method. Science and evidence used to be important too.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

As evidence that there is only one "right side" a quote from a thread further down:

burnt Please Go back to NASA's site and look at their climate change research...you mite come over to the Right side Reply With Quote

The debate about the potential positives and negatives, causes, and effects never happened, we skipped right to the last stage, taxes to solve the supposed problem.

[grassfarmer]

You are ignoring the fact that until the AGW issue, consensus was not considered the only deciding factor in the scientific method. Science and evidence used to be important too.

You are making no sense AF5, what do you think this "consensus" thing is? This is entirely based on science and evidence, once you stack up thousands and thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers and somewhere between 97-99% indicate one conclusion a consensus is reached. How else can we use scientific findings to make decisions?

The debate about the potential positives and negatives, causes, and effects never happened, we skipped right to the last stage, taxes to solve the supposed problem.

Where did you think the debate should have happened and who would have been the participants? Are you thinking social media, a presidential candidate style debate between scientists or some type of referendum of citizens? As far as I understand Governments have always taken advice from experts in whatever field the issue concerns and it is their job to formulate policy based on that advice. Clearly in this case they have done that, in Canada and elsewhere around the world - Governments have acted upon the scientific advice which overwhelmingly indicates that climate change is real and man is contributing to it. There is no debate in scientific circles about climate change, the consensus of opinion was reached long ago.

[furrowtickler]

No doubt man is contributing to climate change - but how much ???
There were basically no fossil fuels burnt in that graph

[seabass]

Let those scientist who have to justify there job pay for climate change seeing as they dreamt it up.

[Hamloc]

Grassfarmer,read this article morningmail.org>down-goes-the-hockey-stick. It details how Michael Mann lost a lawsuit against Tim Ball climatologist author of such books as The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science in the BC Supreme Court. His refusal to release his data caused the loss. The IPCC and the rest of the world's climate change proponents are basing their beliefs on faulty science like Michael Mann's faulty hockey stick theory.

Having said that, there is no doubt that humans pollute the earth. Look at the big islands of plastic refuse in the oceans. I believe there are many ways we need to clean up our act. But there are over a billion people in the world without reliable electricity, look at all the countries without proper sewage disposal, clean water and decent housing. We are going to piss away billions in Canada and really do nothing. I remember one thing always stuck with me from Sunday school, give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach that man to fish and feed him for life. I think that enviro's truly consider man the enemy and as such aren't really interested in spending money where it would improve life's the most. Enjoy your Sunday and go Stampeders!

[checking]

Does CO2 give you a headache?

Answer: Only when the tank hits my head.

Substitute gasfarmer, or carbon copy for tank.

Very nice graph, furrowtickler.

[furrowtickler]

Very well said Hamloc

[grassfarmer]

Sorry Hamloc I don't follow you - what is the teachable moment re the fishing? Are you advocating that we teach the poorest in the third world to stop polluting it or that they should follow our example of wanton fossil fuel use?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

The biggest crime is how much good this money could've done Fighting real pollution End Third World problems. And how far behind the eight ball will be When we finally admit thatglobal cooling is thefar bigger threat and most probable outcome.