What the new UN report warning of climate impacts means for Canadians

[chuckChuck]

You mean like Biden calling for more Opec oil to be released. Where are the renewables?

The oil supercycle is going to be biblical.

And Trump will be President once the 2020 results are overturned. LOL

[jazz]

You have heard of Lake Diefenbaker on the south Saskatchewan? The reservoir before Saskatoon.

So in Alberta if Calgary runs short do you think they will allow the diversion of water to irrigation farmers instead of Calgary?

So we shouldnt be building risky hydro dams either? They will be empty. No hydropower then again equals $300 oil.

chuck you are so economically challenged its really comical.

Canadas water will be going into the US SW some day. Hope you are ready for that LOL.

[furrowtickler]

If you had read what David Schindler said about water supplies and the impact of climate change in Alberta he said declining and disappearing glaciers will have an impact especially in summer and fall after the spring snow melt declines.

So yes there will be a severe seasonal shortages of river water. And then add in the increased risk and increased intensity of heat and drought and Alberta water supplies will be at risk along with all the ecological impacts.

Reducing consumption is also important. So maybe irrigation farmers will be giving up some of their subsidized water allocations so that Calgary has enough water.

And just like Steve Harper said, Canada needs to stop burning fossil fuels too.

Tell that to Biden LOL
If Trump did what Biden did yesterday some here would be completely freaking out .
This is getting more ridiculous by the day

[flea beetle]

So the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events in 2021 and in recent decades and going forward is not real and nothing to worry about! LOL

Hey don't worry, agriculture is doing fine during the cold spring, the drought, the heat and the floods. All is well?

Look out your window. That's all the proof you need. The world is flat...... correct?

So you didn't block me...you just choose not to engage so you don't get schooled!

[chuckChuck]

Keep on ignoring climate change there flea. It will go a away just like covid!

There is nothing to worry about! Your farm will survive the extreme droughts, floods, heat and frosts just fine.

[Sheepwheat]

Keep on ignoring climate change there flea. It will go a away just like covid!

There is nothing to worry about! Your farm will survive the extreme droughts, floods, heat and frosts just fine.

Climate change. The cause of everything. I see you covered the bases well. You even threw in frosts!

[Hamloc]

Keep on ignoring climate change there flea. It will go a away just like covid!

There is nothing to worry about! Your farm will survive the extreme droughts, floods, heat and frosts just fine.

What the report shows is that in the U.N.’s opinion climate change has already occurred. Temperature rise has and is occurring. Instead of pretending we can change the climate why wouldn’t you be proactive and look at adaptation? Increasing China’s production of solar panels from coal isn’t going to increase food production or make our production systems more resilient? It is all about fear and control.

[flea beetle]

Keep on ignoring climate change there flea. It will go a away just like covid!

There is nothing to worry about! Your farm will survive the extreme droughts, floods, heat and frosts just fine.

Just as it has for the last 100 years! Nothing new, as much as you want to portray it to be.

[flea beetle]

Climate change. The cause of everything. I see you covered the bases well. You even threw in frosts!

After being reminded that he had left it out!

[furrowtickler]

It’s all a farce ..


Within 24 hrs of the pleas from the IPCC to cut fossil fuels ASAP 😂😂

[flea beetle]

Ever notice how the leftards leave, never to return, after they have been schooled? And then start another thread on the same topic hoping you forget what you said to school them the last time?

[blackpowder]

Ideology is most important to true socialists like the resident troll.

[shtferbrains]

The first part of this article is not totaly relevant but the second part directly addresses big UN climate change reports.
Do you have to come up with scary results to get funding and published?
Do results that don't prove there is any change happening get published?


The Unintended Consequences of the American Way of Science
There’s strong evidence that the prevalence of bad science and ‘cut corners’ is increasing.

National Public Radio published a story last week on biomedical scientists “cutting corners” in pursuit of funding. It was about the search for a cure for that horrendous ailment, Amyotrophyic Lateral Sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. Repeatedly, drugs that seemed to work in animal tests didn’t pan out when tried on humans.

NPR spoke with Story Landis, director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, who said that “part of the explanation relates to a growing issue in biomedical science: the mad scramble for scarce research dollars.” So, she said, “scientists are tempted to oversell weak results.”

She went on: “Getting a grant requires that you have an exciting story to tell, that you have preliminary data, and you have published. In the rush, to be perfectly honest, to get a wonderful story out on the street in a journal, and preferably with some publicity to match, scientists can cut corners.”

There’s strong evidence that the prevalence of bad science and ‘cut corners’ is increasing.

What’s happening is that scientists aren’t replicating the work of others. That’s viewed as a waste of time because it’s not flashy enough to attract money. And given that oodles of funding are required to publish the reams of papers required to get promotion and tenure at a tier‐​one research university, doing that kind of work is likely to endanger your career.

“Scarce research dollars” aren’t the problem. The number of practitioners of a given science is directly proportional to how much money floods the field. There’s no scientist struggling for promotion in high‐​end academia who thinks he or she is adequately funded. Dollars, by their very nature, are scarce. That’s why money has value.

The problem, instead, is the “American model” for professional advancement, which can be stated simply: “get funded, get published or get out.”

Take my specialty, climate change. Back when I started at this, in 1976, no one wanted to be a climatologist, in no small part because there was very little funding to go around. But as global warming became a political cause, the dollar flow increased from a few million a year to a current federal outlay of $2.3 billion.

And so everyone doing anything that could be vaguely related to climate change got into the act. On came the ecologists, the plant physiologists and even the psychologists.

You can see the results in the “national assessments” of the effects of climate change that are put out every few years by the federal climate bureaucracy. The 2014 version has been heavily cited by President Obama in support of his global warming policies, despite the fact that it simply ignores the growing disparity between the government’s climate models and reality.

According to Ross McKitrick, from Canada’s University of Guelph (and a Cato Institute scholar), we are now approaching two decades without any warming.

As a wonderful example of how money dilutes science, the 2014 report also says that global warming will increase the prevalence of mental illness in our cities. Are people really saner in the winters of Washington than they are in sunny Miami? Does moving there from New York threaten your stability?

Rest assured that if this research had shown no link between climate and mental health, there would also be no renewal of the associated research grant. Negative results get neither published nor funded.

There’s strong evidence that the prevalence of bad science and “cut corners” is increasing.

University of Montreal’s Daniele Fanelli examined over 5,000 published papers from around the world, and over many disciplines. His stunning 2012 finding was titled “Negative Results are Disappearing from Most Disciplines and Countries,” and it documented a systematic increase in the frequency of “positive” findings being published.

All the incentives push science in the direction of positive results, and there is every disincentive (such as loss of funding and therefore your job) to not report when your research hypothesis isn’t borne out by the data.

Fanelli also found, in separate work, that the addition of a single American author to a multi‐​authored international paper greatly raises the probability that it will report a positive result.

All of this is tragic. In biomedicine, people suffer and die because of falsely promised cures. In climate change, we get poisonous policies emanating from absurd results generated by climate models that can’t even get the last two decades right.

And around the world, the quality of science is in decline as nations increasingly adopt our model for professional advancement.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Media Name: pmichaels.jpg
Patrick J. Michaels
Former Director, Center for the Study of Science

Sorry for the huge cut and paste but I think it explains about everything.