Ottawa dashes hope for climate treaty - Page 3
Old 10-24-2009, 09:31 AM   #41 (permalink)
a baller

Senior Member
 
bjjs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,153
Representing:
Default

And the two researchers that countered the hockey stick model had no government or Industry funded interest.

It was an academic paper funded personally by the mathematician and economist who simply had an interest in the hockey stick model and the huge changes it was instigating in policy and government. Upon initial review they realized it was never actually audited.


But again, their research wasn't saying that today's climate change isn't caused by humans. They were just pointing out how severely flawed the research was that led to Kyoto.
bjjs is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2009, 11:01 AM   #42 (permalink)
thinking Stephen Harper has got to go.

Senior Student
 
lonewolfpoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 1,239
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
This makes no sense....By "saving the planet" we are supporting the poor?

Programs like this would put so many people out of work it isnt even funny, creating more poor....so in essence I am supporting the employeed. The is no proof that we have any detrimental effect on the planet.
No proof? Yes the polar ice caps are just melting on their own. I guess the holes in the ozone layer happened on their own too.

The fact is that the current path the world is on is not sustainable. We need to start taking the environment seriously while we can; or your grandchildren will be asking you, "why didn't you do something when you had the chance, when it would have made a difference?"

Last edited by lonewolfpoet; 10-24-2009 at 11:17 AM.
lonewolfpoet is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2009, 11:25 AM   #43 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,075
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
False
There is a general scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.

Are there natural factors in climate change? Of course. That's why you've seen a cooling trend over the last ~10 years. Unfortunately, natural factors do not seem to account for all of the variation in temperature. The only real debate left, in my opinion, is whether it is more fortuitous to spend money on adapting, or to put a price on carbon and look to curb its emission.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2009, 04:19 PM   #44 (permalink)
LX
present minded

In the Paint


 
LX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 27,765
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjjs View Post
But is there proof that the world hasn't forgone natural climate change like we're going through right now???


The hockey stick model which instigated Kyoto had severe flaws. Such as the researchers actually making up raw data to fill holes in their model.

I agree with the ideas behind it. I'm all about reducing emissions.
Even the possibility that we are the ones behind the cause is reason enough to cut down on emissions and all these human aspects regardless, because waiting for hard evidence that the change is natural could be catastrophic.

But I'm not upto date on my climate change research. Maybe their is hard evidence??? I'm going from what I knew in 2005.
As with all science the models and research are incomplete, and certainly were much more so when Kyoto began. It was always my understanding that the political groundswell behind Kyoto was about not wanting to take a chance on something that COULD be very disastrous, as you suggested. Since that time, and particularly in the last couple of years, that COULD has become focused on how we could have already passed a tipping point whereby the best we can do is figure out how we're going to handle all the transmigration of millions upon millions of people, and a drastically different way of life.

At the same time, with peak oil entering into the equation, there has been the promise of an end to the inertia that kept us from developing the technology that might be able to halt the damage, and eventually reverse it, but it is a big task, and attempts to reverse the damage done to different biospheres in the past have tended to bring further bad side-effects. It's really remarkably bleak at this point, and I can't really blame anyone for just saying "FALSE".
LX is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2009, 10:03 PM   #45 (permalink)
thinking Stephen Harper has got to go.

Senior Student
 
lonewolfpoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 1,239
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzo View Post
No nuclear energy is awesome and we should have alot more....its cleaner than you think.
Huh? How can you say that? What is clean about it? It's waste product is highly toxic and heaven forbid if accidents happen as they did at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Imagine that type of accident happening in Pickering, think of the effects on everybody in the GTA. Not to mention the astronomical capital involved in building new nuclear power plants. Wind and solar energy are much cleaner, not deadly, produce no waste products and the only reason we haven't done more with them is there has been no politcal will to do so.
lonewolfpoet is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2009, 10:09 PM   #46 (permalink)
thinking Stephen Harper has got to go.

Senior Student
 
lonewolfpoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 1,239
Representing:
Default

The following is from Rocky Mountain Insitute website:
Rocky Mountain Institute : Abundance By Design

This is not just a computational finding but a practical reality. In 2008, five German states got
30–40% of their annual electricity from windpower—over 100% at windy times—and so do
parts of Spain and Denmark, without reliability problems. Denmark is 20% windpowered today
and aims for ~50–60% (the rest to come from low- or no-carbon cogeneration). Ireland, with an
isolated small grid (~6.5 billion watts), plans to get 40% of its electricity from renewables,
chiefly wind, by 2020 and 100% by 2035. Three 2009 studies found 29–40% British windpower
practical.38 The Danish utility Dong plans in the next generation to switch from ~15%
renewables (mainly wind) and ~85% fossil fuel (mainly coal) to the reverse. A German/Danish
analysis found that diversifying supplies and linking grids across Europe and North Africa could
yield 100% renewable electricity (70% windpowered) at or below today’s costs.39 Similar allrenewable
scenarios are emerging for the United States and the world, even without efficiency.40
lonewolfpoet is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2009, 10:33 PM   #47 (permalink)
hibernating

Retired Administrator
 
Benzo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,290
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonewolfpoet View Post
No proof? Yes the polar ice caps are just melting on their own. I guess the holes in the ozone layer happened on their own too.

The fact is that the current path the world is on is not sustainable. We need to start taking the environment seriously while we can; or your grandchildren will be asking you, "why didn't you do something when you had the chance, when it would have made a difference?"

Are you suggesting climate change did not happen before human intervention?
Benzo is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2009, 10:49 PM   #48 (permalink)
pensive

feat. Otto Neurath
 
Ligeia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,075
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonewolfpoet View Post
Huh? How can you say that? What is clean about it? It's waste product is highly toxic and heaven forbid if accidents happen as they did at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.
If we pick out the worst accidents and assess the general safety of a technology by looking at only those accidents, then no one would fly planes or drive cars. We wouldn't have bridges, we wouldn't sail the sea; we'd use hardly any technology at all.

What you don't mention is the fantastic nuclear safety record that has provided countries like France and Britain an abundance of nuclear power for a long time now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonewolfpoet View Post
Wind and solar energy are much cleaner, not deadly, produce no waste products and the only reason we haven't done more with them is there has been no politcal will to do so.
A full cost, wide-band analysis shows that nuclear power is cheaper than both. They have difficulty ramping up production for high-demand segments since they are intermittent energy sources, and there is difficulty in storing large amounts of power to compensate for that. The lack of wide-spread wind and solar power right now has more to do with feasibility and technology than it does political will.

Personally, I am all for wind and solar power, including an eventual shift to using them (perhaps with tidal power) exclusively, but we are not in a position where that can be easily achieved today. Thus, let's get the majority of our energy from nuclear power for the time being, and in the future we can continue to transition to renewable sources.
Ligeia is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2009, 11:39 AM   #49 (permalink)
thinking Stephen Harper has got to go.

Senior Student
 
lonewolfpoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Markham, Canada
Posts: 1,239
Representing:
Default

Please don't be so naive as to think that car and even airplane accidents are on the same level as a nuclear meltdown. That is like comparing a light shower with Hurricane Katrina.

As for your cost analysis for nuclear power, do one, see how much it costs. Look at Pickering how much money has been spent and it still is not operating at full capacity and that was not even the building of a new facility, but the retrofit of an older one. Plus you still have the headache of toxic waste management even if/when you close down your nuclear facilities. Not to mention the more nuclear power facilities you have the more chance for catastrophic accidents. Also the effect of nuclear accidents are felt even decades after the accident with miscarraiges and deformed babies being born.

Not to mention also that it is still old thinking using a non-renewable resource (uranium rather than fossil fuel) for energy rather than clean renewable resources. Also the power received today is intermittent you just don't get affected by it because it is on a grid which is constantly over-supplied so that people will not suffer power shortages so if you put your wind and solar power energy sources on a grid you will not notice that it is intermittent just like how you don't notice it is intermittent now.
lonewolfpoet is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2009, 07:59 PM   #50 (permalink)
Mr.Indpendant

Junior Member
 
Lou_Dobbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 15
Representing:
Default

There has not been a year as hot as 1998 since 1998.

So the earth isn't really warming at all. In fact, it's cooling. But you Liberals keep believeing this BS and watching your powerpoint presentations. Al Gore has made about 100mil off Global Warming, don't know how any of you can see that and not think ''hmm I wonder if he actually cares about the world'' especially when he leaves all his lights on during Earth Hour. It's a scam people, it's about money and control.

There is no proven link between CO2 and the temperature of the earth.

Oh right I forgot the debate is over. lol, the debate is never over in science, in fact you are suppost to defend your views and that is something Al Gore refuses to do. Because he's too busy counting his money? probably. Con artist politician at his finest.
Lou_Dobbs is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nice read. hope it happens for him...someday Ammo Toronto Raptors 1 11-08-2009 10:30 PM
Change and Hope Ugo Ferst The Podium 50 03-06-2009 11:19 PM
Jayhawks in Ottawa MangoKidHoops Entertainment Lounge 18 09-08-2008 08:30 AM
The Nuggets Hope To Avoid NBA History Dr. J. Naismith NBA Talk 4 03-23-2008 09:41 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24