The end is nigh...

[caboose56]

Forum Sponsor

Agreed. I try to explain this to people but before I can make my point clear they blast me for being an enemy of mother nature who is trying to justify pollution. The propaganda machine has done it's job and made a belief in global warming synonymous with being "the good guys".

Of course!

There's no middle ground on this subject.

You're either a liberal moron who buys into Gore/Suzuki propaganda or you're a conservative moron who believes the Earth is a resource to be pillaged for rich people to become richer (and also that the Earth is flat).

 

[Clem]

It appears as though Al Gore never said anything like that. Rather, Rush Limbaugh, bastion of unbiased information, claims through an undisclosed source a quote from someone who overheard a friend of Gore's casually described him as believing in a 10-year "frying pan" scenario.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2006/01/27/algore_we_have_ten_years_left_before_earth_cooks

At one point Rush had a doomsday clock on his site. Removed now, likely as a result of threats of litigation. The GW deniers have posted a screenshot here along with attendant tin foil hattery;
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2667790/posts

Since Gore never said any such thing (that we know of), Rush used the date of his post as the start day for the countdown. If Gore ever said any such thing, the 10 year countdown is likely over already.

But don't let me ruin your end of days party. Carry on...

Rush certainly did piggy back on his comments but Gore made the claim.

At the time he posted “within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return, a true planetary emergency.” At the time he was promoting his movie so I guess it was great marketing

 

[Kri$han]

The thing that gets me about all of this is the hypocrisy. It's well documented that Al Gore has the carbon footprint of a small hamlet and David Suzuki is not far behind him. David owns four homes and has invested in a development property in a pristine area of BC jointly with an oil and gas company.

I use to ride past his main home in Kitsilano. Its overlooking the Yacht Club and English bay on a double lot. It must be at least 10,000 square foot and in that area I would assume it has be worth close to 10 million if not more.

I guess condemning and vilifying other peoples excess is fine, just as long as they don't have to make personal sacrifices themselves

Al Gore's enormous house has been reported, and his hypocrisy has been revealed many times over (although his efforts for research and exposure/awareness of global climate change are surely honorable), HOWEVER thou shall not speak ill of David Suzuki. That man is brilliant.

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/pa...gations-pollute-the-well-of-public-discourse/

 

[Clem]

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/pa...gations-pollute-the-well-of-public-discourse/

Ha Ha. Love it. And of course since that piece was published on David's web site its completely non partisan

I have posted on the foundation web site before but they have some rather interesting commenting guidelines. If you disagree with David it gets deleted

 

[RockerGuy]

We have increased technology to reach difficult to access deposits of these fuels and as we burn them we release the fixed carbon much faster than natural release.

We also have technology to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere but there is no $$ in it. I remember reading an article in Popular Mechanics about 5 yrs ago about getting rid of the CO2. Pretty interesting read. A quick google has lead me to see a progression in this thinking.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/green-tech/a18637/new-material-sponges-up-co2-like-a-dream/


So yes, the end is not nigh.
People should be funding more research instead of just focusing in blatant reduction of use. There is probably more $ bitching about it than finding a solution

 

[CruisnGrrl]

Plus the earth goes through heating & cooling phases. If we were alive when the last ice age was around we would say it was global warming when it was heating up. Last winter was brutal, we didn't say it was global warming.

Last winter was only brutal for north eastern North America. The rest of the globe saw higher than normal temperatures

 

[Brian_S]

This video is a must to watch. The lecturer is Ivan Giaever a Nobel Prize Winner. You be the judge ...

[video=youtube;Dk60CUkf3Kw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk60CUkf3Kw[/video]

 

[Clem]

There is probably more $ bitching about it than finding a solution

Very true. Canada sent 300 people to the climate change summit in Paris. You can't tell me that wasn't simply a bit of a jolly. http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/the-pr...than-300-delegates-to-climate-talks-1.2686239

Have you actually heard of anything actionable that came out of that summit that governments are already executing on? Its been radio silence since the day it ended

 

[LePhillou]

Who the FAK cares about FAKKING climate change. It's the beast that takes on different names and causes. This one is climate change, as mentioned before there were other causes.

The idea behind it and what's really important is to CLEAN THE FAK UP.

Pollute less, use cleaner energy, keep our water cleaner, eat less meat (less meat = less cattle = less deforestation = more trees = more oxygen...oxygen good, methane bad) be more efficient about the energy we use.

Instead of consuming like big fat fakkers, lets try to Lean up a little and run a better, tidier ship.

That's what i personally see behind all these movements, run tidier, run cleaner, less clutter.

Because yes, we're running out of fossil fuels, and yes our waters a more polluted, and yes massive deforestation is happening and is a problem AND IS CAUSE BY US.

Even if you can't [adhere to] [prove] [make claims about] climate change, these 3 causes alone are reason enough to think ahead and find solution to solve these problems that affect all of us, cause we all need water and oxygen to live. And well... i think it's kinda clear that we are very dependent on fossil fuels to run our modern societies.

/end rant

 

[ZX600]

Have you actually heard of anything actionable that came out of that summit that governments are already executing on? Its been radio silence since the day it ended

Nothing is going to be executed until the "Paris agreement" a global agreement on the reduction of climate change is signed by at least 55 countries between April 2016 and April 2017. It does not take a month or so to Implement these kinds of changes.

This is why I like the Clinton initiative, they get stuff done by commitments from participants and not by the consensus of entire country governments,

What I like about what Gore did, was bring the topic to light, there is a climate and pollution issue caused by Humans, the extent of the issue can be argued depending of your opinion.

 

[Kri$han]

That's what i personally see behind all these movements, run tidier, run cleaner, less clutter.

Because yes, we're running out of fossil fuels, and yes our waters a more polluted, and yes massive deforestation is happening and is a problem AND IS CAUSE BY US.

Even if you can't [adhere to] [prove] [make claims about] climate change, these 3 causes alone are reason enough to think ahead and find solution to solve these problems that affect all of us, cause we all need water and oxygen to live. And well... i think it's kinda clear that we are very dependent on fossil fuels to run our modern societies.

/end rant

YES!!! and MORE MOTORCYCLES and bicycles! Use less gas, and lets spend more money on making motorcycles pollute cleaner... we already have vehicles capable of less than 5 l/100km, yet the government imposes no new regulations or laws to encourage people to ride bikes.

Ha Ha. Love it. And of course since that piece was published on David's web site its completely non partisan

Well, it's not his organization, nor is he an employee of the foundation. Also, if you read the page, it clarifies the false allegations that David Suzuki is somehow collaborating with oil companies for his own profit. But I'm sure you bringing up the point about censoring public postings on their webboard is somehow relevant to your original claim that he is not a credible advocate for environmental protection and advocacy.

 

[AF4iK]

Who the FAK cares about FAKKING climate change. It's the beast that takes on different names and causes. This one is climate change, as mentioned before there were other causes.

The idea behind it and what's really important is to CLEAN THE FAK UP.

Pollute less, use cleaner energy, keep our water cleaner, eat less meat (less meat = less cattle = less deforestation = more trees = more oxygen...oxygen good, methane bad) be more efficient about the energy we use.

Instead of consuming like big fat fakkers, lets try to Lean up a little and run a better, tidier ship.

That's what i personally see behind all these movements, run tidier, run cleaner, less clutter.

Because yes, we're running out of fossil fuels, and yes our waters a more polluted, and yes massive deforestation is happening and is a problem AND IS CAUSE BY US.

Even if you can't [adhere to] [prove] [make claims about] climate change, these 3 causes alone are reason enough to think ahead and find solution to solve these problems that affect all of us, cause we all need water and oxygen to live. And well... i think it's kinda clear that we are very dependent on fossil fuels to run our modern societies.

/end rant

Completely agree.

What I disagree with is disseminating theories as facts to support any cause good or bad. IMHO we shouldn't abandon ethical conduct just because we think our cause is just.

 

[Clem]

Well, it's not his organization, nor is he an employee of the foundation. Also, if you read the page, it clarifies the false allegations that David Suzuki is somehow collaborating with oil companies for his own profit. But I'm sure you bringing up the point about censoring public postings on their webboard is somehow relevant to your original claim that he is not a credible advocate for environmental protection and advocacy.

Not any more. He was asked to step down because of the conflict of interest. It amazes me how this guy fishes people in, and most of them are fairly intelligent. Bass Pro Shops sell a good squeeze out hook remover

My post on the board was a genuine question.


"What was the reason ocean temperature added to data, and is it possible that new data caused a rise in the trend line? Its no longer comparing apples to apples when you compare the data pre and post the addition of ocean temperatures. Do you believe you would need a much larger sample size than a couple of years for the trend line to stabilize?"

Its a valid question. Clearly its easier to delete my post than respond when you don't have a clue.

Greg Flato who runs Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis and is a proponent of climate change addresses this question in depth. But I guess he is a real scientist.

BTW. Have I posted in this thread that climate change is a myth. No. I would just prefer to look at data from someone who knows what they are doing and can validate it. Not some joker prostituting himself spouting off sound bites for anyone willing to pay

 

[fastar1]

This video is a must to watch. The lecturer is Ivan Giaever a Nobel Prize Winner. You be the judge ...

[video=youtube;Dk60CUkf3Kw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk60CUkf3Kw[/video]

Note to those who may be tricked into viewing this, it is anything but a must-watch.

He says there's no way an average global temperature can be known, so it's bunk. He's never asked anybody "how do you do that?"

He puts up a graph that shows an increase in temperate and declares "The temperature has not increased"

He says something about there being only 8 thermometers in Antarctica, which he figures isn't enough.

He doesn't understand there doesn't need to be an "optimal temperature" for the planet, simply any big enough change puts us at risk.

The kicker is when he says "it's absolutely not true" to straw-man arguments he makes up about the "world going to pot".

The word 'absolute' has a very specific meaning in science, and he is very clearly not being scientific in his analysis at any point.

 

[Delboy]

Al Gore's enormous house has been reported, and his hypocrisy has been revealed many times over (although his efforts for research and exposure/awareness of global climate change are surely honorable), HOWEVER thou shall not speak ill of David Suzuki. That man is brilliant.

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/blogs/pa...gations-pollute-the-well-of-public-discourse/

We used to do a lot of the production work for the nature of things and in general most of the ideas come from independent producers, that's why it covers such a wide gamut from climate, to medical marijuana, to the the Iditarod, to Winston Churchill's handling of the Palestinian crisis in the 1930's to the Swissair 111 crash. I would describe it more as community access television on a grand scale. Go pitch your idea, you might get lucky.

Suzuki does the voice over and the odd on camera appearance. He's the host, in the same way Don Cherry has a hosting spot on Hockey Night In Canada. There were half a dozen hosts before him, I'm sure it will continue after he's gone. Its not his show, its not his ideas.

I always found him to be a crusty old bugger who is more worried about who will pay for his lunch or taxi home than actual science. There are real scientists working on climate change, I'd probably leave it up to them rather that someone doing voice over work on TV. Might as well listen to Jenny McCarthy.... Oh wait!

BTW. I personally think climate change is real, just not Suzuki's version

 

[jc100]

Not to stick my nose in the middle of your debate but I just want to point out that your response is typical of what I was describing. Why is it that not blindly buying into "global warming" means that I must believe humans aren't having any effect on our environment? At least for me it's quite the opposite. I just don't think there's compelling enough evidence to support the notion of "global warming" as an imminent threat. Doesn't mean I don't care. My beef is with this questionable claim not the idealism behind it (unless that idealism is money).

What I'm actually saying is that I firmly believe that, compared to a natural progression involving gasses that contribute to global warming, humans have had an impact mainly due to exploitation of fossil fuels and possibly also mass deforestation. What that means in terms of impact on our daily lives and a timeline is up for debate but there is a timeline and there will be an impact on our daily lives. I tend to think of this like the frog in a pan of water heated to boiling point compared to the frog thrown into already boiling water....in one of these cases the danger is absolutely apparent immediately, in the other it's only apparent when it's too late.

 

[LePhillou]

Completely agree.

What I disagree with is disseminating theories as facts to support any cause good or bad. IMHO we shouldn't abandon ethical conduct just because we think our cause is just.

It's like a religion.
One broader cause to solve all the problems you want it to solve. So you get more people behind it. Get more traction and power. So even if a cause/problem isn't that important to you, if you see that it gets solved, because it's under the same umbrella, it'll give you hope that your specific cause might get the same resolution/closure.

If anyone has seen book of Eli,that's concept. They try to find a 'bible' every decade to get people to follow.

 

[Brian_S]

Note to those who may be tricked into viewing this, it is anything but a must-watch.

He says there's no way an average global temperature can be known, so it's bunk. He's never asked anybody "how do you do that?"

He puts up a graph that shows an increase in temperate and declares "The temperature has not increased"

He says something about there being only 8 thermometers in Antarctica, which he figures isn't enough.

He doesn't understand there doesn't need to be an "optimal temperature" for the planet, simply any big enough change puts us at risk.

The kicker is when he says "it's absolutely not true" to straw-man arguments he makes up about the "world going to pot".

The word 'absolute' has a very specific meaning in science, and he is very clearly not being scientific in his analysis at any point.

I guess he doesn't know what a hell he is talking about ... all those years of scientific work, research, experience and being awarded with Nobel prize is a cover up of a one true charlatan and nonsense preacher. We should better study Al's work and listen some of his enlightenment speeches.

 

[fastar1]

I guess he doesn't know what a hell he is talking about ... all those years of scientific work, research, experience and being awarded with Nobel prize is a cover up of a one true charlatan and nonsense preacher. We should better study Al's work and listen some of his enlightenment speeches.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

 

[Delboy]

It's like a religion.
If anyone has seen book of Eli,that's concept. They try to find a 'bible' every decade to get people to follow.

Yes, and we all know how well that turned out

But you're right. Even in the last 500 years when mankind was supposedly becoming enlightened there have been a number spring up - Sikhism, Morman's even L. Ron Hubbard got into the act in the 1950's.

I don't know if it worse having to listen to someone proselytizing for or against climate change, or Tom Cruise proselytizing Scientology. It's like being stuck in a lift with a Jehovah's Witness.

Well, I guess i can wait for that ban after insulting half the board

Forum Sponsor