Toews speaks out on climate change in Instagram post

[photon]

Originally Posted by stamps

Here is how wind energy , an unreliable form of energy , is paid for .... lets hope the Alberta government jumps on this model ... http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...idies-billions ....

What has that got to do with the veracity of climate science?

[stamps]

Climate change is the justification for wind and solar subsidies ... here is a forbes article on solar ..... https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffrey.../#22943acd491e ....

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by stamps

Climate change is the justification for wind and solar subsidies. Here is a forbes article on solar: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffrey.../#22943acd491e

There you go. You don't need to put four dots between every thought. Just one and then a capital letter!

[stamps]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

There you go. You don't need to put four dots between every thought. Just one and then a capital letter!

It's just a style of writing ... I call it dotcom .... it is an art that I'm developing.. and , it's constantly evolving ... there are no sentences ... it constantly flows ... never ending .... infinite ....

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by stamps

Here is how wind energy , an unreliable form of energy , is paid for .... lets hope the Alberta government jumps on this model ... http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...idies-billions ....

Ugh.. wtf was that. The rebel has less biased reporting.

[photon]

Originally Posted by stamps

Climate change is the justification for wind and solar subsidies ... here is a forbes article on solar ..... https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffrey.../#22943acd491e ....

Again, so? People use lots of things to justify other things, that doesn't undermine the veracity of the thing.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by stamps

Climate change is the justification for wind and solar subsidies ... here is a forbes article on solar

Do fossil fuels subsidies grind your gears as much as solar?

[stamps]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Do fossil fuels subsidies grind your gears as much as solar?

I'm fine with subsidizing something that will have a long term benefit ... I do not believe the amount of money poured into wind and solar is giving us the best bang for our buck .... that money should be funneled to research and development towards other alternatives .... nuclear maybe ... thorium ... ??? .... I have faith we can come up with something better ...

[DuffMan]

I think Trump may have a high level position for you in his administration.

[stamps]

Originally Posted by photon

Again, so? People use lots of things to justify other things, that doesn't undermine the veracity of the thing.

The whole issue with Co2 and climate change is a little overblown IMO ...

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by stamps

The whole issue with Co2 and climate change is a little overblown IMO ...

Where does your opinion factor into the scientific models again?

[stamps]

Historical levels of co2 , from what I have read , have been as high as 7000ppm ... We are currently at about 400ppm .... I think we dump into the atmosphere about an extra 4% a year on top of natural co2 emissions through our burning of fossil fuels ... I do not believe that in the short term (100 years) it is an issue ... anything longer would probably not be good ... my issue is what we are doing today with solar and wind alternatives and the amount of money that is being poured into them... we could be using that money to further develop an existing clean (as in co2) energy source like nuclear ... or something else ???

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by stamps

Historical levels of co2 , from what I have read , have been as high as 7000ppm ... We are currently at about 400ppm .... I think we dump into the atmosphere about an extra 4% a year on top of natural co2 emissions through our burning of fossil fuels ... I do not believe that in the short term (100 years) it is an issue ... anything longer would probably not be good ... my issue is what we are doing today with solar and wind alternatives and the amount of money that is being poured into them... we could be using that money to further develop an existing clean (as in co2) energy source like nuclear ... or something else ???

I understand where you're coming from but the science does not agree. You're only considering one variable (carbon dioxide amount), when in fact you need to consider the system as a whole to understand the effect of that one variable (i.e. What was the geothermal activity? What was the plant life activity? How was the sun behaving?). These things are being studied thoroughly and the general scientific consensus is that, yes, human caused climate change is a big deal. Carbon dioxide is only one part of the analysis however.

Another point in the conversation that is often missed is that water vapour itself is the most abundant greenhouse gas. Humanity is significantly affecting the water vapour all over the world and this is causing some serious changes to the global ecology. For example, I agree that nuclear is a viable option but current nuclear plants are serious water vapour emitters. Similarly, agriculture is brutal for this but it's sorta necessary to, you know, keep us all alive. All avenues for energy generation should be investigated and optimized to create a go forward strategy.

My main point with all of this is that it is imperative that we continue as a species to investigate and understand the true effects we have on our home. Individuals who deny this or seek to cut scientific efforts are at best short-sighted or at worst, willingly destroying the world for a few bucks.

[photon]

Just because CO2 levels were higher in the past doesn't mean that that that's an environment we want to live in; the last time CO2 was this high humans didn't even exist. CO2 in thousands of ppm doesn't mean life is extinct, it just means that the environment and the life that was adapted to it was different. There's also other factors than just CO2, solar output increases over the life of the sun. The further back in time you go, the lower the output of the sun so as a result the lower average temperature with a given amount of CO2 (all else being equal).

[EldrickOnIce]

Pretty hard to argue... that it isn't cyclical.... we're just speeding up the next... extinction of life on the planet..... by a couple billion years...

[stamps]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Pretty hard to argue... that it isn't cyclical.... we're just speeding up the next... extinction of life on the planet..... by a couple billion years...

Edit: .... Pretty hard to argue that it isn't cyclical ... we're just speeding up the next extinction of life on the planet .... by a couple of billion years ......

[jammies]

Originally Posted by stamps

It's just a style of writing ... I call it dotcom .... it is an art that I'm developing.. and , it's constantly evolving ... there are no sentences ... it constantly flows ... never ending .... infinite ....

Maybe painting would work better for you.