Climate change could kill ice hockey in Canada

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by troutman

Not just that - I think many people in the industry can't contemplate that there may be blood on their hands. Guilt avoidance.

Come on you can't be serious.

[Daradon]

While there is industry advancement there are also lots of example of companies that also don't even meet the bare requirements for their regulatory bodies or take shortcuts that end up becoming big disasters or problems later.

There is also huge lobbies that constantly fight for more relaxed regulations rather than improving the industry and their company.

So while there are some good guys I would say yes, there are more bad guys either dragging their heels or actively fighting to keep the status quo and every dollar they can.

Consumers can drive progress and in some ways we have in the suto industry, but we can't do it all ourselves.

[polak]

Yes there are bad apples in every bunch.

Enviromentalists are no better.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by polak

Yes there are bad apples in every bunch.

Enviromentalists are no better.

How is that comparable? Even if what you say it's true, which I would argue it's not, the effect environmentalists have on the lives of others is far less than the effect of the industry leaders. In many ways, it's beneficial.

People just like to get mad at those who raise a stink or tell them they need to do things differently (or better), that's really all your comment is saying.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Daradon

How is that comparable? Even if what you say it's true, which I would argue it's not, the effect environmentalists have on the lives of others is far less than the effect of the industry leaders. In many ways, it's beneficial.

People just like to get mad at those who raise a stink or tell them they need to do things differently (or better), that's really all your comment is saying.

Obviously they don't exhert as much influence because they're not in control but when you look at the "Bad apples" on an individual basis, from person to person, it's the same idea.

Eco-terrorists are no better then corrupt O&G execs.

Also as an aside, Enviromentalists who have no grasp on economics are the most annoying people on the entire planet. If they all disappeared it would be the happiest day of my life. I would organize a petition to turn the day into an international holiday of celebration and joy. These types of people without a doubt out number the similarly uninformed in the O&G industry.

[Tinordi]

Straw men haven't worked so now we're into the brave new world of false equivalencies.

So predictable.

[Daradon]

Eco-terrorists are a different breed and I'll give you that, but I do find a bit of hypocrisy in a system that goes after those people as criminals, but only fines the decision makers of companies who flaunt and break rules causing massive ecological damage and in many cases much sickness and death. That's even if they get fined.

As for environmentalists who don't understand economics, yes I also dislike that. Any environmental movement must have people that can see both sides and make the most responsible decisions for their communities and the world, and often that is a compromise. The world DOES need cheap energy and cheap food. The idealists on the environmental side often ignore that.

For me I just want to see good discussion on these issues, and when it comes to the climate change deniers, they really have lost the battle. Just give it up already, it's been proven, you're dead wrong.

Now we just need to discuss how industry, government, and consumer can all come together to find the least painful path that still is drastic enough to make the changes we need to prevent what could become the worlds biggest problem.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Straw men haven't worked so now we're into the brave new world of false equivalencies.

So predictable.

You know who is predictable?

You.

Every post you have made in this thread is a "holier than thou" joke. Do you think you're being witty with your one line quips? Do you think you're helping your cause in anyway? I'm almost certian that even the people that agree with you wish you would shut up.

We get it. You don't consider any sort of disagreement on any aspect of enviromentalism as worthy of your time or response. Your view on this issue is immaculate. You can stop with your pretentious, useless posts.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Eco-terrorists are a different breed and I'll give you that, but I do find a bit of hypocrisy in a system that goes after those people as criminals, but only fines the decision makers of companies who flaunt and break rules causing massive ecological damage and in many cases much sickness and death. That's even if they get fined.

As for environmentalists who don't understand economics, yes I also dislike that. Any environmental movement must have people that can see both sides and make the most responsible decisions for their communities and the world, and often that is a compromise. The world DOES need cheap energy and cheap food. The idealists on the environmental side often ignore that.

For me I just want to see good discussion on these issues, and when it comes to the climate change deniers, they really have lost the battle. Just give it up already, it's been proven, you're dead wrong.

Now we just need to discuss how industry, government, and consumer can all come together to find the least painful path that still is drastic enough to make the changes we need to prevent what could become the worlds biggest problem.

I agree with literally everything in this post.

I might have come-off as anti-enviromentalist but I'm really not. I'm just a realist. I can't just sit by and watch random finger pointing with out any realistic solutions being offered and I can't stand the chicken little's either.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by WCan_Kid

Is it these evil power brokers dragging their heels, or simply that a vast majority of people aren't willing to give up everything that relies on energy from fossil fuels to solve a problem that we may or may not have any ability to control at this point?

You have to be complete idiot to think humans won't have a negative impact on the environment, but how many of the global warming evangelists are willing to put their money where their mouth is instead of simply passing the responsibility on to someone else?

We have too many people consuming too much stuff, are you ready to give up everything that requires fossil fuels in the hope that we can reverse the damage done? Or, is it is easier to argue in favor of simply transferring money around and calling it "doing something"?

I think if some people were to set aside their undeserved arrogance for a few minutes they might realize that they're really not smarter than the average bear, they just haven't realized that others just want them shut up so they can continue focusing on a practical solution that doesn't require stepping back to the stone age and trying again.

Who's being arrogant here? You're pretending to know all the answers in this post. You're the arrogant one.

Example 1: People don't want to give up fossil fuels. Wrong. People don't want to give up the energy services that fossil fuels provide. There are substitutes to fossil fuels. They are more expensive, but, fossil fuels are artificially cheap when we account for their planet wrecking cost to say the agricultural sector. So solutions exist here.

Example 2: Global evangelists are the problem because they aren't leading by example. This is a systemic level issue that no amount of personal action will rectify. So long as we subsidize car dependent built environments in cities and highways, so long as we demand that fossil fuels be underpriced from their true market cost, so long as government's systematically attempt to underprice the marginal cost of electricity and other fuel commodities no amount of individual action will lead to squat. This is a rhetorical trick you've invoked to promote stasis and inaction. "It's not worth doing anything because the people who say we should be doing something aren't doing anything." That trick doesn't hold water because the people who are not acting are not in positions of authority to make real change happen. You're demonizing the wrong people in an attempt to discredit their message not to find solutions.

Example 3: We are consuming too much stuff and giving up fossil fuels will mean we revert to the stone age. Utterly false. Numerous modelling exercises (hundreds) have shown that amibtious carbon reduction actions are still consistent with economic growth and consumption. If Canada were to reduce it's GHG's by 50% by 2050 it would lead to an annual GHG hit of 0.2% per year but still growing at a health 1.3%. This is analysis conducted by the National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy. You're just spewing uneducated bilge.

There are thousands of very smart people are that committed to reducing the GHG intensity of our economies and there are lots of answers. The do nothing crowd as represented by yourself consistent show a whole scale vacancy of knowledge on the topic.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Daradon

For me I just want to see good discussion on these issues, and when it comes to the climate change deniers, they really have lost the battle. Just give it up already, it's been proven, you're dead wrong.

LOL find anyone that denys the climate is changing. Everyone realizes that it's changing. The debate is just how much is caused by man and how much is cyclical. We simply still don't understand enough to draw any definitive conclusions as scientists are still don't have definitive answers for past solar cycles let alone the current one. There is no doubt man is contributing somewhat by the increase in greenhouse gasses but even the most qualified scientist couldn't tell you exactly how much or how siginifcant just their own theories.

Mix this in the lack of full knowledge with politics and it's impossible to decipher truth from lies as there's two sides to the argument and both sides have have something to gain financially from the outcome wether it be oil companies that want consumers to keep burning oil or politicians looking for an angle to gain votes, scientists looking for funding, companies with alternate power/air cleaning technologies, etc that benefit greatly from a shift in energy consumption laws. I don't have much faith in man knowing that greed, money, and power are without a doubt the main motivators in all politics and business and I'm simply going to go with history here until the global warming movement can prove without a doubt that man is the reason for global warming.

[Tinordi]

I don't have much faith in man knowing that greed, money, and power are without a doubt the main motivators in all politics and business and I'm simply going to go with history here until the global warming movement can prove without a doubt that man is the reason for global warming.

I'm not going to get into the debate that it is proven that man made emissions are the primary forcing agent of global temperature change. If you don't believe that by now you never will. Your burden of proof threshold is irrationally high. Why? Well see below:

Do you buy home insurance?

If so why?

You have no proof that your house is going to burn down. If your standards for action on climate change were logically associated to your other personal activities you couldn't justify buying home insurance because there was no proof that your activities or those of others would put your house as risk of burning down.

Acting on climate is a form of insurance. We've postulated that there is potentially a huge pile of oily rags next to our house. It may not catch fire and we would avoid the small costs of acting. Or we could take out an insurance premium and act.

The premium analogy works well here. Most modelling has shown that acting to reduce GHGs would take up about 2-5% of total global growth. That's about what you pay for home insurance on your income.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

LOL find anyone that denys the climate is changing. Everyone realizes that it's changing. The debate is just how much is caused by man and how much is cyclical. We simply still don't understand enough to draw any definitive conclusions as scientists are still don't have definitive answers for past solar cycles let alone the current one. There is no doubt man is contributing somewhat by the increase in greenhouse gasses but even the most qualified scientist couldn't tell you exactly how much or how siginifcant just their own theories.

Mix this in the lack of full knowledge with politics and it's impossible to decipher truth from lies as there's two sides to the argument and both sides have have something to gain financially from the outcome wether it be oil companies that want consumers to keep burning oil or politicians looking for an angle to gain votes, scientists looking for funding, companies with alternate power/air cleaning technologies, etc that benefit greatly from a shift in energy consumption laws. I don't have much faith in man knowing that greed, money, and power are without a doubt the main motivators in all politics and business and I'm simply going to go with history here until the global warming movement can prove without a doubt that man is the reason for global warming.

But that's what I've saying, and I said it in my first post. Man made climate change. I've just shortened it cause it's a lot to write everytime.

Look, the expert who was hired by the Koch brothers recently recanted his research and said he was wrong, even the talking heads on Fox News are starting to admit it is man made. Current global warming trends is at the least SERIOUSLY contributed to by humans and at the worst, almost completely causing it. It's proven. Period. The science has only gotten better since they started looking at the 80's. There have been hiccups along the way, but the science is there. It doesn't matter what the politicians or capitalists are saying, THE SCIENCE IS THERE!

And for greedy scientists or environmental firms, as I said last page, the fact that they are driving a conspiracy or acting solely on greed makes no sense. There's just not that much money there. It makes far more sense that any conspiracy or greed is driven by people who are currently benefiting greatly from the status quo. Again, this conversation about which side has it right or who is more at fault is a false equivalency.

So any conversation about the legitimacy of man made climate change is just delaying us from the real question (and possibly hurting our chances of fixing it). The question being, 'what do we do now? and how can we all work together to do it?'

And of course they want to delay the question. Just like cigarette makers wanted to delay the question, and every other group with a ton of cash that saw the end coming.

The stupid thing is, if we start to take small changes to fix things now, and energy firms branch out into other areas, they can still live as industry leaders and we can solve environmental problems too. Short term pain for long term gain. But no, the model of business in the 21st century is squeeze every last cent out, drop out with your golden parachute, and let the next guy worry about sustainability of the company (and possibly the bigger problems about damage to the world).

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Come on you can't be serious.

Didn't like my post? Let me explain better what I mean.

Knowing a lot of career petroleum professionals as most if us do, I am struck by how many in this group have great difficulty with the accepted scientific theory. These are largely men and women of science, engineers, geologists, chemists etc trained in the scientific method. When this subject comes up, many are quick to abandon critical thinking methods, and employ numerous logical fallacies. It seems to me the rejection of the theory is not based on science, but on political, economic and personal biases.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by troutman

Didn't like my post? Let me explain better what I mean.

Knowing a lot of career petroleum professionals as most if us do, I am struck by how many in this group have great difficulty with the accepted scientific theory. These are largely men and women of science, engineers, geologists, chemists etc trained in the scientific method. When this subject comes up, many are quick to abandon critical thinking methods, and employ numerous logical fallacies. It seems to me the rejection of the theory is not based on science, but on political, economic and personal biases.

So in other words you are giving me your opionion what is going on in the minds of petroleum professionals? Thanks for you opinion I guess. And isn't accepted scientific theory still just a theory? As I said before nobody has definitive proof just theories and I don't trust politicians or suits.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Daradon

But that's what I've saying, and I said it in my first post. Man made climate change. I've just shortened it cause it's a lot to write everytime.

Look, the expert who was hired by the Koch brothers recently recanted his research and said he was wrong, even the talking heads on Fox News are starting to admit it is man made. Current global warming trends is at the least SERIOUSLY contributed to by humans and at the worst, almost completely causing it. It's proven. Period. The science has only gotten better since they started looking at the 80's. There have been hiccups along the way, but the science is there. It doesn't matter what the politicians or capitalists are saying, THE SCIENCE IS THERE!

And for greedy scientists or environmental firms, as I said last page, the fact that they are driving a conspiracy or acting solely on greed makes no sense. There's just not that much money there. It makes far more sense that any conspiracy or greed is driven by people who are currently benefiting greatly from the status quo. Again, this conversation about which side has it right or who is more at fault is a false equivalency.

So any conversation about the legitimacy of man made climate change is just delaying us from the real question (and possibly hurting our chances of fixing it). The question being, 'what do we do now? and how can we all work together to do it?'

And of course they want to delay the question. Just like cigarette makers wanted to delay the question, and every other group with a ton of cash that saw the end coming.

The stupid thing is, if we start to take small changes to fix things now, and energy firms branch out into other areas, they can still live as industry leaders and we can solve environmental problems too. Short term pain for long term gain. But no, the model of business in the 21st century is squeeze every last cent out, drop out with your golden parachute, and let the next guy worry about sustainability of the company (and possibly the bigger problems about damage to the world).

Man cannot fix it. Man does not control the climate. Period, end of story. Man can change what they put in the atmosphere which may have a very small degree of input but climate will eventually change regardless.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

So in other words you are giving me your opionion what is going on in the minds of petroleum professionals? Thanks for you opinion I guess. And isn't accepted scientific theory still just a theory? As I said before nobody has definitive proof just theories.

No, I am just speculating as to what reasons cause people to resist the theory. Every person is different and would have their own reasons. This group in particular is interesting to me. My father (and his peers) are esteemed petroleum professionals, and I have been party to many interesting conversations.

"Theory" has a specific scientific meaning - in common parlance, people equate "theory" with something being merely provisional. In science, "theory" can approach fact with enough evidence. Ex. it is a theory that the earth goes around the sun.

[Badger Bob]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

I can't see any video as I'm at work at the moment. But I'll check it out later. I presume that the video answers most of the questions I asked,

It did address some of the important points raised in this thread.

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

however, I'm guessing it doesn't answer the last one: what you do for a living.

You mean me, specifically? I'm a Manufacturing Engineer. Not sure howthat matters, as far as this discussion is concerned, but we can be transparent.

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Name calling? Really?

"Denier," "Strawmen," and maybe there were others earlier in the thread.

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

So, citing Wiki is the coup de grace.

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

There are lots of websites that debunk this film or at least significant parts of it.

If you want to argue about who's generously compensated, it's those in the "Climate Change" crowd. People earn livings doing this all day. Their purposes is to create doubt, not allow others the opportunity to research and decide for themselves. Look at the incrimating emails from the so-called "Climategate" fallout. Then, there was a second round. No gloating from the other side, but the hard left, like Mother Jones magazine, expected everybody to just forget it ever happened.

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

I thought the part about the poor, developing nations was frankly pathetic. That's not to suggest that all of it should be dismissed, but also it shouldn't be swallowed hook, line and sinker either.

Nobody claimed it was end all/be all. By the same token, look at the accolades that "An Inconvenient Truth" received. If anybody had the time or inclination, they could just as easily devote energy to shooting aspects on that full of holes.

Putting this all aside for a moment, look at how reporters and columnists have handled the issue. First it was "Global Warming." When individual weather conditions didn't fit the profile, a new term was coined, "Climate Change." A story came out around July that it was "the hottest summer on record." What a shock, that temperatures reach 90 degrees fahrenheit during mid summer! The week after the media blitz, the heat wave had dissapated. Temperatures reduced to lower 80's in northeast, midwest and eastern seaboard. The stories disappeared until Hurricane Sandy.

Climate is always changing. Nobody's "denying" that fact. Like somebody else mentioned, it's about man's impact.

[Tinordi]

Yes clearly the guys with nothing to lose would have nothing to gain by fomenting the spectre of doubt and conspiracy.

http://www.rtcc.org/climate-ambition...mber_210731388

Oil and gas multinationals could lose up to 60% of their market value if the world cuts its carbon emissions to limit climate change, according to the world’s second-largest bank.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Man cannot fix it. Man does not control the climate. Period, end of story. Man can change what they put in the atmosphere which may have a very small degree of input but climate will eventually change regardless.

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drifts, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles, hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets, asteroids, & meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages..... The planet isn't going anywhere, we are.


-Carlin