Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I don't know if climate change is either real or our fault, frankly I don't really care, as a species we are absurd, we crap where we eat with abandon, there's getting to be as much plastic in the ocean as there are fish, we drive round in absurdly large cars we don't need meanwhile a guy in Mexico who can barely feed his kids grows produce for me so cheap that I let 1/3rd of it go to waste and just throw it away.

None of this is neccersary, gas should cost a fortune, food should be expensive enough that we can't afford to waste it while the guy growing and picking it can live a decent life, most people should have to catch trains or buses, we should be forced to be a less wasteful more frugal people, half the world goes to bed hungry while I have a fridge damn near as big as a small car. My existence is obscene, I don't blame ISIS for hating us, I hate us. We are pigs in the west, if the fear of death is what it takes for us to stop being pigs so be it, I'm happy to go along.

Pretty much.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This is the kind of flippant dismissal that has turned the global warming issue into just another black and white partisan litmus test. It shall not be discussed is no way to treat any serious issue. Especially a science issue. The whole point of science is to relentlessly challenge every theory.

Cliff, you're resorting to your usual strawman by claiming that anyone is arguing that a topic should not be discussed.

1) How accurate are the models we're using to assess global temperature changes and projections?

2) To what degree are man-made activities responsible for any warming, and what other factors could be at play?

3) What is the range of effects that increases and decreases to carbon emissions are likely to have on climate?

4) How practical are alternatives to carbon-based energy sources in supplying the energy requirements of the planet?

Bring Back Shantz already answered this in probably the best way, but I'll just add that all of these questions have been answered on this forum alone on numerous occasions by many different members of the community. Furthermore the original comment got the response it deserved. Let's not pretend it was honest skepticism and scientific inquiry.

Unfortunately, dogmatic zealots use 'the science is settled' to stifle debate.

Ahh yes, the same dogmatic zealots who accept that the earth is round and the moon isn't made of cheese. What a rabid pack of wolves we are, those of us who demand evidence or at least some sort of reasoned analysis before we accept an argument. However once again though you've created a nifty little exaggeration of an argument and knocked it out cold. Good for you, but someone accusing someone of flying in the face of accepted science isn't the same as saying "the science is settled." I'm fully open to the possibility that someone, some day may be able to prove that climate change isn't man made, but as I myself am not climate sciences expert, I will be relying on the scientific community to verify that discovery, just as I have relied on it verify the current theories surrounding climate change. As others have mentioned, we're not talking about a 50/50 split here, the scientific community is overwhelmingly on the side of man-made climate change

You have the Gaia religionists, who idealize pre-industrial living and who crave certainty and piety just as surely as any fundamentalist Christian. And you have anti-capitalist activists, for whom a theory that justifies ratcheting down global industry and taxing trade is a godsend. These groups make up some of the most passionate advocates for reducing carbon emissions, and neither is known for being especially literate in science, or for being open to empiricism or nuance.

I'm not exactly sure what your point is here, but it's not like we're getting our scientific information from these groups. I look to NASA, the IPCC, scientific journals, etc. Those are the people I trust.

So I chuckle when the issue is framed as a science vs ignorance debate. Last time I checked there was a tremendous amount of overlap between the anti-vax crowd and global-warming activists.

Yes, there are plenty of people who selectively choose which scientific evidence they'll believe and that's cause for concern, but do you actually have a point?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

This is rube et al's Stalingrad. They don't know much about markets or policy beyond ideological baffle-gab but the climate change issue is such a perfect wind up for them to lose all semblance of decor and launch their favourite little snarky one-liners.

Thus decrees the king of pompous obfuscation and myopia!

Snarky enough for you?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I'm with Rubecube on this one.

Frankly, I know nothing about climate science and it's an area I'm utterly unequipped to deal with. There are simply some topics, important as they may be, where one must resign oneself to the miniscule risk that there's some grand conspiracy of experts who are all misleading us, and trust those experts. Obviously, the current state of climate science is defeasible, and any real scientist would accept the possibility, however remote it seems, that what appears scientifically certain may turn out not to be. But demands for further discussion on an issue we simply cannot adequately discuss without specific expertise are just an exercise in chasing our tails.

99% of experts believe X. I am prepared to take their word. This is in my view the only rational thing to do.

Separate from that, and more controversially I suppose I also have little doubt that the obfuscation on this topic, aided by its opacity to lay people, is being exploited by those whose interests are served by public uncertainty. It worked with cigarettes.

Now, all of that said, asking for more detailed explanations and trying to understand the nuance of what is apparently a nuanced issue should not result in one being branded anti-science, as that's clearly dogmatic thinking. If we're really headed down that path, we might as well ignore global warming, as we'll all probably destroy ourselves long before it becomes anything resembling an existential threat.

[blueski]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Why don't you believe that?
Do you have any experience, education or qualifications to make that determination, or is it just a gut feeling?

I'm guessing it's the latter, and as I said to Slave, that is the most irrational position you could possibly take.

Yeah I said earlier I downloaded the climate gate code and really took a good look at what they were doing with the raw data. It was complete BS.

Also, I've read a lot of Steven McIntyre's analysis on climateaudit.org and that has influenced me as well.

But I am open to changing my mind on this.

Biggest problem I have with this though is the whole notion of a carbon tax. This won't do anything to help. It's a political tax grab

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by blueski

Yeah I said earlier I downloaded the climate gate code and really took a good look at what they were doing with the raw data. It was complete BS.

Also, I've read a lot of Steven McIntyre's analysis on climateaudit.com and that has influenced me as well.

But I am open to changing my mind on this.

Biggest problem I have with this though is the whole notion of a carbon tax. This won't do anything to help. It's a political tax grab

The carbon tax is the biggest problem you have with climate change?????

[Buster]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I'm with Rubecube on this one.

Frankly, I know nothing about climate science and it's an area I'm utterly unequipped to deal with. There are simply some topics, important as they may be, where one must resign oneself to the miniscule risk that there's some grand conspiracy of experts who are all misleading us, and trust those experts. Obviously, the current state of climate science is defeasible, and any real scientist would accept the possibility, however remote it seems, that what appears scientifically certain may turn out not to be. But demands for further discussion on an issue we simply cannot adequately discuss without specific expertise are just an exercise in chasing our tails.

99% of experts believe X. I am prepared to take their word. This is in my view the only rational thing to do.

Separate from that, and more controversially I suppose I also have little doubt that the obfuscation on this topic, aided by its opacity to lay people, is being exploited by those whose interests are served by public uncertainty. It worked with cigarettes.

Now, all of that said, asking for more detailed explanations and trying to understand the nuance of what is apparently a nuanced issue should not result in one being branded anti-science, as that's clearly dogmatic thinking. If we're really headed down that path, we might as well ignore global warming, as we'll all probably destroy ourselves long before it becomes anything resembling an existential threat.

my nominee for post of the year.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Slava

I should redact my comments about global warming because heading outside today I have experienced it first-hand.

further demonstration of ignorance by confusing weather with climate

[Inferno099]

Originally Posted by blueski

Yeah I said earlier I downloaded the climate gate code and really took a good look at what they were doing with the raw data. It was complete BS.

Also, I've read a lot of Steven McIntyre's analysis on climateaudit.com and that has influenced me as well.

But I am open to changing my mind on this.

Biggest problem I have with this though is the whole notion of a carbon tax. This won't do anything to help. It's a political tax grab

I had not heard of this before.... website is climateaudit.org ?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The carbon tax is the biggest problem you have with climate change?????

None of the solutions posed to fighting climate change work. They are all designed to enrich businesses and/or governments and none of the commitments made now will have a significant enough effect to prevent warming.

So we all pay more money to provide lip service that we are doing something. This increases the out of energy to the developing world which increases poverty.

So yes the way we choose to fight climate change is the biggest problem with climate change.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

further demonstration of ignorance by confusing weather with climate

This is demonstration of ignorance by not understanding sarcasm.

[blueski]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

The carbon tax is the biggest problem you have with climate change?????

Yes, it will increase by more than 2% every year after 2018. It's a stealth PST.

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by blueski

Yes, it will increase by more than 2% every year after 2018. It's a stealth PST.

But! But it's revenue neutral!

[RougeUnderoos]

I know its fun to blame our woes on the climate change conspiracy and the dreaded carbon tax, but we are where we are without ever having done anything about climate change or paying a carbon tax.

We might have to find something else to blame this mess on. We can't (yet) blame it on lying scientists and socialists.

[heep223]

The best way to curb our impact on the planet is by staying closer to home and reducing consumption. Personally. Less air travel, less consumption of goods in general, and purchasing local food and product so it doesn't have to travel far. Also better planned cities and transit. Everyone who is passionate about climate change, are you willing to cancel that vacation because it adds to your carbon footprint? Pay 50% more for food that hasn't been trucked up from California? Take the bus to get groceries instead of drive?

The big untold story in my view on this, is even if N America, Europe and Japan made all these sweeping changes to address climate change...it's not nearly enough. The problem is that the vast majority of the global population doesn't give a rats ass about the planet, because they're just struggling to get by day to day and feed their families. It's the hierarchy of needs - developed countries care, because we have our basic needs met. Until the rest of the world is in the same position, nothing will change. Have you ever been to China? The place is a giant garbage dump. Burning coal all over the place. India? Garbage everywhere, in the streets, in the fields. Brazil? Well just google "Brazil Olympics health concerns". Russia? Pfft. These countries pay lip service and set targets and everything but it's just international political posturing. Until they can meet the basic needs of their populations nothing will ultimately change enough in the world to reverse the damage.

[V]

I think you and I have been to different Chinas.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by V

I think you and I have been to different Chinas.

That could be. There's at least two.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by heep223

The best way to curb our impact on the planet is by staying closer to home and reducing consumption. Personally. Less air travel, less consumption of goods in general, and purchasing local food and product so it doesn't have to travel far. Also better planned cities and transit. Everyone who is passionate about climate change, are you willing to cancel that vacation because it adds to your carbon footprint? Pay 50% more for food that hasn't been trucked up from California? Take the bus to get groceries instead of drive?

The big untold story in my view on this, is even if N America, Europe and Japan made all these sweeping changes to address climate change...it's not nearly enough. The problem is that the vast majority of the global population doesn't give a rats ass about the planet, because they're just struggling to get by day to day and feed their families. It's the hierarchy of needs - developed countries care, because we have our basic needs met. Until the rest of the world is in the same position, nothing will change. Have you ever been to China? The place is a giant garbage dump. Burning coal all over the place. India? Garbage everywhere, in the streets, in the fields. Brazil? Well just google "Brazil Olympics health concerns". Russia? Pfft. These countries pay lip service and set targets and everything but it's just international political posturing. Until they can meet the basic needs of their populations nothing will ultimately change enough in the world to reverse the damage.

A little bit of climate change is better than a lot of climate change. All efforts at reducing it will be worth it.

Abdication of responsibility to say "derp, hopeless", when there are clearly varying degrees of climate change. It's the basis behind 'pay now or pay later'.

The province can take a bit of a hit now to industry or they can take a huge hit when the province alternates between droughts and floods year to year.

The other aspect, is how can you possibly ask someone else to make the changes you yourself are not willing to make? Hypocritical.

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by V

I think you and I have been to different Chinas.

North China and South China. Just like the Koreas.

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by heep223

The best way to curb our impact on the planet is by staying closer to home and reducing consumption. Personally. Less air travel, less consumption of goods in general, and purchasing local food and product so it doesn't have to travel far. Also better planned cities and transit. Everyone who is passionate about climate change, are you willing to cancel that vacation because it adds to your carbon footprint? Pay 50% more for food that hasn't been trucked up from California? Take the bus to get groceries instead of drive?

The big untold story in my view on this, is even if N America, Europe and Japan made all these sweeping changes to address climate change...it's not nearly enough. The problem is that the vast majority of the global population doesn't give a rats ass about the planet, because they're just struggling to get by day to day and feed their families. It's the hierarchy of needs - developed countries care, because we have our basic needs met. Until the rest of the world is in the same position, nothing will change. Have you ever been to China? The place is a giant garbage dump. Burning coal all over the place. India? Garbage everywhere, in the streets, in the fields. Brazil? Well just google "Brazil Olympics health concerns". Russia? Pfft. These countries pay lip service and set targets and everything but it's just international political posturing. Until they can meet the basic needs of their populations nothing will ultimately change enough in the world to reverse the damage.

It's a bit like Westerners getting upset at poaching in a third world country. We don't want those pretty animinals to disappear, but Joe Blow who has a family of 8 in Rwanda has no means of making money or feeding his family if he doesn't shoot that gorilla, or burn some habitat for farming.