Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum
Ivrnet

View Poll Results: What role do humans play in contributing to climate change?
Humans are the primary contributor to climate change 303 64.74%
Humans contribute to climate change, but not the main cause 123 26.28%
Not sure 26 5.56%
Climate change is a hoax 16 3.42%
Voters: 468. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-09-2019, 06:39 AM   #621
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Can you post sources if you are going to dump data points like that? All I could find for counts is this:
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml


Which only counts landfall, and ends at 2004 for some reason, but there is no trend seen here.
__________________
Air Canada - We're not happy until you're not happy.
Telus - Almost as bad as Winnipeg.
Calgary Roads Dept - Ya, we'll get to that.
Fuzz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2019, 06:54 AM   #622
New Era
Franchise Player
 
New Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
Except that's exactly what I'm talking about. Troutman's link says temperatures will get more extreme(and have been trending that way), which is what I'm taking issue with.
Except Troutman is correct. Globally temperatures continue to rise and we are witnessing extremes. I know its easy to ignore what is happening around the globe when it is not so bad in your backyard, but the extremes are being reached everywhere. Climate is shifting.

Quote:
Tornados: no, and I've never seen any evidence they are increasing in Alberta, have you? As far as I know the trend in the US isn't up at either. This doesn't really indicate it is:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-in...atology/trends
I dunno. When I was a kid I never saw or heard of a report of a tornado in Alberta. Now there are dozens a summer.

Quote:
Forest Fires: I'm not sure how you separate climate change, and not other issues like forestry management. If you can prove regions are getting hotter and drier, then ya, perhaps, but the last time I looked for that information I actually found most of BC had gotten wetter.
Oh, its a forest management issue. I get it. Everyone get out the rakes and lets clean out those forests! Them Norwaynians know how to deal with this mess! And wait, I thought the solution was to plant a trillion trees? Won't those trees exacerbate the forest management issue?

Quote:
Floods: Again, really crap management. We worry of flooding in Calgary, yet strip the Elbow headwaters of forests. I've yet to hear of any reasonable attribution of flooding to climate change where it wouldn't have been more likely caused by other factors like paving over the earth, putting people where they shouldn't be and deforestation. There is no increasing flooding trend in Calgary or area, certainly nothing you could say "climate change has caused these to be more frequent".
So where they are managing the forests it is responsible for floods, but when they keep the trees it is the cause of forest fires. You've yet to hear any reasonable attribution because you don't understand how these reports are written or what the data says. You wants a scientific report to come right out and say that x is causing y. That is not what research papers will ever say.

Quote:
I'll agree that all of these have been predicted, but I dispute the accuracy. I have yet to see any reasonable explanation, and correlation between events and rising temperatures. What does the IPCC have to say? I'll paste the whole section so I don't get accused of cherry picking.
You aren't interpreting what the report says with any accuracy. Again, these reports are not going to say that x is causing y. They are going to look at the data and determine whether there is confidence in a thesis/model coming to fruition and then explaining why the thesis/model may be inaccurate. The report identifies there is high confidence in the data for land-based temperature changes, and there is significant data to support the land-based precipitation models. Where the confidence is low is in the ocean-based models, which they explain could be related to a poleward shift in the main Northern and Southern Hemisphere extratropical storm tracks. Many of the low confidence areas they speak to are a result of lack of data to fully explore the issue. It is not them saying that they are not observing changes, it is just there is not enough of a longitudinal data set to make any conclusions.

Quote:
What this tells us is that there is large variability globally, and confidence in the predictions. So again, my POINT is that if they can't prove it for a specific region(namely, Alberta or Canada) stop attributing these disastrous effects when they are regional. All it does is make people say "well I'm not seeing that here, so the whole theory is BS." Be honest with the public. Use facts. That is going to include the perhaps uncomfortable position that climate change is actually going to improve life and prosperity for Canada(though not all regions, and there will also be negative effects).
The bolded is your position. You are not seeing anything in your backyard, so it is bull####. What you are ignoring are the effects around the world and outside your backyard. You're also looking for anything that will confirm your particular bias instead of letting the body of work of the entire community inform your understanding of the matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
This is the best research I could find:


https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-war...nd-hurricanes/


I won't post all the text, but you can read the summary in section F. Sounds fairly inconclusive.
You should have posted all of the report, because it does not say what you are suggesting. Again, these reports are not going to make a statement that x causes y. They are going to speak to the data and to what the evidence says. Sections A through E state what they observe and the data. The trend data is obvious in these sections.

Section F states:

"In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm activity support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. While one of our modeling studies projects a large (~100%) increase in Atlantic category 4-5 hurricanes over the 21st century, we estimate that such an increase would not be detectable until the latter half of the century, and we still have only low confidence that such an increase will occur in the Atlantic basin, based on an updated survey of subsequent modeling studies by our and other groups. A recent study finds that the observed increase in an Atlantic hurricane rapid intensification metric over 1982-2009 is highly unusual compared to one climate model’s simulation of internal multidecadal climate variability, and is consistent in sign with that model’s expected long-term response to anthropogenic forcing. These climate change detection results for rapid intensification metrics are suggestive but not definitive, and more research is needed for more confident conclusions."

The data suggests that numbers have not increased, but intensity has. The model suggests that a consistency in this state will not be achieved until later in the century. This means that they believe the numbers of hurricanes will not increase, but extreme nature of them will. This will include higher wind speeds and much greater rainfall. This will make them more severe and destructive in nature. The report also says that they have noticed a now pattern that is highly unusual but is consistent with the model. To determine the consistency of this unusual trend they are suggesting more research, data collections, and analysis is needed.

Yes, they make no absolute conclusions, but these papers never do. Science does not make absolute conclusions because that isn't how science works. Even gravity remains a theory that is tested and retested. Science will continue to re-examine the data and continue to report variations in data and models. It's what science does. The report does have a lot of information in it. You just have to read the whole report in context to understand what the report is saying. Jumping to the conclusions of the report usually doesn't tell the whole story as ultimate conclusions are not usually made. The data analysis in the body is more telling. I would spend more time in the weeds there and get a sense of the trend data to understand effects.
New Era is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2019, 07:39 AM   #623
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

^
You aren't worth having a discussion with, becuase you have assumed what my position is, and fail to read what I actually say. You say that I think the whole thing is BS, which I do not. You say I am countering global trends, but no, I am referring specifically to data in Canada. Maybe try to read my words before countering points I am not making. It seems to be a common tactic of people who don't want to discuss real data when it is inconvenient to the hysteria, and are zealots in their defence such that sweeping general claims are the only way to get their point across. Science is about discussing the anomalies. It isn't a religion.



That, and your interpretation of the last point is baffling. You bold the last part of the sentence, which is the part that agrees with what you are saying, but the entire sentence from beginning says the opposite of what you are saying. Here ya go, maybe read it 3 times, the whole sentence this time: "In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm activity support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic". Bolding the last bit makes it look like the opposite of what it says.


And forgive me for not putting any weight in what a model is saying will happen in 50 years. Nonsense.


Anyway, you refuse to actually read what I write, and put your spin on my thoughts, so I'm not going to carry on with you.
__________________
Air Canada - We're not happy until you're not happy.
Telus - Almost as bad as Winnipeg.
Calgary Roads Dept - Ya, we'll get to that.
Fuzz is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Old 07-09-2019, 07:48 AM   #624
Ark2
Franchise Player
 
Ark2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
^
That, and your interpretation of the last point is baffling. You bold the last part of the sentence, which is the part that agrees with what you are saying, but the entire sentence from beginning says the opposite of what you are saying. Here ya go, maybe read it 3 times, the whole sentence this time: "In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm activity support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic". Bolding the last bit makes it look like the opposite of what it says.
I thought that was pretty hilarious. Reminded me of this:

Ark2 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Ark2 For This Useful Post:
Old 07-09-2019, 11:53 AM   #625
New Era
Franchise Player
 
New Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
^
You aren't worth having a discussion with, becuase you have assumed what my position is, and fail to read what I actually say. You say that I think the whole thing is BS, which I do not. You say I am countering global trends, but no, I am referring specifically to data in Canada. Maybe try to read my words before countering points I am not making. It seems to be a common tactic of people who don't want to discuss real data when it is inconvenient to the hysteria, and are zealots in their defence such that sweeping general claims are the only way to get their point across. Science is about discussing the anomalies. It isn't a religion.
I'm making an assumption on the approach you take to discussing the issue. All science appears to be wrong. That is a consistency of your posts and links and its because of your observations of the local community and then suggesting that isolated measurements are respective to a whole study. Science is about studying a topic and applying the scientific method to it. Discussion of anomalies is more along the line of rationalism more so than empiricism which the scientific method follows.

Quote:
That, and your interpretation of the last point is baffling. You bold the last part of the sentence, which is the part that agrees with what you are saying, but the entire sentence from beginning says the opposite of what you are saying. Here ya go, maybe read it 3 times, the whole sentence this time: "In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm activity support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic". Bolding the last bit makes it look like the opposite of what it says.
That was not the intent. The intent was to show that the report does say that one thing - that the number of hurricanes are not increasing - but that the it also said a much more. It is easy to look at the conclusion from the report and think it says that the numbers are not increasing and make the assumption that this a good thing and that climate science is bogus. But the rest of the report shows clear trend information to provide more information that could this statement may ultimately be irrelevant. If the result we more, but less powerful storms, that would probably be a livable outcome. But the report indicates that frequency is likely to remain consistent, with the intensity and the associated effects of these storms increasing and becoming much more severe.

Quote:
And forgive me for not putting any weight in what a model is saying will happen in 50 years. Nonsense.
You should. That is how the scientific method works. A hypothesis is proposed then experiments are carried out to determine if the original hypothesis is correct. Models are essentially hypothesis built on what the data shows and ultimately what we are to test against. If the model shows where we are headed, and further testing confirms the model, we should be very concerned if the longer term model has negative outcomes that we can avoid through proper action. We should be wary of these models, as it was model from 50 years ago that predicted the current state we find ourselves.

Quote:
Anyway, you refuse to actually read what I write, and put your spin on my thoughts, so I'm not going to carry on with you.
That's unfortunate, but fine. It isn't spin, its just looking at the information holistically and trying to correct an interpretation of the data. Believe what you like and argue what you like. Rationalism usually wins out in these politicized debates anyways.
New Era is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2019, 02:08 PM   #626
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Some facts on why the energy transition is such a tough problem, and why we can't count on solar, wind, or batteries to get us out of it(baring some transformational discovery).


https://fee.org/articles/41-inconven...nergy-economy/
__________________
Air Canada - We're not happy until you're not happy.
Telus - Almost as bad as Winnipeg.
Calgary Roads Dept - Ya, we'll get to that.
Fuzz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2019, 09:32 AM   #627
New Era
Franchise Player
 
New Era's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
Some facts on why the energy transition is such a tough problem, and why we can't count on solar, wind, or batteries to get us out of it(baring some transformational discovery).


https://fee.org/articles/41-inconven...nergy-economy/
Interesting article, but I see quite a few problems with it. I'm sure this will just be construed as spin, but let's look at this article critically, starting with the source and author.

The Foundation for Economic Education is a libertarian think tank. The Foundation was founded by Ayn Rand devotee Leonard Read, with initial trustees from Honolulu Oil Company, General Motors, DuPont, Chrysler and Southern California Edison Company. This think tank has received funding from the Charles G. Koch Foundation, Donors Trust, and Donors Capital Fund.

The author, Mark P. Mills, is a partner at Cottonwood Venture Partners, an oilfield venture fund. He was also the former chief tech strategist for Digital Power Capital, a venture fund that was an affiliate of Wexford Capital LLC.
Mills is also a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and writes for Forbes on the issues of energy and technology. Mills is the co-author of "The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy," a book that echos many of the same statements made in this article.

The article itself is nothing but platitudes and statements that have no support or explanation behind them. This is standard think tank pedagogy at work. Make a statement, many of which are fallacious, but do it convincingly and no one will argue against them. Use confusing unrelated issues to make a statement or an argument for/against a third concept. Some examples.

1. Hydrocarbons supply over 80 percent of world energy: If all that were in the form of oil, the barrels would line up from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles, and that entire line would grow by the height of the Washington Monument every week.

Wonderful imagery, but so what? This is nothing but a statement about the current state of our energy and energy use practices. This does not address nor support the point Gates was making.

6. Replacing U.S. hydrocarbon-based electric generation over the next 30 years would require a construction program building out the grid at a rate 14-fold greater than any time in history.

Okay. So he's arguing against investment in this much needed infrastructure improvement project for what reason? Because it would be hard? We should be taking this on because we are meeting a demand. For example, of the seven largest hydroelectric dams in the United States only one was built after 1961. Maybe it is time we started to reinvest in America and started leveraging the hydro resources to meet demand. The last nuclear plant built in the US was in 1977. The last one licensed was in 1996 (tells you how long these things take to get operational). We need to travel down these roads regardless of how tough the go may be.

7. Eliminating hydrocarbons to make U.S. electricity (impossible soon, infeasible for decades) would leave untouched 70 percent of U.S. hydrocarbons use—America uses 16 percent of world energy.

What does that even mean??? Eliminating hydrocarbons leaves hydrocarbons untouched? Yes. It does. They stay in the ground and do not release problematic byproducts. Unrelated factoid tacked on at the end, America uses 16% of the world energy.

24. Wind and solar machines produce energy an average of 25 percent–30 percent of the time, and only when nature permits. Conventional power plants can operate nearly continuously and are available when needed.

Yup, those are limitations of the technology. They are a supplemental technology. We should be increasing capacity of sources that can meet consumption demands. This means more hydro and more nuclear. We need technology advances in both of those areas to meet needs as well.

29. If batteries scaled like digital tech, a battery the size of a book, costing three cents, could power a jetliner to Asia. That only happens in comic books.

As Thomas Watson, CEO of IBM, famously once said, "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." It is hard to look into the future and understand what technology will look like, and it is hard to predict the incredible advances that humans can develop when challenged.

There are others, but the article is a collection of inflammatory and misleading statements meant to discourage support for any possible changes in our approach to energy development and use.
New Era is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2019, 09:41 AM   #628
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

It's just a listing of facts. Sure, their is a bit of spin on them, but the facts speak for themselves. It's not an easy problem. It's also pointing out that expecting innovation to deal with the issues like battery size and weight is wishful thinking. We shouldn't be depending on those advances to save us. What facts are wrong?



As for hydro, good luck. The reason new hydro isn't being made is because the prime locations are already taken, and hydro has it's own impacts, including pretty unpopular revocations of people and stress on wildlife. Nuclear, I agree, we need much more investment there. It's expensive, but unlike solar and wind, it is reliable as baseload, which is what is needed. Unfortunately it doesn't respond to changing supply easily, so isn't a great paring for variable renewable sources.
__________________
Air Canada - We're not happy until you're not happy.
Telus - Almost as bad as Winnipeg.
Calgary Roads Dept - Ya, we'll get to that.
Fuzz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2019, 10:21 AM   #629
Cowboy89
#1 Goaltender
 
Cowboy89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: NW Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
Interesting article, but I see quite a few problems with it. I'm sure this will just be construed as spin, but let's look at this article critically, starting with the source and author.

The Foundation for Economic Education is a libertarian think tank. The Foundation was founded by Ayn Rand devotee Leonard Read, with initial trustees from Honolulu Oil Company, General Motors, DuPont, Chrysler and Southern California Edison Company. This think tank has received funding from the Charles G. Koch Foundation, Donors Trust, and Donors Capital Fund.

The author, Mark P. Mills, is a partner at Cottonwood Venture Partners, an oilfield venture fund. He was also the former chief tech strategist for Digital Power Capital, a venture fund that was an affiliate of Wexford Capital LLC.
Mills is also a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and writes for Forbes on the issues of energy and technology. Mills is the co-author of "The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy," a book that echos many of the same statements made in this article.

The article itself is nothing but platitudes and statements that have no support or explanation behind them. This is standard think tank pedagogy at work. Make a statement, many of which are fallacious, but do it convincingly and no one will argue against them. Use confusing unrelated issues to make a statement or an argument for/against a third concept. Some examples.

1. Hydrocarbons supply over 80 percent of world energy: If all that were in the form of oil, the barrels would line up from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles, and that entire line would grow by the height of the Washington Monument every week.

Wonderful imagery, but so what? This is nothing but a statement about the current state of our energy and energy use practices. This does not address nor support the point Gates was making.

6. Replacing U.S. hydrocarbon-based electric generation over the next 30 years would require a construction program building out the grid at a rate 14-fold greater than any time in history.

Okay. So he's arguing against investment in this much needed infrastructure improvement project for what reason? Because it would be hard? We should be taking this on because we are meeting a demand. For example, of the seven largest hydroelectric dams in the United States only one was built after 1961. Maybe it is time we started to reinvest in America and started leveraging the hydro resources to meet demand. The last nuclear plant built in the US was in 1977. The last one licensed was in 1996 (tells you how long these things take to get operational). We need to travel down these roads regardless of how tough the go may be.

7. Eliminating hydrocarbons to make U.S. electricity (impossible soon, infeasible for decades) would leave untouched 70 percent of U.S. hydrocarbons use—America uses 16 percent of world energy.

What does that even mean??? Eliminating hydrocarbons leaves hydrocarbons untouched? Yes. It does. They stay in the ground and do not release problematic byproducts. Unrelated factoid tacked on at the end, America uses 16% of the world energy.

24. Wind and solar machines produce energy an average of 25 percent–30 percent of the time, and only when nature permits. Conventional power plants can operate nearly continuously and are available when needed.

Yup, those are limitations of the technology. They are a supplemental technology. We should be increasing capacity of sources that can meet consumption demands. This means more hydro and more nuclear. We need technology advances in both of those areas to meet needs as well.

29. If batteries scaled like digital tech, a battery the size of a book, costing three cents, could power a jetliner to Asia. That only happens in comic books.

As Thomas Watson, CEO of IBM, famously once said, "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." It is hard to look into the future and understand what technology will look like, and it is hard to predict the incredible advances that humans can develop when challenged.

There are others, but the article is a collection of inflammatory and misleading statements meant to discourage support for any possible changes in our approach to energy development and use.
So basically there's 41 truths in the article. You post an ad hominem of the author and then level weak criticisms at only a handful of the truths and then conclude that even though we would require what currently could be interpreted as sorcery to replace the current and future energy needs of the world in any timeframe being demanded by the Green New Deal folks, that we should still spend infinite amount of resources immediately because 'tech accomplished wonderful things in the past, who knows what we could innovate in the future if we put our minds to it!' This despite numerous instances in the article where the physics, economics, and innovation challenges are put into perspective in contrast relative to tech's advancement how completely unrealistic those expectations are.

Quite frankly the biggest problem I find with the climate change solutions debates is that undermining our current standard of living and the extreme harm that would do to humanity is never given a proper consideration when contrasted with the apocalyptic climate scenarios. Personally I'm many times more worried that my kids and their kids will grow up in a mad max distopian world not created by climate change, but rather by failed economic experiments attempting to 'solve' climate change.
Cowboy89 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Cowboy89 For This Useful Post:
Old 07-10-2019, 10:42 AM   #630
zamler
Franchise Player
 
zamler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Exp:
Default

Maybe there is no alternative to oil and the population we can support with green energy is 1 billion people.
zamler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2019, 07:53 AM   #631
GordonBlue
First Line Centre
 
GordonBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Alberta
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler View Post
Maybe there is no alternative to oil and the population we can support with green energy is 1 billion people.
that would provide a lot of Soylent Green, at least.
GordonBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2019, 08:59 AM   #632
Bunk
Franchise Player
 
Bunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Exp:
Default

Can we just rename the thread “climate change thread: a demonstration of confirmation bias”
__________________
Trust the snake.
Bunk is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bunk For This Useful Post:
Old 07-11-2019, 10:13 AM   #633
troutman
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
 
troutman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Winebar Kensington
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy89 View Post
Quite frankly the biggest problem I find with the climate change solutions debates is that undermining our current standard of living and the extreme harm that would do to humanity is never given a proper consideration when contrasted with the apocalyptic climate scenarios. Personally I'm many times more worried that my kids and their kids will grow up in a mad max distopian world not created by climate change, but rather by failed economic experiments attempting to 'solve' climate change.
If we are wise, there are green strategies that will grow the economy and protect the environment. It does not have to be one or the other.
__________________
http://nwcalgarylaw.com/
http://cjsw.com/program/fossil-records/
twitter/instagram @troutman1966
troutman is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
Old 07-11-2019, 10:18 AM   #634
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman View Post
If we are wise, there are green strategies that will grow the economy and protect the environment. It does not have to be one or the other.
There are, but the reality is there are none that will get us anywhere near containing the CO2 issue without devastating the global economy(which is what that fact list was mostly pointing out). I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing things and it is hopeless, but our current technology doesn't allow us to get anywhere close to solving the issue. Sadly large scale geoengineering may be our best hope. Which is kind of terrifying in itself.
__________________
Air Canada - We're not happy until you're not happy.
Telus - Almost as bad as Winnipeg.
Calgary Roads Dept - Ya, we'll get to that.
Fuzz is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Old 07-11-2019, 01:12 PM   #635
Cowboy89
#1 Goaltender
 
Cowboy89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: NW Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman View Post
If we are wise, there are green strategies that will grow the economy and protect the environment. It does not have to be one or the other.
There are not currently green strategies that exist that grow the economy and reduce emissions in a meaningful enough way to achieve the goals set out by the Paris protocol. Proponents of that platitude are counting on something or processes to be developed that do not currently exist. Otherwise government wouldn't have to do anything. Capital would already be flowing in droves at these projects because they would be economical.
Cowboy89 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Cowboy89 For This Useful Post:
Old 07-11-2019, 03:49 PM   #636
SeeGeeWhy
First Line Centre
 
SeeGeeWhy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

We can't put it back to the way it was, and frankly we were supremely lucky to have a 3 million year run with such a stable climate given the earth's history. We aren't the first lifeform to have caused global level climate change... now is the chance for us to learn how to adapt to such changes.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biff View Post
If the NHL ever needs an enema, Edmonton is where they'll insert it.
SeeGeeWhy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2019, 06:26 PM   #637
Snuffleupagus
First Line Centre
 
Snuffleupagus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy View Post
We can't put it back to the way it was, and frankly we were supremely lucky to have a 3 million year run with such a stable climate given the earth's history. We aren't the first lifeform to have caused global level climate change... now is the chance for us to learn how to adapt to such changes.
Did any of these other life forms do global climate change in a 150 years? That's all it took for us.
Snuffleupagus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2019, 06:48 PM   #638
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

They weren't very bootstrappy.
__________________
Air Canada - We're not happy until you're not happy.
Telus - Almost as bad as Winnipeg.
Calgary Roads Dept - Ya, we'll get to that.
Fuzz is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Old 07-11-2019, 07:04 PM   #639
#-3
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunk View Post
Can we just rename the thread “climate change thread: a demonstration of confirmation bias”
i'm might go with, motivated reasoning?

Think allot of it is attribution error in reality, that turns into motivated reasoning, which drives confirmation bias. Many people in Calgary have heavily participate and personally profited from climate damaging industries. They also know and understand themselves to be generally good people. In a subconscious way its hard for them to accept the things that have been so good for such a good and thoughtful person as themselves could be drive existential risk. They are unknowingly attributing responsibility for large structural problems to their own identity and jumping on any opportunity to justify something that is objectively harmful in an effort to reconcile the harm with the fact that they believe themselves to be a good person. This is what causes a very smart engineer to stand in front of me with a straight face and tell me we propbably can wait untill CO2 reaches 7000ppm to start worrying.
#-3 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
Old 07-11-2019, 07:12 PM   #640
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Albertan's are no more responsible than New Yorkers or Torontonians are. Come on. I'm tired of getting blamed for the climate problems. Take Alberta away and there would be zero difference. This is on everyone. Pointing fingers at Albertans and trying to expose us as some sort of hypocrite, while consuming just as much as us is not helping anything.
__________________
Air Canada - We're not happy until you're not happy.
Telus - Almost as bad as Winnipeg.
Calgary Roads Dept - Ya, we'll get to that.

Last edited by Fuzz; 07-11-2019 at 07:15 PM.
Fuzz is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:36 AM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016