IPCC - UN AR5 Report on Climate Science

[Raekwon]

This sounds like a problem of the next generation or the one after that, I will be dead long before it affects me so who cares

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

This sounds like a problem of the next generation or the one after that, I will be dead long before it affects me so who cares

Do you have children?

[Bill Bumface]

Smoke stack to space?

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

God said in the bible that he wouldn't destroy the world again after doing so in Noah's flood.

So we don't have to worry about climate change.

LOL

The sad part is that a US politician actually uses that argument to oppose climate science.



Link

For which he was promoted... yay right wing!

EVEN IF there was a god and an ark and a Noah...he still got it wrong...

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

At what point does the IPCC stop focusing on the cause of climate change and switch their focus to solutions and tracking progress?
Debating the cause seems to have distracted everyone from debating the solution.

Uhh.... we TRIED going with "find solutions" before having political support. Kyoto fell apart. International agreements went completely ignored. Subsequent summits went absolutely nowhere. Politicians realized that what the electorate wants is STUFF. NOW. Enacting a policy that gives people less STUFF would be political suicide.

I have been working on climate change issues for 21 years now. We had solutions then.... we have even better solutions now.... but there still isn't enough political will to enact those solutions. Someone recently posted an article about the Germans regretting moving towards using less fossil fuels because of the increased cost. And that is a virtual certainty... green energy will cost more. More cost = less disposable income = less stuff = political suicide.

[Devils'Advocate]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HF9LNuH3IpU

[Vulcan]

pointing out that God promised Noah that he won’t destroy the Earth because of man’s wickedness.

God won't be destroying the earth, man is doing it, well at least as far as making it uninhabitable for us and some other species.

[SportsJunky]

The Calgary Herald has a poll on this asking something like "Do you agree with the findings of this report". Right now 52% of Calgary Herald readers that have voted do not agree. We should stop making fun of just the Americans.

[troutman]

Calgary is especially resistant to this news, as so many have their bread buttered by oil and gas.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by SportsJunky

The Calgary Herald has a poll on this asking something like "Do you agree with the findings of this report". Right now 52% of Calgary Herald readers that have voted do not agree. We should stop making fun of just the Americans.

It's actually one of those things that make me a little ashamed of where I grew up. Willful ignorance is embarrassing.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Uhh.... we TRIED going with "find solutions" before having political support. Kyoto fell apart. International agreements went completely ignored. Subsequent summits went absolutely nowhere. Politicians realized that what the electorate wants is STUFF. NOW. Enacting a policy that gives people less STUFF would be political suicide.

I have been working on climate change issues for 21 years now. We had solutions then.... we have even better solutions now.... but there still isn't enough political will to enact those solutions. Someone recently posted an article about the Germans regretting moving towards using less fossil fuels because of the increased cost. And that is a virtual certainty... green energy will cost more. More cost = less disposable income = less stuff = political suicide.

"Finding solutions" is about more than just legislating. That's the big problem I have with this situation. Sure, legislation can help, in a big way, but it doesn't have to be the be-all-and-end-all of the problem.

For example, did you know, that one of the few countries that has actually come close to meeting it's Kyoto Accord requirements, is the United States? There for awhile it was looking as if the US, even without ratifying the accord, had actually met the requirements, but now it looks like it just missed them, according to the google searches I was able to find on the matter.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/0...-embracing-it/
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10691

That represents a shift in public attitudes - without needing the votes in congress - and a massive change in both technology and the mix of energy available. The biggest help for the Kyoto accord goals, is fracking. That's right, the one thing that has demonstrably helped reducing CO2 emissions, is the evil fracking done by the evil oil and gas companies. The increase in Natural Gas use in opposition to coal has really helped reduce CO2 emissions in a more concrete way in the states than wind has.

The issue is that environmentalists are not pragmatic. They see a problem, but cannot see a real, workable solution. And the pragmatists who can see solutions, refuse to see a problem. This natural gas "solution" just sorta happened, but when it did, environmentalists denounced it because it was "big oil", and didn't even notice that it was working. Environmentalists don't really understand money or costs. Until they do, they are going to have trouble expressing their ideas to the rest of the people.

[edslunch]

I think many environmentalists would be shocked to visit a SAGD site and find it's not a moonscape surrounded by festering tailings ponds. It does use lots of water and energy so is in no way clean but it shows that progress is possible and can actually happen on its own.

[habernac]

I'd still rather have our so-called "dirty oil" than give another nickel to the backward country that is Saudi Arabia.

[CaptainCrunch]

Unless countries like China, the United States and emerging nations like India sign onto any program unconditionally the whole thing is pretty meaningless.

If its mid power countries that have to break their back on this then there's no point unless there's a concensus.

I think that with all the focus on Global warming its moved things like clean breathable air and clean water and clean oceans foolishly to the forgotten file.

For crying out loud we have an inch of top soil left.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's actually one of those things that make me a little ashamed of where I grew up. Willful ignorance is embarrassing.

That's too bad that an internet poll makes you ashamed of where you grew up.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Unless countries like China, the United States and emerging nations like India sign onto any program unconditionally the whole thing is pretty meaningless.

My refusing to buy a car and cycling to work each and every day in the grand scheme of things is pretty meaningless. But it's the right thing to do.

I think that with all the focus on Global warming its moved things like clean breathable air and clean water and clean oceans foolishly to the forgotten file. For crying out loud we have an inch of top soil left.

So we should just shut the F up about global warming and look into clean oceans? If we can't solve problem A with ALL of the focus, what makes you think we could resolve A, B, C, D and E if we looked at them all at the same time? All that does is muddy the waters and we make progress on NOTHING (which is actually nothing new... like I said climate change has been on the table for over 20 years).

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

That's too bad that an internet poll makes you ashamed of where you grew up.

The internet poll is a reflection of reality. What province is always at the bottom of poll questions asking if people believe in man made global warming?

[Mr.Coffee]

I am a Calgarian that works in oil and gas, my "bread is buttered" by the industry- so to speak.

I believe in the climate science and our contribution to it.

Now what? Do we have alternatives? What could they be?

What are we supposed to do? Do people REALLY grasp how intricately aligned all of our day-to-day lives are with petroleum products? Do people understand that, for pretty much all of us, our entire lives have been one enormous petroleum driven life? None of us even know how to live without it, or what that would be like. To have a winter or famine and, well, die. Transportation is out of the question unless we went back to horses. But the horses need stuff to eat which brings me to... food. Oh... yeah.

So anyway I think the science is nice, but what would be a lot more interesting are viable emission reduction solutions. They are there, sort of?

Can we please, in that instance with emissions being our goal, begin the discussion with COAL? Because yeah, we do have the technology to phase in a much cleaner alternate fuel.

[Devils'Advocate]

"Please don't go after the people that pay my bills. Go after those guys over there."



This is where Ontario wants to see itself in 2030. I think it is very overly optimistic, especially when they think they can get by with 14% LESS energy than today via "conservation". Especially if we move towards more electric vehicles. But the move away from fossil fuels (nothing but natural gas by 2030) is a welcome change. However, is it expensive? Absolutely. Can Ontario afford it? Probably not. Will the taxpayer accept the increased cost? Unlikely.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

"Please don't go after the people that pay my bills. Go after those guys over there."



This is where Ontario wants to see itself in 2030. I think it is very overly optimistic, especially when they think they can get by with 14% LESS energy than today via "conservation". Especially if we move towards more electric vehicles. But the move away from fossil fuels (nothing but natural gas by 2030) is a welcome change. However, is it expensive? Absolutely. Can Ontario afford it? Probably not. Will the taxpayer accept the increased cost? Unlikely.

Why would this cause a problem for reducing energy use?

I am hardly an expert, so my understanding could be flawed, but I was under the impression that electricity generated for the grid by any of our current means was far more efficient than a typical combustion engine.

Someone feel free to point out the flaws in my thinking.