Climate change could kill ice hockey in Canada

[Badger Bob]

Originally Posted by 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

http://www.rtcc.org/about-us/

Ed King – Editor
Ed is editor of the Responding to Climate Change website, Climate Change TV and Respond Magazine. Before joining RTCC he worked as a journalist at BBC Radio 5 Live. He has a Masters in International Studies and Diplomacy from SOAS.

John Parnell – Reporter
John covers a wide cross-section of climate-related news with a particular focus on energy, technology, business and transport.
Before joining RTCC he was a technology and business journalist in the UAE. He edited media technology title Digital Broadcast Middle East and contributed to a number of other titles including ArabianBusiness.com, CommsMEA and ITP.net.

John studied Geography and Geophysics at Edinburgh University taking in a number of climate change related topics including remote sensing, biodiversity and paleoclimates. He also has a PGDip in Journalism from Napier University and gained work experience with BBC Radio, BBC Scotland and Associated Press.

In other words, neither of these clowns have any scientific or scholarly background on this subject. Yet, they're passed off as "experts." They're both journalists. The last section tries to create an illusion that John Parnell studied related subjects. Yeah, I took Earth Science in 9th without any further delusions.

It's interesting that the link, which you provided, was funded by HSBC - a multinational bank, with a history of drug money laundering. They have plenty of stock in maintaining the status quo with this scam. They stand to make substantial profits from trading of carbon futures and the windfall from carbon taxes.

Please do a better job of vetting your sources next time.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Frank MetaMusil

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

I don't get it, we should throw up our hands and accept our fate because there's nothing we can do about it?

Man this debate gets so dumb sometime. Nobody is saying we need to act on climate change because we're going to destroy the planet. We need to act on climate change because there will be significant repercussions for human civilization. Isn't that reason enough?

[troutman]

Do you need to be a climate scientist to make the argument that Big Oil has something to lose by carbon emission reductions?

Beyond that, this is a typical ad hominem fallacy. Related to that is the argument from authority.

http://www.skepdic.com/adhominem.html

This site lists a number of climate change scientists with impressive credentials, as contributors. Still, we have to more interested in what is being said, not who is saying it. We should give more weight to what an "expert" is saying, but not assume that the argument is correct.

Both sides are guilty of this.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php.../contributors/

[Badger Bob]

Originally Posted by troutman

Do you need to be a climate scientist to make the argument that Big Oil has something to lose by carbon emission reductions?

Beyond that, this is a typical ad hominem fallacy. Related to that is the argument from authority.

http://www.skepdic.com/adhominem.html

This was all worth, just for that link. That guy lectures about ad hominem attacks. Then he turns around and name-drops Charlie Sheen as skeptic of the "official" 9/11 story, and makes a witty allusion to Charlie Sheen's only areas of expertise in the areas of acting and prostitution. That's not an ad hominem attack though.

Incidentally, great effort was made to comouflage the backgrounds of those 2 key playersfrom that website, instead of just coming out and calling them journalists. Refer to it was an ad hominem attack, if you want, but we can just as easily assert that they're bought by Big Banking as operatives of Big Oil. Is oil a dirty business? You betcha, but none are dirtier than banking.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

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.

You seem to mis-understand what a scientific theory is. It's not just an idea, that's a hypothesis.

A theory is a robust idea or framework of ideas/concepts/etc that not only has explanatory power regarding observed phenomenon but is supported by a body of facts that have been repeatedly observed through observation or experimentation.

Human caused global warming could never be a "fact", the cause of an observed fact (the planet is warming) will always be a theory, be it human caused or caused by an overproduction of pocket warmers. Because that's what such a thing is called in science.

Evolution is a theory, but it is so well founded that its truth is virtually unassailable. Gravity is a theory, that doesn't mean there's a reason to doubt that tomorrow the earth will fly off into interplanetary space.

In the case of Evolution or Gravity it would be false to say we 100% understand them, but don't equate a lack of complete understanding with not knowing anything. EDIT: Or being at a point where the existing knowledge can easily be swept away.

In both cases, enough is known that any new theory that would supplant them would have to include them as part of the new theory. Gravity is a good example of this.. We know Newton's theory of gravity isn't correct. But it wasn't completely wrong either, Newtonian gravity is good enough to send probes all over the solar system. Newton's theory of gravity is excellent and near enough perfect in a specific range of conditions. But in some cases Newton isn't enough, if we go too fast the Newton's rules don't apply. Einstein's theories are better, but Einstein didn't invalidate Newton, Einstein just accounts for more possibilities and observations than does Newton.

The same is true of any other scientific theory. Because a theory is built upon facts (through observation and/or experimentation) and the theory has explanatory power for those facts, and the facts don't change, a new theory by necessity will have to not only explain the same facts that the current theory does, but do it better (by either explaining more facts, or explaining them with fewer variables, or something like that).

So any theory of global warming that would supplant the current scientific consensus would have to account for all the known facts and observations as well as explain more/better/etc.

Asimov wrote a nice essay on this called the Relativity of Wrong:

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscien...ityofwrong.htm

[Daradon]

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.

???



I don't know what else to say but...

You
Are
Wrong.

It has a large effect. It has been proven. And most likely, if we restore it to a more normal balance it will fix the problem. No, not overnight, but prevent it from getting to a point where it's doing human civilization harm, and maybe even restore it to more historically (human history that is of course) normal levels.

[Flame Of Liberty]

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).

Once carbon trading takes off, I think you will be very surprised how much money is in saving the Earth.

As for short term pains vs long term gains. Lets put aside the disagreement whether any action now will have any positive effect in the future, let's just assume it will.

Why exactly should we sacrifice ("endure pain") anything really, for the benefit of complete strangers living 100yrs from now? Excuse me for being ignorant, but I have exactly one life to live. I don't drive a gas guzzling SUV, don't heat my outdoor swimming pool, don't live in Al Gore's eco-super-mansion.

I don't feel I should pay a cent extra in energy cost so some dudes 100 from now can "benefit."

I'm pretty damn sure people 100 ago didn't give two hoots about us living 100 years after their time for a good damn reason - they standard of living was NOTHING compared to what we have now, we have no idea what kind of standard of living people will enjoy 100 from now.

Honestly we are like cavemen worried about burning wood in bonfires because it might hurt future civilization much advanced than we are. They will probably laugh at our futile attempts to change climate trends by driving priuses.

TL;DR don't give two hoots about people who will be born in 100 yrs. tough effin luck.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Once carbon trading takes off, I think you will be very surprised how much money is in saving the Earth.

As for short term pains vs long term gains. Lets put aside the disagreement whether any action now will have any positive effect in the future, let's just assume it does.

Why exactly should we sacrifice ("endure pain") anything really, for the benefit of complete strangers living 100yrs from now? Excuse me for being ignorant, but I have exactly one life to live. I don't drive a gas guzzling SUV, don't heat my outdoor swimming pool, don't live in Al Gore's eco-super-mansion.

I don't feel I should pay a cent extra in energy cost so some dudes 100 from now can "benefit."

I'm pretty damn sure people 100 ago didn't give two hoots about us living 100 years ago for a good damn reason - they standard of living was NOTHING compared to what we have now, we have no idea what kind of standard of living people will enjoy 100 from now.

Honestly we are like cavemen worried about burning wood in bonfires because it might hurt future civilization much advanced than we are. They will probably laugh at our futile attempts to change climate trends by driving priuses.

TL;DR don't give a two hoots about people who will be born in 100 yrs. tough effin luck.

One, most people would care about the future generations.

Two, all the rest would at least care about their kids and grandkids. Or if they didn't have any, the progeny of their family and friends.

Three, would be clear psychopaths, which recent studies do say may include as much as 10% of the population. Nothing to be ashamed of I guess, you can only be who you were born to be, but it certainly answers a lot of questions about some of your posts.

[Daradon]

As far as carbon trading taking off in the future, sure I could see it becoming very big business. But it's not there yet, and that's how things work. Every new industry replaces an old industry, every better way of doing things, will be, eventually replaced itself.

Circle of life. Now if the people in charge really wanted to build long lasting sustainable companies, they can do it, but as I said, rule of business in the 21st century seems to be make as much money as you can whether it's ethically or not, pull your golden parachute, and let the next guy deal with it.

Believe it or not there did used to be guys like Carnegie following in the examples of Lincoln and other politicians and inventors, who did advocate social responsibility and sustainability and actually improving mankind through business, instead of just amassing as much gold as possible. Now it does seem like many CEO's and politicians are just interested in their own 50 year span AGR. (After getting rich)

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Daradon

One, most people would care about the future generations.

Two, all the rest would at least care about their kids and grandkids. Or if they didn't have any, the progeny of their family and friends.

Three, would be clear psychopaths, which recent studies do say may include as much as 10% of the population. Nothing to be ashamed of I guess, you can only be who you were born to be, but it certainly answers a lot of questions about some of your posts.

haha figured that a hollier than thou reply will follow. Go ahead a sacrifice yourself, for your kids, friends, whoever. How about you leave other people alone? You may call them clear psychopaths if that makes you feel better.

saving the Earth with other people's money and lives is a noble cause I guess. I'm sure poor people in Brasilian slums cant wait to pay even higher energy cost so you can feel all mighty about future generations.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

haha figured that a hollier than thou reply will follow. Go ahead a sacrifice yourself, for your kids, friends, whoever. How about you leave other people alone? You may call them clear psychopaths if that makes you feel better.

saving the Earth with other people's money and lives is a noble cause I guess. I'm sure poor people in Brasilian slums cant wait to pay even higher energy cost so you can feel all mighty about future generations.

Holier than thou? No, people really actually do feel and act this way believe it or not. But you knew the response you were fishing for anyway.

And as far as people in slums having to pay higher energy costs, well I've already answered that. I've already admitted that the world does need cheap food and cheap energy, but there are ways to do both if we all get on the same page. It won't be easy, and there will be a little sacrifice, but it's not an all or nothing solution like many paint it out to be.

Lastly, believe it or not, many slums in developing worlds don't even have power... So I don't really know if you were seriously trying to suggest that you care about these folk and their environments or not. But it does show the disconnect I suggested you may have.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I don't get it, we should throw up our hands and accept our fate because there's nothing we can do about it?

Man this debate gets so dumb sometime. Nobody is saying we need to act on climate change because we're going to destroy the planet. We need to act on climate change because there will be significant repercussions for human civilization. Isn't that reason enough?

Ok, fair enough. Where does the discussion of natural disasters draw in then?

[Azure]

I'm still wondering how exactly I should sacrifice.

Not to mention everyone else. Families don't exactly have money to become more environmentally friendly. Budgets are usually tight. So what exactly should they do?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm still wondering how exactly I should sacrifice.

Not to mention everyone else. Families don't exactly have money to become more environmentally friendly. Budgets are usually tight. So what exactly should they do?

So you're saying to hell with future generations then because you don't want to sacrifice right now?

I'm often at quite a loss on whether people fully digest the consequences of inaction.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Holier than thou? No, people really actually do feel and act this way believe it or not. But you knew the response you were fishing for anyway.

And as far as people in slums having to pay higher energy costs, well I've already answered that. I've already admitted that the world does need cheap food and cheap energy, but there are ways to do both if we all get on the same page. It won't be easy, and there will be a little sacrifice, but it's not an all or nothing solution like many paint it out to be.

Lastly, believe it or not, many slums in developing worlds don't even have power... So I don't really know if you were seriously trying to suggest that you care about these folk and their environments or not. But it does show the disconnect I suggested you may have.

I don't feel like going into a deep intellectual debate as to how much connection I should feel with my poor brethren in Brazilian slums, because I find such debate pathetic especially coming from behind a computer screen (words are cheap)

However, I do feel that when I say the poor in Brazil don't think they should endure higher energy cost (and higher cost of everything since energy cost affect prices of everything) to benefit future generations - I am bang on.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm still wondering how exactly I should sacrifice.

Not to mention everyone else. Families don't exactly have money to become more environmentally friendly. Budgets are usually tight. So what exactly should they do?

You should make a few posts on CP about how deeply you care about future generations, that should about cover it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Families don't exactly have money to become more environmentally friendly.

That may be true but that doesn't have any impact on the discussion on if something should be done, and should be evaluated not in a vacuum, but in the context of what will happen if they don't do anything (to not do so is a variation on the nirvana fallacy).

So (for example) some people suggest to buy local and/or organic food (I'm not saying that's valid or right in every circumstance, it's just an example). The additional cost of buying organic now has to be compared to the future increase in food prices (if any).

Not an easy comparison, but the universe doesn't care how easy something is.

Originally Posted by Azure

So what exactly should they do?

There's tons of choices that an individual can make that helps that would make a huge difference if done in significant numbers, but I'm a pessimist that way and most people will just do what is easiest/cheapest/fastest.

So that's why I'm not necessarily against things like only having CFLs/LED lights available, or goverment standards for fuel economy (so instead of going from 200hp to 300hp in a sedan in 10 years maybe it stays at 200hp but goes from 10 to 7L/100km).

Pushing for more nuclear or retrofitting coal with NG would be a big step too.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm still wondering how exactly I should sacrifice.

Not to mention everyone else. Families don't exactly have money to become more environmentally friendly. Budgets are usually tight. So what exactly should they do?

Well that's exactly why a lot of it has to come from industry, or government regulation of industry.

The best thing for consumers though, is often to be more frugal, which of course helps save money too. Turn off the lights, waste less water, reuse stuff and don't purchase so much. Use more efficient appliances and vehicles. Some of those solutions also help drive industry change as they will cater to the consumer.

But it's also an understanding that if we want to fix the problems, we may have to pay more for power as we update or systems and supplies to more environmentally sound practices. Part of what has spoiled us in the first world is products that are so cheap they are not sustainable. We often put the burden on the developing nations. It will just have to be us being honest to ourselves in how we see ourselves in the system.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

You should make a few posts on CP about how deeply you care about future generations, that should about cover it.

Yes, that's ALL I do about it...

Ignoring you for the rest of this thread as you are in full on troll mode now.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by photon

Pushing for more nuclear or retrofitting coal with NG would be a big step too.

Not sure that's such a good idea given the Earth's decision to shift plates and cause a tsunami, which basically hosed Japan's health anyway. I might be one of the few that finds that ironic though.....