Is man made climate change real?

[imdoo'n]

so why does Canada have the need to go broke, reducing "climate change" , in Canada when we emit less than !% of the worlds air pollution? unless the worlds largest polluters start reducing, we have absolutely no effect on climate change in any capacity other than to virtue signal. wonder how that is working for the great Trudy with China? lol,

keep drinking that soy!!!!

 

[whoDEANie]

Lets just keep calling it a hoax until we end up like China and have reduced solar output because of smog.

https://www.cnet.com/news/chinas-pollution-is-so-bad-its-blocking-the-sunlight-from-solar-panels/

That's a completely different topic. No doubt we need to reduce pollution, but the debate is weather CO2 emissions are really that big of a deal, particularly in terms of climate change.

 

[Teth-Air]

Lets just keep calling it a hoax until we end up like China and have reduced solar output because of smog.

https://www.cnet.com/news/chinas-pollution-is-so-bad-its-blocking-the-sunlight-from-solar-panels/

I think the problem is that many people jump far to one side or the other of this very polarizing subject. There must be some rationalization in the approach to the entire idea that we are killing our planet. I'm sure nobody wants to destroy and pollute the planet but everybody believes they are doing the right thing and the problem is everybody else. Johnny look at you for example, we can call you a tree hugger for driving an electric car or we can call you a polluter because you ride sleds and also drive a diesel truck, it's all perspective. All we need to do as a nation and as individual's is look at what we are doing now and find some way to improve it by a small margin. This should be viewed as something we should continually improve at and never consider to be done and satisfied. Take a look at all the improvements that you have seen over the last 30 years; auto emissions, fuel economy, lead gone from gasoline, LED lighting, bottle recycling, waste recycling etc. "The Sky is Falling" approach is just as bad as saying that man has or cannot have any impact on the state of the Earth. There are many things we are not willing to give up even when we know they are bad for the planet. Jet engines for example are a terrible polluter. I for one will not complain about them until I am ready to give up my next sun vacation. As for China, yes there is a problem but they are no more guilty than the West, 50-100 years ago. They must learn the hard way and hopefully there is still time for recovery after they do learn.

 

[whoDEANie]

so why does Canada have the need to go broke, reducing "climate change" , in Canada when we emit less than !% of the worlds air pollution? unless the worlds largest polluters start reducing, we have absolutely no effect on climate change in any capacity other than to virtue signal. wonder how that is working for the great Trudy with China? lol,

keep drinking that soy!!!!

I strongly oppose the climate change alarmists, but this isn't the greatest argument. Sure Canada produces less than 1% of the world's CO2 emissions, but we have only 0.48% of the world's population making us pretty high emitter when you look at it per capita.

 

[team dirt]

I just don’t believe how .041 % of our atmosphere can control the changing of our climate. Also these as$hats can’t predict today’s weather. How are they to predict years out. The greatest wealth transfer scheme of all time.

 

[jhurkot]

I just don’t believe how .041 % of our atmosphere can control the changing of our climate. Also these as$hats can’t predict today’s weather. How are they to predict years out. The greatest wealth transfer scheme of all time.

You might not believe it. That's why we have science. Facts > beliefs.

 

[Mike270412]

That's a completely different topic. No doubt we need to reduce pollution, but the debate is weather CO2 emissions are really that big of a deal, particularly in terms of climate change.

Exactly ! CO2 is a colorless odorless gas. It doesn't make smog and it actually makes green things greener.

 

[whoDEANie]

You might not believe it. That's why we have science. Facts > beliefs.

The problem is that there is no science. Much of the "science" used to support man made climate change is baseless, uses falsified data, or neglects to acknowledge significant factors when building their models. You do realize that a single volcanic eruption can completely negate the effect of all carbon reduction initiatives since its inception?

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world's volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide.

To top it off, key UN officials have publicly admitted that the motive for carbox taxation has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with global wealth redistribution. In fact, the whole concept is just a tool that is being used by globalists to achieve a one-world government. ...a communist one-world government at that.

 

[lilduke]

technology exist's that could remove ALL the co2 if we wanted to, but that is a really bad idea. Carbon tax is a huge scam.
https://youtu.be/XHX9pmQ6m_s

 

[lilduke]

china is a big Country. the whole place isn't covered in smog. just put a few of those carbon plants in the cities and go to go.

 

[team dirt]

Facts can be skewed real easy depending on who is financing the results. It’s my beliefs that decide what facts I listen to and that’s the beauty of the free world that seems to be slowly slipping away. Through my career I am directly involved in numerous environmental initiatives from methane venting reduction to BTEX capture and kill. I also do a fair bit in solar and work in gas engine peaked power generation. Most of the environmental is rob Peter to pay Paul senario. Solar will kill this province as the peaker plants come on with demand when wind suddenly dies or sun isn’t shining and are usually paid around 1000$/mw.

 

[JayT]

V ,@the

 

[JayT]

1.No.
2.Most definitely not.
3.I don't have it.

CXCVz.q1!!

 

[jhurkot]

The problem is that there is no science. Much of the "science" used to support man made climate change is baseless, uses falsified data, or neglects to acknowledge significant factors when building their models. You do realize that a single volcanic eruption can completely negate the effect of all carbon reduction initiatives since its inception?

To top it off, key UN officials have publicly admitted that the motive for carbox taxation has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with global wealth redistribution. In fact, the whole concept is just a tool that is being used by globalists to achieve a one-world government. ...a communist one-world government at that.

The problem is that the earth is indeed flat. Much of the "science" used to support "globe earth" is baseless, uses falsified data, and manipulated imagery to trick the common person into believing we live on a round earth. NASA? Never a straight answer! OPEN UP YOUR EYES!

 

[jhurkot]

Facts can be skewed real easy depending on who is financing the results. It’s my beliefs that decide what facts I listen to and that’s the beauty of the free world that seems to be slowly slipping away. Through my career I am directly involved in numerous environmental initiatives from methane venting reduction to BTEX capture and kill. I also do a fair bit in solar and work in gas engine peaked power generation. Most of the environmental is rob Peter to pay Paul senario. Solar will kill this province as the peaker plants come on with demand when wind suddenly dies or sun isn’t shining and are usually paid around 1000$/mw.

Solar is the next big boom for Alberta. Solar panels on every single roof in the province. Solar and wind combined with battery storage spells the end for peaker plants.

 

[whoDEANie]

The problem is that the earth is indeed flat. Much of the "science" used to support "globe earth" is baseless, uses falsified data, and manipulated imagery to trick the common person into believing we live on a round earth. NASA? Never a straight answer! OPEN UP YOUR EYES!

Laugh if you like, but it won't change anything. I also dismissed this as conspiracy theory until relatively recently. Turns out I was dead wrong and royally embarrassed myself ranting in support of the fake science used to substantiate the theory of man made climate change and its significance. Don't get me wrong, I do believe we should strive to protect this planet; I just don't subscribe to the alarmist agendas - they are not our friends.

 

[Bnorth]

The problem is that there is no science. Much of the "science" used to support man made climate change is baseless, uses falsified data, or neglects to acknowledge significant factors when building their models. You do realize that a single volcanic eruption can completely negate the effect of all carbon reduction initiatives since its inception?

To top it off, key UN officials have publicly admitted that the motive for carbox taxation has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with global wealth redistribution. In fact, the whole concept is just a tool that is being used by globalists to achieve a one-world government. ...a communist one-world government at that.

You're mixing up millions and billions in your reference to volcanoes. According to your USGS source human related CO2 emissions are 120 times higher than volcanic related emissions.

 

[lilduke]

they also have the technology to turn captured carbon into useful products, like carbon fiber and carbon nano tubes.

turns out carbon capture could be a very lucrative industry.
so I'm going to do my part by pruducing as much c02 as I can.

 

[Teth-Air]

So what is the best bang for our buck? How do we freeze the Arctic again? (assuming it is not already getting colder there each year now) Should we stop something we are doing now? No more sledding, no more Diesel tractors on the farm? No more cars? or just gasoline cars or are electric to be banned too as most of the power is generated by potentially dirty means?
Should we leave these decisions up to the government? I'm not sure I trust Justin to negotiate the terms for me.

As for scientists deciding what we should do I think they already make up their minds based on their ideology and then look for scientific ways to prove their point. I do not believe they look at any social or financial effects of their proposals. And then just as the findings are presented another equally qualified scientist speaks up and disagrees. How are we as the "uneducated crowd" supposed to deal with all this?

 

[lilduke]

best bang for your buck is carbon fiber sled tunnels produced by captured carbon