scribe123

I'm putting myself on the fence here, but I will throw this in for fun:

I have no evidence to back this up, but I heard the soundbite on the news awhile back:

The Icelandic Volcano that went pop the other year grounding flights for a while threw more environmentally damaging crap and nasties into the air than humans could manage in many decades (if not longer - can't remember).

If you're worrying about fossil fuels running out then our consumption has to be managed, but if you're worrying about environmental damage, is there anything we can do that really makes a difference when mother nature's actions are added to the equation?

Enjoy.

Bali2010

whether it is true or not, using natural events as an excuse to do nothing is a childlike rationale

in planning there are things we cannot control - like volcanos, therefore for the plans must take those into account and ensure the things that can be controlled accomodate the background level of natural events (good or bad).
you can be sure the models take into account natural carbon sinks (sea, moors etc).

Almost Canadian

Careful, making observations such as this will have you labelled as a frothing loon or something similar by the "clever ones" on this site.

ultrarunner

Don't you mean "Self proclaimed clever ones"?

Former Lancastrian

Well I consider myself to be just the average Joe so what would I know about this subject?
Just reading these 2 and a half pages and probably more to follow I wonder if all this talk is just a futile effort to appear to say to the masses we are concerned and we will try to work something out but in the end little or nothing gets done.
We can talk about reducing this and that, banning this and that etc etc but in the end is it all talk?
Whats the point of implementing this that or the other when this happens

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/st...er-report.html

As from Canadas perspective can we alone change thing or does it have to be every country willing to change with no exceptions.
We have been yakking about this for 15 years under both a Liberal or PC regime and yet what have they achieved?
Should we vote in the NDP or Green Party (sorry Bloc supporters you dont count as you only run in Quebec) to see if they can change things.

Talk is cheap, but positive and achievable plans are priceless.

ultrarunner

Ah .....Cliche'

"Kinda like put your money where your gob is"

" walk the walk, and talk the talk"

et al

iaink

I wouldnt say that. Poorly served by self interested politicians, undereducated with respect to the effect climate change will have on future generations perhaps. They just seem to have different priorities.

scribe123

Me? Frothing Loon?

Only on Wednesdays

lf1

There is a good opinion column, by Duane Brett, in today's Calgary Herald.
Unfortunately, I am unable to link it to the thread. It is worth a read if you have the time to search it out.

dbd33

<stunned>

He's called Bratt and, once again, there's a picture. The picture suggests that he's been responsible for more food miles than the population of China.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion...757/story.html

dbd33

The Bratt piece is bold in its dishonesty. He is:

"is chair and associate professor in the department of policy studies at Mount Royal University."

He clucks:

"Unfortunately, while there has been plenty of public debate on global warming in Canada and in other countries, much of that discussion has focused on political-economic dimensions instead of scientific basis. The debaters tended to be political scientists, economists, or industry and environmental spokespeople."

apparently disqualifying himself from further comment.

Nonetheless he ploughs on:

"None of the above situations constitute a scientific debate on anthropogenic global warming. Although real climate scientists debate global warming, it has usually been done at closed academic conferences and venues that excluded the public. Public debates by climate scientists were rare."

Plainly untrue. Anyone can buy a copy of Nature.

Instead of all this fussy academic debate he suggests we consult the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. Well, knock me down with a feather, that's an oil industry advocacy group!


Aint they got no ethics at Mount Royal University?

gillyd65

just to lighten the mood a little - forget Kyoto it's the gay penguins in Toronto Zoo that I feel sorry for - just what is this country doing to itself!!!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ol?INTCMP=SRCH

Alan2005

There are a number of things I've seen happen over the years. Initially after some scientists stated that climate change was happening, they were labelled as crazy hippies by those with an interest in keeping things the way they are. When the scientific evidence mounted up in favour of climate change existing, then the debate shifted from 'scientific facts' to speculation such as 'is it man-made?' or the outright skullduggery of 'discredit the messenger'

Also, those promoting climage change as real and man-made are primarily scientists and environmentalists; whilst those with the opposing views are politicians, special interest groups, and the kind of broscientists that frequent internet forums (it was the volcano that did it guvnor!). Who do you trust more?

Which leads me onto speculating about volcanoes. This is all very well, but really it's just that - speculation. The only way to prove or disprove this hypothesis is research, and this is something that many people don't want carried out because they don't think they'll like the answers they get.

(but really, there's no point having this debate because people with lots of money want to keep things as they are and people accept this because they are conditioned into thinking tomorrow will be the same as today. It's the same reason we had the financial crisis - those predicting it were seen as nuts at the time by the mainstream)

jimf

There is no solution other than everyone agreeing to live a pre industrial revolution lifestyle which clearly won't happen. Whatever preparations can be made at reasonable cost to deal with the consequences of any increasing temperature are worth making. Reducing dependancy on fossil fuels to minimise the increasing leverage that suppliers will have over purchasers in the future is also worth doing. However is there any point in closing down western industry only for the same industry to expand in India, China etc - I doubt that.

jimf

Climate change good for farmers in Britain. Oh hang on maybe the Met Office is funded by Exxon?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...et-Office.html