I do not reply in detail to your post Chanmanx to offend you, but to offer open and frank discussion on the subject. Which to date there has been none. Al Gore and David Sazuki may say "The debate is over", I say "show me the transcripts." And below is just one of many transcripts I have had on this issue.
Sorry to bring up an old post, but I have been hearing alot of info about this subject lately. I don't profess to be an expert and I know I'm guilty as anyone in damaging mother earth
Mother Earth?
but I heard some criticims about Lord Richard Monckton. First, he is a politician and not an expert in climate science.
Al Gore is a politician and not a scientist as well. David Sazuki claims to be a scientist but has not published a peer reviewed scientific paper since 1972. He does
not do the scientific research for his show "Nature of Things" he is just the host. Just as a point of reference, I was born in 1972. So through out my whole life, he has not done any qualified scientific research.
Are either of them any more qualified?
Two, if u trace the money trail, he and other "scientific" organizations that debunk climate change are funded by big oil conglomerates.
And yet the governments have spent $79 billion on the single theory that global warming is man made. That is not half, it is not twice, that is not 5 times, it is not 100 times, it is 3,000 times that of oil companies. Perspective.
They have a good thing going, making ALOT of money and they don't want it to change.
How does that logic fit in with the facts when they are reversed? What does the government gain in spending 3000 times more supporting Al Gore and David Sazuki's positions? If the logic is 'he who spends more must be hidings something', then why are we questioning the motives of the minority player?
Of course they are going to want you to think that's it's not our fault.
Over the last 200 years, the CO2 content in the atmosphere has only gone up 0.4% per year, not the 1% they claim. And not all of that is man made. Only about 3% of the increase in CO2 is attributed to man. Mans contribution is so insignificant, to accept blame is a form of narcissism or idolatry.
They want us to think everything is fine and just go on doing what we're do{i}ng.
Thats the point, everything is fine. More CO2 is actually not the enemy. It is proven that CO2 levels of 1500PPM (which is 1.5% of the atmosphere) will cause vegetation on earth to grow more healthy, strong and abundantly. Increasing CO2 may actually bring back farm lands in area's where world hunger is the highest. CO2 is a building block of life, not a destroyer of life. And not that I am supporting the idea we should be at 1,500PPM either. The current 385PPM is not the lowest the earth has experienced it is also no where near the highest.
Just drive our big cars, burn fossil fuels and fill the air with vehicle exhaust, it does nothing to the environment.
Nobody has said that but apparently, the effects are not what the AGW'ers are saying they are. As a matter of fact, the affects appear to actually be insignificant.
All that smog coming out of factories? no biggie, it’s harmless.
CO2, Methane and such are invisible, you can not see CO2 or Methane. When you see white puffy stuff coming out of smoke stacks of factories, it is not CO2, it is not Methane, it is water vapor. CO2 and Methane and other gases as the result of combustion must be by environmental law properly released separate from the byproduct of producing heat, which is steam, which is what you see coming out of factories.
I do, within reason. But still, none the less, with Christ as my Lord, how can I not?
Think back to when science was starting to prove smoking was bad for you, the tobacco companies got scared and fought back by spending millions of dollars in promoting the thought that cigarettes are harmless. We all now know smoking is bad for you and it’s a fact.
They actually used scientific methods to determine that smoking is harmful. They have not used scientific methods to determine if man made greenhouse gas is affecting the climate.
I probably side more on the climate change is happening rather than not.
Of course it is changing, that is the very nature of climate. It changes, it is unpredictable. CO2 makes up less then 0.04% of the atmosphere, about 3% of which is man made, so about 0.0012% of the atmosphere is man made (which is a misnomer, it is emitted by man) CO2. Even if we doubled it to 0.0024%, do you think we have a significant impact on the climate? You have a better chance of warming the pacific ocean by peeing in it.
In British Columbia here, we have this little pine beattle that destroys trees, which in turn has been devastating to our lumber industry. In the past, nature would just take care of the beattle because the cold winters would kill them; however, in the recent decade or 2, the winters have not been cold enough to kill these little pest and they thrive.
The fact that they thrive suggest the climate is changing. The question is,
is the change man made or controllable by man?
I'm also seeing some weird weather patterns in the city where I live, a couple winters ago, we had one of the most brutal storms; parts of our Stanley Park (major tourist site in our city) was destroyed. Last winter, we had the worst snow fall in recent memory; we usually don't get much snow at all. The snow lasted for weeks, usually it’s gone in a couple days.
Is it logical to believe that 0.0012% of the atmosphere that has been emitted by man is the cause of this? Is it not possible that other activities have greater affect on the local climate? Say sun spots, or deforestation or just normal local seasonal variability? Does a localized, one in a hundred year storm justify global panic?
In Calgary last year we had a snow fall in November 2008. The snow stayed on the ground until April 2009. This is not normal on a year to year basis. And this year we have only had a trace amount of snow back in early October and nothing since. This is also not normal on a year to year basis. Yet historically, we have had snow falls that sit on the ground for months and some years we have had snow falls that don't hang around because of the Chinooks and other years we don't get any snow until February / March.
I woke up this morning and they said Calgary is expecting a high of 9'C and our average day time high for today is 2'C. Does that mean I should expected today's high to be 2'C and any variation warmer is because I drove my car the previous day and any variation colder is because I didn't drive? What level of variation is affected by man versus what is affected by that which man has no ability to control?
In our human history, we have had important issues such as slavery, women’s rights, African American Civil rights, Vietnam, abortion, gay rights: climate change may be the issue of our time. It is an “inconvenient truth”, which forces us to look at our lifestyles and if you’re convicted, it forces you to make changes. Heck, I don’t like changing, I like the way I’m living right now; however, if you decide not to closely examine the claims of climate change, do it for your children and think of the world you may be leaving for future generations, if there’s a world left.
What happens if the claims are completely false, based on bad scientific means and methods? Is it good governance to make decisions in the hopes that something good and unknown will come from it? What if something even more horrible comes from it?
Now I'm not talking about doing nothing. If somebody were to come to me and say "Oil and gas is finite, we need to find other means of producing energy for the long term." I would agree. But that is different. Conservation on known and good scientific principles is right. Being good stewards is right. Being a good steward of the environment means weighing all arguments, getting all the facts, doing all the studies, gaining all the knowledge and making good sound decisions based on that. When one side says "the debate is over" the first question anybody should ask is "may I have the debates transcripts please." Otherwise, the only logical conclusion is, the debate has not even started yet.
