Ontario to spend $7-billion on sweeping climate change plan

[manitoubass2]

Such a silly argument...

 

Is climate change real? Yes

 

Did we cause it? No, but we assisted in speeding things along

 

Will it kill us? Possibly

 

Will it kill our grandkids? Possibly

 

Will I win the lottery yesterday? Highly probable

 

The world is far gone. 7 billion does nothing, nadda, zip, zilch

 

If india and china do the same, will it help? Nope, move along

 

If the weather is the hottest on record for 12 straight months, doesnt that show our role in global warming? nope, 12 months is but a drop in a 150 billion gallon pail for comparison. (If I do one pushup everyday, then add one each other day, my push ups will increase(a pattern) but as I age it will show this pattern will inevitably decrease)

 

Did I just waste my time writing this? Yes ma'am. Its a lil dark for fishing yet(3:42am), but ill be out there by 5 ish.

Edited May 21, 2016 by manitoubass2

[lifeisfun]

 

That is a good argument. What does one month of record extreme high temperatures prove in the last 150 years? Nothing. How about 12 such months in a row, and counting, plus many other extreme anomalies occurring at the same time? Then one can safely deduct that it is highly probable that this is not natural variance and that something is influencing outcomes. This is what the climate scientists have done. This is their conclusion. 97% of them believe what we are seeing is caused by us.

 

You are also right $7B will not change the path of what looks to be the beginning of an exponential curve to extreme climate. At best 7B$ will flatten the curve a little bit.

 

Scientists have also predicted outcomes based on this information and frankly speaking what they predict will happen in our lifetime is alarming. As a government, when do you start to act on what is predicted to be a world wide catastrophe? I would say now because although one can't predict with certainty what will happen, you don't want to play the odds when there is a good chance that the world as we know it will be permanently altered to a point that we won't recognize it.

 

Do we really want to be, "penny wise and pound foolish".

 

Here is a question for you. That 7 b dollars you mentioned. Have you calculated what that works out to be per year? Is that 7B$ to be funded over many years?

 

Well, looks like you found new religion

I can't believe you would find 150 year time sample as evidence of anything relating to billions years of history.

Not to mention the way that data was created.

Good luck!

[scuro2]

So the argument is that a rapidly rising global temperatures means nothing, the earth was warmer before, and man can't alter the climate because we are so insignificant?

It is thought that the warmest the planet ever got was during Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum when the planet was 5-8 degrees warmer and you had tropical vegetation in the polar regions. What most likely caused this spike? Green house gases. Why are temperatures rising quickly now? Mostly, green house gases that man has added to his environment.

 

These are not my home spun musings based on my theory of everything, rather this is what 97% of scientists believe based on data and the power of evidence based deduction.

 

Those darn scientists with their data, and willingness to share everything with the public. They don't leave much room for other"experts"!

 

I can't believe you would find 150 year time sample as evidence of anything relating to billions years of history.

 

 

If the weather is the hottest on record for 12 straight months, doesnt that show our role in global warming? nope, 12 months is but a drop in a 150 billion gallon pail for comparison. (If I do one pushup everyday, then add one each other day, my push ups will increase(a pattern) but as I age it will show this pattern will inevitably decrease)

Edited May 21, 2016 by scuro2

[manitoubass2]

You do realize roughly 97% of scientists are funded to study from outside sources that have an agenda right?

 

Scientist dont often fund their own research, which in itself can be a major flaw.

 

Take a look at what mr gore is worth since this topic took a major upswing(just one example)

Edited May 21, 2016 by manitoubass2

[scuro2]

Ah the ol "scientists are bought" conspiracy theory.

 

I was waiting for this UGLY TRUTH to come out.

 

Wait a second...scientists are often funded by industry...so.....industry is creating the climate change FRAUD? Or do you mean government funded scientists who must of been approached individually and secretly bribed. That would mean that almost all of them accepted the cash!!!! WHAT A STORY....60 minutes should get on that. Or are you talking about University scientists who would risk their jobs to FAKE the TRUTH?!?!???

This whole conspiracy theory is getting VERY COMPLICATED.

Edited May 21, 2016 by scuro2

[manitoubass2]

Ah the ol "scientists are bought" conspiracy theory.

 

I was waiting for this UGLY TRUTH to come out.

 

Wait a second...scientists are often funded by industry...so.....industry is creating the climate change FRAUD? Or do you mean government funded scientists who must of been approached individually and secretly bribed. That would mean that almost all of them accepted the cash!!!! WHAT A STORY....60 minutes should get on that. Or are you talking about University scientists who would risk their jobs to FAKE the TRUTH?!?!???

 

This whole conspiracy theory is getting VERY COMPLICATED.

Yep, and big pharma is out to make ya healthy???

[scuro2]

Naively I believed that the vast majority of Pharma scientists are seeking scientific solutions to health problems so that they can make their company lots of cash.

 

The conspiracy of scientists goes through government, universities, and all major corporations?!?? WHO KNEW? Well I guess for this giant conspiracy of scientists to work, it would have to be VERY VERY secret. Sssshhhhh

Edited May 21, 2016 by scuro2

[manitoubass2]

Naively I believed that the vast majority of Pharma scientists are seeking scientific solutions to health problems so that they can make their company lots of cash.

 

The conspiracy of scientists goes through government, universities, and all major corporations?!?? WHO KNEW? Well I guess for this giant conspiracy of scientists to work, it would have to be VERY VERY secret. Sssshhhhh

Not a conspiracy when its true lol.

 

Im not here to change your mind so whatever helps ya sleep at night bud!

 

Remember at one time smoking was safe! According to scientists

 

Now cancer is a booming business, who woulda thought???

 

Oh the conspiracies

[scuro2]

Remember at one time smoking was safe! According to scientists

 

Now cancer is a booming business, who woulda thought???

 

It was marketing people who determined that DOCTORS preferred one particular brand over another. They did this by surveying them at conferences after they got free cigarettes.

 

And that is the problem with conspiracy theories, there are no facts to verify so basically anyone can claim anything and you can't refute it.

Edited May 22, 2016 by scuro2

[scuro2]

Here is a tidbit for those who haven't yet determined that climate science is a hoax perpetrated by the world wide scientific community.

 

Accurate weather measurements go back to 1850. Thus the odds of every record month would be 1/164.

 

If weather is random then calculating the odds of 12 record months in a row would look like this

1/164 x 1/164 x 1/164 x 1/164 x 1/164 x 1/164 x 1/164 x 1/164 x 1/164 x 1/164 x 1/164 x 1/164

 

Those are very slim odds.

[manitoubass2]

It was marketing people who determined that DOCTORS preferred one particular brand over another. They did this by surveying them at conferences after they got free cigarettes.

 

And that is the problem with conspiracy theories, there are no facts to verify so basically anyone can claim anything and you can't refute it.

Look at the studies on pubmed bud, it wasnt all lobbyists and drs.

 

Funny how you say its a conspiracy to go against science, then put that one on our "beloved drs".

[scuro2]

Look at the studies on pubmed bud, it wasnt all lobbyists and drs.

 

Funny how you say its a conspiracy to go against science, then put that one on our "beloved drs".

 

Well I did take that info from pubmed. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470496/who pinned it on the marketers who manipulated the Drs by giving them free product. Take a look.

Also, your way of rationalizing that super majority of scientists who believe climate change to be real was to state, "97% of scientists are funded to study from outside sources that have an agenda right?" What you describe would be a conspiracy. If climate change didn't exist, to then get many scientists from around the globe to agree to one giant FRAUD. Many people would have to be in on it because the data presented is so rich and comes from many sources.

Edited May 23, 2016 by scuro2

[manitoubass2]

 

Well I did take that info from pubmed. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470496/who pinned it on the marketers who manipulated the Drs by giving them free product. Take a look.

Also, your way of rationalizing that super majority of scientists who believe climate change to be real was to state, "97% of scientists are funded to study from outside sources that have an agenda right?" What you describe would be a conspiracy. If climate change didn't exist, to then get many scientists from around the globe to agree to one giant FRAUD. Many people would have to be in on it because the data presented is so rich and comes from many sources.

Lots of science IS FRAUD my friend lol.

 

Im all for science but its ripe in many(not all) areas.

 

and where is this 97% number combing from?

 

You have mentioned it numerous times.

 

Did somebody really speak to every scientist involved in this area(climate change) to come to this number?

 

also your 12 month projection numbers are flawed. Its an assumption and not fact. 12 straight months of hotter temperatures is a trend, but it cant be proven what is causing it. So your numbers/calculation means nothing scientifically other than it looks impressive to someone with no experience ie"wow thats a pretty big number" lol.

 

ive worked with studies many a years, I can skew them in my favor no problem, or, I can do it correctly(without bias)

 

Not every scientist out there has the moral compass of an impressive man/women.

 

You are very naive to human characteristics imo

[manitoubass2]

Conspiracy and conspiracy theory mean two different things. Im sure you are aware of that.

 

We know a few things logically. Emitting huge quantities of green house gasses are not good for our enviroment. We can chalk that on the board. Science can work with that and show some damage no doubt.

 

You would be an idiot to deny it. Sort of like sucking exhaust from your tailpipe so to speak.

 

But, on the grand scale nothing is proving this is either heating nor cooling the planet. And there are no previous models to help distingiush what some think is happening. You cant build a feasoble model to prove it. We have no literature from 5000 years ago with technology to help us out.

 

We are flying blind.

 

The only thing we know, without zero doubt, is the earth goes through cycles of cooling and warming. That is indeed a fact.

 

And logically, this would take many years. Obviously an ice age isnt going to start tomorrow, correct? It just doesnt happen like that. The earth, like the human body, likes homeostasis. So changes occur slowly.

 

So if we were to enter an ice age, and it was to start tomorrow, it would likely take many, many years to come to that point. Same as heating, as you point out in your 12 month model, its increasing but slowly. This is logical. Its not going to increase for 6 years, decrease for one, increase for 4, decrease for ten. Nature just does not work like that. Now im talking grandious scale changes, not last winter to this winter, or vise versa. Yeah we see obvious slight fluctuations and thus is normal.

 

Anyhow, its an interesting topic.

 

Too bad we will be dead before anyone has an answer

[scuro2]

I would reply that there is a very obvious and measurable historical relationship of C02 in the air and temperature.

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html

When you look at that graph the high end is 300 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are at 380 ppm and rising. The rise in CO2 is not linear, it is curved which means exponential growth and mostly likely not an a continuous gradual change in temperature. We are currently near the bottom of the curve so changes will not seem as dramatic, until they are.

 

12 months of record high global temperatures is highly unusual. If one takes into account that this was an El Nino year then if we take the average of an El Nino once every 4 years there would have been 41 El Nino events since 1850 when we first started measuring and recording global temperatures. The odds of 12 record months in a row in El Nino years would:

1/40 x 1/40 x 1/40 x 1/40 x 1/40 x 1/40 x 1/40 x 1/40 x 1/40 x 1/40 x 1/40 x 1/40 = 1.6777216 to the exponent 19
You are right, temperature rise won't go straight up but climate events that we are seeing now are already extraordinary. By coincidence the ice is melting quickly this year on the north pole http://icons.wxug.com/hurricane/2016/charctic-5.19.16.jpg

You'll get your answer before your dead...all we need is for melting to occur on Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets, and several feet of added water to the oceans will disrupt the world as we know it. Here is Vancouver with 2 meter higher sea level. http://jaybanks.ca/images/2014/05/Vancouver-Flood-Map-2-Meter-Sea-Level-Rise-Simulation.PNG

Edited May 23, 2016 by scuro2

[glen]

Will the people of ontario be ok with spending billions because we are saving the earth.

 

Might be the best reason to spend ever. Who is making that money?

[Mister G]

When you can't catch fish, you argue politics............

[scuro2]

Will the people of ontario be ok with spending billions because we are saving the earth.

 

Might be the best reason to spend ever. Who is making that money?

 

Makers of electrical cars, renewable energy sources such as solar energy, battery makers like Telsa with their rechargeable garage battery.

[DRIFTER_016]

Liberal campaign contributors.

[manitoubass2]

Liberal campaign contributors.

Hey, thats a conspiracy

[DRIFTER_016]

Hey, thats a conspiracy

 

Nope, just a theory!!!!

[manitoubass2]

 

Nope, just a theory!!!!

 

[aplumma]

Lets see if this forum can save the world..........better to go fishing I think.

 

 

 

Art

[scuro2]

I thought Conservative meant intelligent evidence based policy, the goal of which is to conserve what we have and use limited dollars in the most efficient way for the common good of Ontario or Canada. Perhaps I'm not communicating with Conservatives.

Edited May 23, 2016 by scuro2

[manitoubass2]

I thought Conservative meant intelligent evidence based policy, the goal of which is to conserve what we have and use limited dollars in the most efficient way for the common good of Ontario or Canada. Perhaps I'm not communicating with Conservatives.

 

You were dealing with conservatives... remember when they cut all those science programs???

 

D'oh

 

Im not liberal or conservative

 

Time to fish like art suggesteď?