Climate Change Dump #1

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Newview01

I've said this before. Yes, we are impacting climate change. As I impact sea levels by p**sing in the sea.

Actually, you are part of the water cycle; you didn't add anything new. But I get your jab.

Are we producing electricity with oil? This argument doesn't seem relative. In addition, third world countries reduced use of renewables due to unsustainable costs.

Of course we are producing electricity with O&G. And coal. Especially in Alberta.

As soon as new technology becomes cheap and sustainable, I will adapt. Until then, I will make use of the delightful electricity available to me thanks to our friends at Teck Coal and Enmax who are currently using very advanced technology to bring us clean and sustainable power.

As I have shown with links from reputable (not blogs or opinion pieces), alternative energy sources ARE competitive, even at low oil prices. No one, including me, thought that would come about so quickly.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by fluxcore

NO ONE IS SAYING ITS NOT GETTING WARMER! It is but compared to what the last 5, 600 years ! So what it might have been hotter the other 200 million and the earth is Finally getting back to NORMAL

Are you aware of what the CO2 isotopes that are in the atmosphere show? Do you understand the relevance of that?

Are you aware that for the first time ever that CO2 is LEADING warming, as opposed to increasing after a warming cycle has come about? Do you understand the relevance of that?

Are you aware that if all things were normal, that we should be in a cooling cycle, not a warming one?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by roper1

AVB I'd really like you to explain to me why we need to be first with the new technology, why we need to be bleeding edge vs leading edge?

We would hardly be the first, and solar and wind are certainly not bleeding edge... they have been around for decades. They finally are at the point where they are competitive, without subsidies, with carbon fuels.

Does not every industry( maybe military excepted) happily simply sell the new technology to anyone interested??

Not sure of the point you're making here.

Have you missed the abysmal failures happening just north of your summer home with regards to renewables??

Please reference what you are referring to.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Purple Farmer

So to be clear, because it appears to you that others do not share the same opinion as you (I say opinion as I do not believe you are employed in the climate change world) they no longer have the ethics to conserve and their philosophy is wrong.
do you have to win at all costs? I have strong opinions and have been known to dig my heels in, but, you take this to an entirely different level, it really does come across as preaching or evangelizing and that's just turns people off.

Opinions are one thing, however, when all the evidence points in one direction, it no longer is opinion. Science does not work that way. It develops the evidence, and what society does with it is a totally different thing. Science is agnostic as to where the evidence leads it.

Let's take an Alberta example. Grizzlies were listed as threatened based on science. My opinion (and it is my opinion only) that was the right thing to do if one applies the precautionary principle of conservation.

However, there were gaps in the science, and further studies eliminated or diminished those gaps. We (Albertans) have a much better grasp on the grizzly situation now than 5 or 10 years ago. Personally, I believe the grizzlies could always have sustained a limited entry hunt in the Willmore/Grande Cache area (based on the science) and now also believe that the same holds true for the south-east corner of the province.

We, as hunters, can make a much better argument based on the science now than we could 10 years ago. Most of the opposition from the hunting community was then based on anecdotal evidence and opinion, now we have real science that is not refuted by anyone. Would the antis be up in arms? You bet, but that then becomes a societal and political battle, not a conservation issue.

Make sense?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by ak-71

Interesting that AVB is so proud to drive less than 20 000 km a year, but it seems that, at least in 2008, average for every province was less then 18 100 km a year for light vehicles (I assume he drives a light vehicle, right?)

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/...er2.cfm?attr=0

And your link shows that the average Albertan drives over 21,000 KM/year. Sorry, but nice try at a shot.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Lol. So they can get more money from congress.

Simple.

Really?

I didn't know that the US Congress paid for seawalls on Scottish golf courses. Guess you didn't read the link.

Again.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by avb3

Opinions are one thing, however, when all the evidence points in one direction, it no longer is opinion. Science does not work that way. It develops the evidence, and what society does with it is a totally different thing. Science is agnostic as to where the evidence leads it.


Make sense?

Does science threaten to jail people who disagree with them?

Does science fudge data to fit models?

Is science a democracy?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Lefty Bryan

Fixed

Hey, Sundance was on a roll. And thought he was making a real point.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Twist

All tripe.

Man made global warming is crap. I don't care how many people sign onto it.

Now here is someone with a deep understanding of the various sciences that deal with climate change.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by From The Hip

.......
Funny how "Global Warming" went away after a few hundred scientists who were on the payroll got exposed via thier falsified data etc and suddenly the mantra is "Climate Change" so those that get money continue to keep getting it.

....

What do you think the IPCC stands for?

When do you think the IPCC was established? How many decades ago? One, two, three decades ago?

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by avb3

Now here is someone with a deep understanding of the various sciences that deal with climate change.

To be fair, I don't think you're in much of a position to be lecturing people on science.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Crankbait

first of all I'm a greenie and have been reading avb's posts with much teeth grinding. firstly, he equates the green energy business as something strictly existing for the purpose of dealing with climate change, when in truth it's merely just an energy business for the purpose of energy, the same as any energy business. he also creates a false us & them scenario over and over "fossil fuel is on the way out, wind and solar are the future", when in fact, fossil fuel, natural gas, wind, solar, hydro, tidal are all the future of energy; 10% with one, 3% with another, 15% here, 40% there. The energy types don't compete just the companies exploiting the resource like any resource, fossil fuel companies own wind farms as much as solar array based companies own junior oil companies, it's just energy exploration for exploitation. Reading avb's daily dumps - for me at least - is not much different than reading misinformation on guns and hunters on CBC. No greenie that I know who has been around alt-energy for many years has ever claimed that wind or solar will meet the energy needs of the planet. It's really about co-generation anyways, one type cannot exist without the other. I'll end my teeth gnashing rant with; greenies (the older ones at least) see fossil fuel, nat gas, wind, solar etc as energy types in its infancy and fossil fuels might yet still be the greenest of them all.

There is no place I have ever stated that O&G are not part of the energy mix for the foreseeable future. I've also stated that contrary to many who are opposed to it, I believe nuclear is part of that mix also, as there have been significant advances in nuclear waste disposal technology.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Newview01

I don't know how far-reaching the handouts are, but this is a situation in Lethbridge. A small solar panel to power a sign (maybe 5 fluorescent tubes) was priced at $3500 supply and install. They obviously didn't get the job. With prices like that I don't think the government was involved.

That is just crazy! How many watts were needed? Don't forget, one also needs a controller.

Here are some prices for marine applications (something near and dear to my heart, as I need to upgrade some power generation on my sailboat).


http://www.westmarine.com/marine-solar-panels

http://www.marineoutfitters.ca/index...=11503%7C11198

[avb3]

Originally Posted by rugatika

To be fair, I don't think you're in much of a position to be lecturing people on science.

To be fair, I've been involved in decisions based on science for too many decades for you to make this comment. Seriously.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Does science threaten to jail people who disagree with them?

Does science fudge data to fit models?

Is science a democracy?

Science is agnostic as too results; it is society and politicians who make decisions on what to do with those results. Sometimes you think your presuppostional position is backed, and sometimes you feel you need to rail against it because your economic or hobby interests require curtailment or adjustments because of what the science shows.

Trying to destroy or question the science on a topic is a non-starter. Let the scientists do that - that is what peer review is all about. How to deal with issues that science points out is the debate, the economical one, the political one and the societal one.

You and I are probably on the same side if we start talking about the disaster that the NDP carbon tax is, and probably for similar reasons. You and I are obviously not on the same track on how science acts.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by avb3

To be fair, I've been involved in decisions based on science for too many decades for you to make this comment. Seriously.

That is a very interesting and informing statement.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by avb3

Science is agnostic as too results; it is society and politicians who make decisions on what to do with those results. Sometimes you think your presuppostional position is backed, and sometimes you feel you need to rail against it because your economic or hobby interests require curtailment or adjustments because of what the science shows.


Trying to destroy or question the science on a topic is a non-starter. Let the scientists do that - that is what peer review is all about. How to deal with issues that science points out is the debate, the economical one, the political one and the societal one.

You and I are probably on the same side if we start talking about the disaster that the NDP carbon tax is, and probably for similar reasons. You and I are obviously not on the same track on how science acts.

One should ALWAYS question the science. "I would rather have questions which can't be answered, than answers which can't be questioned." Richard Feynman (he was kind of a big deal in sciency stuff)


Yes. Science SHOULD be agnostic as to results. Which is why big red flags should go up when you see numbers being fudged and lies being told and dissenters being threatened with jail. Unreal.

[ak-71]

Originally Posted by avb3

And your link shows that the average Albertan drives over 21,000 KM/year. Sorry, but nice try at a shot.

Nope, my link showed exactly what I said - maximum average for a light vehicle was 18100 km in Newfoundland and Labrador, average for Alberta was 15800 km. Sorry, but nice deflection attempt,
You wouldn't want to poison the planet by driving a truck, right?

[Purple Farmer]

Originally Posted by avb3

Opinions are one thing, however, when all the evidence points in one direction, it no longer is opinion. Science does not work that way. It develops the evidence, and what society does with it is a totally different thing. Science is agnostic as to where the evidence leads it.

Let's take an Alberta example. Grizzlies were listed as threatened based on science. My opinion (and it is my opinion only) that was the right thing to do if one applies the precautionary principle of conservation.

However, there were gaps in the science, and further studies eliminated or diminished those gaps. We (Albertans) have a much better grasp on the grizzly situation now than 5 or 10 years ago. Personally, I believe the grizzlies could always have sustained a limited entry hunt in the Willmore/Grande Cache area (based on the science) and now also believe that the same holds true for the south-east corner of the province.

We, as hunters, can make a much better argument based on the science now than we could 10 years ago. Most of the opposition from the hunting community was then based on anecdotal evidence and opinion, now we have real science that is not refuted by anyone. Would the antis be up in arms? You bet, but that then becomes a societal and political battle, not a conservation issue.

Make sense?

No your behaviour makes no sense at all, you only wish to believe in what you post (science based), not what others post (also science based). I stand by my original thoughts that you are trolling. Further you are using Alberta Outdoorsmen to push propaganda and influence others. One could easily be forgiven for thinking that you are renumerated for such behaviour. It's just a shame that someone as intelligent as yourself is not putting their talent to a better use.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by ak-71

Nope, my link showed exactly what I said - maximum average for a light vehicle was 18100 km in Newfoundland and Labrador, average for Alberta was 15800 km. Sorry, but nice deflection attempt,
You wouldn't want to poison the planet by driving a truck, right?

Oooppsss... I read it wrong. You are correct. I am surprised by that, but mark this down:

"I was wrong"

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Purple Farmer

No your behaviour makes no sense at all, you only wish to believe in what you post (science based), not what others post (also science based). I stand by my original thoughts that you are trolling. Further you are using Alberta Outdoorsmen to push propaganda and influence others. One could easily be forgiven for thinking that you are renumerated for such behaviour. It's just a shame that someone as intelligent as yourself is not putting their talent to a better use.

We have all sorts of discussions on here, some are of consequence, and some banal. You wouldn't want to start curtailing the consequential ones would you? You know, like the social justice warriors are doing on US and some Canadian campuses.

[Purple Farmer]

Originally Posted by avb3

We have all sorts of discussions on here, some are of consequence, and some banal. You wouldn't want to start curtailing the consequential ones would you? You know, like the social justice warriors are doing on US and some Canadian campuses.

Please do not confuse your activism with any of those. You are just using AO to push your propaganda.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Purple Farmer

Please do not confuse your activism with any of those. You are just using AO to push your propaganda.

Purple, I've been around on this forum for a long time. I am way past needing to "push an agenda".

[Purple Farmer]

Originally Posted by avb3

Purple, I've been around on this forum for a long time. I am way past needing to "push an agenda".

I can't believe you actually wrote that, thanks for making me smile.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

Really?

I didn't know that the US Congress paid for seawalls on Scottish golf courses. Guess you didn't read the link.

Again.

Lol. Guess you mussed it was a response to your sonar comment.

Show us your carbon credit receipt offsetting your crisis country driving.

Preaching with zero skin in the game is wearing thin.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by avb3

Of course we are producing electricity with O&G. And coal. Especially in Alberta.

Nice deflect. You know I meant specifically oil. Please try touch on the other part of the reply.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Nice deflect. You know I meant specifically oil. Please try touch on the other part of the reply.

Nope, that was not clear. And besides, the issue is carbon based fuels and the use of them. Pretty tough to avoid that.

[Newview01]

Avb, watch this. Some real science. Not your own opinion based on cherry picked data.

https://YouTube.com/watch?v=kFyH-b3FRvE

Pretty cool how he uses science eh?

[crazy_davey]

Originally Posted by Purple Farmer

Please do not confuse your activism with any of those. You are just using AO to push your propaganda.

Nice to see others catching on to this repetitive garbage.

Too bad the mods allow this crap to continue.

[crazy_davey]