Sep 12, 2012 at 17:26:43
“Green energy projects are useless. Grid operators refer to their power generation as nuisance power. Wind and solar are only good for drying clothes. You should really do some research before you pin your hopes on giant fans and mirrors. It's a grotesque diversion of resources ($$$) that could be better used elsewhere.”
“Actually what the article shows is that we can't be sure about anything. What we skeptics want to point out is the human influence of climate change is not nearly as much as those unquailfied proponents would have you think. I hope you notice my choice of words there. We agree that climate is always changing, it's just we don't buy the AGW hypothesis.
You also seem to imply that the climate is cognizant and on a bender. How can you ascribe human qualities to such a natural event? Climate has no emotion, it doesn't know what normal is, it just is.
It's not a question of what we want to gain, it's the squandering of resources chasing solutions that have no benefits and to direct those resources towards meaningful ways ( develop for me a super battery that we don't have to extract rare earth minerals for) we can deal with a problem we see as not as serious, iminent or catastrophic ( see James Lovelock) as you.”
irtrad17 on Jul 11, 2012 at 12:27:41
“I guess it all boils down to when do you want to squander resources - now or in the future. Skepticism is a good quality to have, but sometimes it can lead to a penny saved dollar wasted type of syndrome. I'm all for new technologies, yet meanwhile the sun is pumping out all the energy we will ever need and we have the tech to tap into that. I've noticed that many (and I'm not assuming this about you) skeptics are also opposed to many of the common sense solutions that already exist, and that just boggles the mind and defies a great deal of logic. Have a nice life, enjoy the warm temperatures. We can agree to disagree.”
“It's believed ??? Are you kidding me? Can't you show the hydrological reasoning behind that assertion?
Thank-you for exposing for all to see that all the precepts of AGW are based upon,
" It is believed "”
Fact is- science is not now ,or for that matter ever, settled.”
irtrad17 on Jul 10, 2012 at 12:44:36
“(thought I already replied to this, excuse me if it is redundant)
The article is interesting, if a bit on the short side. It doesn't however really refute the idea of climate change. Anomalies are bound to occur when the climate is out whack. That being said, of course science is never settled, new discoveries raise new questions, but the overall march of science is towards greater understanding of the natural world. The real mystery is what do science deniers hope to gain?”
irtrad17 on Jul 10, 2012 at 10:26:44
“While that is an interesting (but rather short) article, it doesn't really refute the concept of climate change. The real mystery is what climate change deniers hope to gain from trying to impede social change that would benefit everyone on the planet.”
“And can I show you Himilayan glaciers that are growing? No myth!
It's this infantile grasp of science from snake-oil salesman that is much more dangerous than to those who have a much more open mind and are willing to do some honest research. Correlation does not eqate to causation.”
forte88 on Jul 9, 2012 at 18:47:23
“yes, there is a "small" amount of growth showing in the Himilayan Glaciers, but it is believed to be caused by the rising sea levels from the rest of the glaciers melting. nice try tho.”
irtrad17 on Jul 9, 2012 at 18:39:30
“I have an open mind - show me the growing glaciers please.”
Jun 14, 2012 at 20:09:21
“The market, if left alone would find the efficiencies. Problem arises when it's decided that inefficient wind turbines and solar panels are viewed as THE answer to all our green energy needs and governments subsidize these to the hilt. When that happens, market innovations and efficiencies are stunted and therefore delayed.”
Jun 12, 2012 at 16:37:13
“And just where do you think green technology comes from? Pixie dust? Solar panels and windmills are constructed from materials extracted from the earth. By your arguement, we'd better start looking for alternatives as we run out of the rare earth minerals required to construct solar panels and wind turbines.
By the way, what would you give up to acheive the simpler lifestyle you propose? Cell phones? computers? Natural gas heating?”
Creox on Jun 13, 2012 at 10:03:50
“Exactly...most people don't realize that we are destined to live a much simpler future than what we have now. The era of cheap, abundant energy is gone. Alternative fuels will be the only answer but they will only replace a fraction of the energy we have now on a global scale.”
reverb256 on Jun 13, 2012 at 09:29:00
“Create alternatives. The oil industry fights all innovators.”
ProfessorZeitgeist on Jun 12, 2012 at 16:51:07
“Efficient and sustainable manufacturing practices must consider the abundance or scarcity of it's raw materials. It's not just the finished product that needs to have a green purpose. It's footprint needs to be green too. nanotechnology is advancing our efficiency at groundbreaking speeds without the giant strain on natural resources. If we focused our resource investments in long term, future ready, efficiency instead of gold plated toilets for the 1%, raw material abundance would not be an issue. The problem isn't the solar panel, it's the energy and resource waste associated with getting it to market. the market itself is inefficient.”
Jun 9, 2012 at 19:46:29
“If Al Gores SF movie is to be believed, his condo on 3rd between Mission and Minna would be under water with a 20' rise. A 200' rise? Now tell us , Why would he spend $4 million on a property that he claims will be under water?
May 27, 2012 at 09:15:07
“Exactly right Dan. The CAW is bleeding members because they can't seem to get out of the sixties in terms of negotiating tactics. Ken Lewenza is becoming like a "Typhoid Mary" to union member rank and file. So what do they do? They decide to put up an industrial wind turbine in Port Elgin that totally contravenes the Green Energy Act's saftey guidlines. But they do receive a "Feed In Tariff" contract that sees them receive subsidies from the Ontario taxpayer. They totally disregard the towns concerns and bully their way to get this turbine built. Sounds like they behave in private what they abhor publically, such as Caterpillar. If I was a member of the CEP union , I'd be clutching my wallet very tightly.”
May 2, 2013 at 15:03:14
“The companies that are throwing up these useless turbines and still raking in huge amounts of subsidy money in Ontario, ARE Big Oil corporations. They also happen to be big players in the Oil Sands developments. Think about it. your tax money that goes to paying for these turbines, are helping to finance operations in northern Alberta.”
Nov 17, 2012 at 21:28:30
“It appears the WTO has ruled against Ontario's local content rules as outlined in the GEA. The thousands of jobs spoken of are just not there. Samsung hasn't come close to their jobs commitments and given the political climate now, may never.
I'm still waiting for some one to articulate with great detail, the impacts of climate change ( rising CO2) hitting home. And please, weather is not the same as climate.”
Sep 17, 2012 at 11:24:15
“Sorry, my mistake, it was 20 feet or 6 metres that was the prediction of sea level rise from Al Gore's movie. Also a fellow IPCC author, Thomas Stocker, had admitted in a debate recently that there was no statistical warming for the past 15 years.
I find it interesting that you have your beliefs forged though sites like Desmog blog. Shall we closely examine sites such as Environmental Defence as well?
Going back through this entire post I find it interesting that there are only 30 comments and I've contributed 9, hopefully 10. As well, you've chipped in with 6 leading me to believe that I was right in assuming that the public has grown weary of the doom and gloom scenarios that you espouse and have more important things to concern themselves with. Especially with increasing numbers of seemingly competent scientists giving a contrary view.
I appreciate the fact that the Huffington Post has allowed my contrarian view and links to counter your hypothesis. The following Forbes magazine article illustrates my point ;
Sep 13, 2012 at 22:20:46
“European Institute For Climate and Energy - That's " dredging" the Internet? C'mon Andrew , you're better than that and surely you don't need to advance the conversation that way.
I read your link regarding sea level rise. 12 inches +/- over 110 years? What about all those 20 metre predictions? I guess 280mm does sound more menacing.
I only wish to offer a contrary view that is consistent with scientific inquiry.
I have never heard of the fellow you quote. But I have read the published work of the scientists at NSIDC. You can always dredge the internet to find someone who says what you want to hear. That is not how science works. That's called junk science.
In science, you seek an explanation of all know observations of a phenomenon; in junk science, you have the answer, and now you seek information that supports that answer and selectively ignore everything else.
In the case of the German screed... what hitherto unknown "well known natural cycle" is he talking about. Also, both these statements are wrong:
1) he global temperature did not rise for 14 years, and instead is now showing a slight downward trend (Is the quiet sun having an impact?);
2) In contradiction to the IPCC forecasts, sea level rise shows no acceleration,
Sep 11, 2012 at 10:13:46
“I have never held the position to "deny" that the globe has warmed. The question is how much anthropogenic activity is responsible and what we can reasonably do to adapt. Sir, is it your position that human activity is 100% responsible for the warming at this time in earth history? The fact that your "scientific community" is also on side with your hypothesis, indicates there are no other reputable scientists out there with a legitiment contrary view? Is Dr. Richard Linzden of MIT in your "community"? Is Dr. Tim Ball? I could name more..
Earlier , you stated in an article (2009) that the 100% elimination of the burning of fossil fuels is necessary to reverse our effects on the climate. Is that still the case? I've yet to hear any compelling arguement that we should hit the climate pause button for us and future generations. Severe weather events are nothing new. We just now have the ability to track and identify them better. Funny thing is, the US can't seem to buy anything more than a Cat1 hurricane since Wilma in 05! I've heard just as many benefits to a warmer planet than not.
I think I fall into a majority of people who would rather worry about how to pay utility bills and putting kids through school and enjoy life as best as we can. By your own criteria, and not falling in behind your hypothesis 100%,I guess that puts us into the "denialist mantra camp"”
33 years of satellite data within the context of earth history is cherry picking at it's finest especially when you consider that last winter, ice in the Bering Sea experienced it's thickest ice cover in recorded history.
Yes we had a warmer than average summer, but to say that sea ice will be gone could backfire badly if we have another winter like last year. Thing is Andrew, we're paying attention.
Perhaps you could look at other natural factors such as winds, ocean currents and solar activity.”
hp blogger Andrew Weaver on Sep 10, 2012 at 23:47:06
“And yes, I will predict here that in March of 2013 you will see the following headline emerge within the denialist script: "Record ice growth in the Arctic happens during the winter or 2012-2013". Yes it will be a record, because it will be cold in the winter and, the water will freeze like it does every year. The reason why there will be so much growth is because we are at a record minimum now. But the ice will be so thin that it will melt away next summer (by which time the mantra of denialism will shift again).
While I accept and respect the point of view that some people do not believe we owe anything to future generations, I don't accept the never ending denialist diatribes masking themselves as probing scientific inquiry. Most of the denialist mantra is easily refutable if those chanting it really wanted to understand the science of global warming. But more often than not they don't. They prefer to act like a legal defense team that knows it has lost its case. All sorts of mutually inconsistent assertions are thrown at public jury in the desperate hope that an element of doubt will remain and a not guilty verdict will be rendered on human causation of global warming. But because one wishes global warming not to be caused by humans does not make it so.”
hp blogger Andrew Weaver on Sep 10, 2012 at 23:46:45
“Hello Paul, I have been paying attention for many years. The tired mantra of climate denialism is one of shifting targets and ideological rhetoric. The IPCC reports, starting in 1990, provide a litany of predictions that can be tested. Time after time, you will see that the climate system pans out exactly as the scientific community has suggested it would. Each new supposed evidence offered up in this tired mantra of denialism is refuted but, like the mythical beast Hydra, two more ugly heads appear.
Apparently satellite data showed that the troposphere was cooling (not true)
Apparently it hasn't warmed since 1998 (not true 2010 and 205 are the warmest years)
The warming is because of the sun ( the sun has been cooling us)
The warming is because of (I cant believe people even begin to buy into this one) cosmic rays (sign problem again).
Clouds will cool us (the latest estimates are that overall cloud feedbacks, if anything, are positive)”
hp blogger Andrew Weaver on Sep 9, 2012 at 23:39:18
“Paul, the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land. Antarctica is a frozen block of land surrounded by ocean. Things operate differently in these cases. Also, the Antarctic peninsula is warming extremely fast.
For example, in the Southern Ocean, the tightening of the polar vortex (as a consequence of climate change) is such that you would expect enhanced Ekman flux of sea ice northwards. As such, you would actually expect increase ice extent initially away from the Antarctic coast.”
The Arctic is an ocean at sea level surrounded by land, and air temperature rises above freezing point in the summer. The ice reflects most of the non-stop summer sunlight, until it melts and then most of the sun's energy is absorbed. Remember that the energy needed to melt ice is the same as to raise if from 0°C to 80°C.
As long as there is enough ice, then the Arctic can clamp the temperature down and prevent overheating. The melting sea ice doesn't cause much difference in sea level, but as the water warms, Greenland's icecap becomes the next target for melting and then significant sea level rise.
The Antarctic is a massive miles high continent surrounded by warming water, and the shelves and glaciers are being eroded more rapidly and flowing faster.
The ice extent is increasing partly because the ice is acting like rats leaving a sinking ship.
“Please write an essay comparing the effects of Arctic and Antarctic ice coverage on the industrialized nations, especially the US, Europe, Russia and China.
Yes you don't seem to have passed high school science.”
“What a totally ridiculous thing to say. I agree with slohand4 as I too have a small business and have the front of cheques to sign as well. I'm constantly innovating all the time to make more money and be a little more secure. I'm stunned at the economic illiteracy of a lot of people on this thread. You've got to make money first before a corporate tax rate matters. Corporations are on the sidelines because of the uncertain climate out there. INPUT costs such as Hydro rates that aren't stable, WSIB is constantly changing, are we going to get dinged for more health taxes, HST etc. etc.. These are the things that make corporations nervous and not willing to invest big $$$'s. What other taxes could be waiting in the weeds to be imposed? How could any sane person rely on what McGuinty says?”
jimboy71 on Aug 14, 2012 at 08:56:18
“I had a successful business for 10 years. When I started it, I lived off one meal a day, and paid my employees out of pocket while we built up a customer base. I worked 70-100 weeks. Did the last-minute changes the city imposed on my fire prevention system cost a lot of extra money, and tighten the budget further? Yes, of course they did. That's business. You roll with it, or you don't. But this is academic, as large corporations have the kind of profit margins that allow them to operate on a different level. I am not sympathetic to the multi-millionaire CEO's and their petty problems.”