Climate Change Puts Buildings, Coastlines, The North At Most Risk: Report Extreme wea

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Survey says...[ATTACH]4503[/ATTACH]

Yes, but that is just Canadians, and we are cold, heartless first world monsters who don't care about the third world countries who will bear the brunt of the coming climate apocalypse. Please refer to the UN study ranking peoples priorities all over the world:

http://data.myworld2015.org/ http://data.myworld2015.org/



Oops, except the rest of the world also ranks climate change as dead last. In fact, I checked through, and all the poster children countries for catastrophic global warming rank it dead last or very close. Only Sweden gave it somewhat of a priority, because we all know they will suffer the worst of the damage from more benign weather...

[fjlip]

Survey says...

[samhill]

Between my father and I we’ve seen a hundred years of weather, and so far nothing that could be called new. Have seen a lot of extremes.
But, you can fool some of the people all of the time ... and you know the rest.

[dmlfarmer]

I actually agree with you on this one, and disagree with Jazz. So much so that I even liked the post returning the favour from when you accidentally liked my post above. Very well said.

I am much more concerned with the democratization of science, than vice versa. And that is exactly what is happening, just read Chuck, or similar zealots posts, calling on the authority of consensus, or worse yet consensus of politicians. The uninformed electorate can and does vote for things that science clearly does not support, one needs look no further than the ongoing evolution vs. creationism in schools debate going on in many US states. That is scary, giving bonafide scientists a veto over democracy would not concern me in the least compared to uninformed, unqualified, emotionally, and economically driven power hungry politicians or voters having a veto over science.

There is absolutely no criteria to be met, or minimum level of knowledge required to be a politician or a voter, and it shows at all levels, and all over the world, we have two very prime examples right here in North America right now. Whereas, at least in theory, professionals do have to meet certain standards of education and experience, they stand to lose their professional certification if they are dishonest or corrupt. We don't expect a specialist scientist to be a jack of all trades, one might spend their entire career studying liver diseases of the three toed sloth, but, inexplicably, we expect our politicians and by extension those who vote for them to be experts in every possible field at a moments notice.

And the second half of your post is exactly the problem that we are talking about. And just like in my response to Chuck above, they use meaningless words (in this context) such as feel, and believe. Or the last one, I would respond as being extremely concerned about climate change, considering that my living depends on it, that in no way implies anything about what those same uninformed people believe is causing that change, or which direction they are concerned about.

And the 60% who want the government to take more action, is almost as high as the percentage of Canadians who either don't work, or work in the public sector coincidentally enough, and are likely the same percent who see government money as someone else's money. Did they try asking those same people if they personally should take more action, and how much of their own money they were willing to sacrifice to the good cause, because real world observations indicate that no one is willing to sacrifice any of their own money, even though they are very generous with other peoples money.

Exactly. There should not be any politics in science. And contrary to your comment earlier where you said" "You and DML keep insisting that science is incorruptible and your climate scientists can't be bought and paid for..." I never once claimed that. Likely everyone has a price, including scientists. (I think, hope, believe, my price is higher than the value I would ever be to anyone!) But because Mann fudged??? the hockey stick graph does not mean all climate change supporting scientists are on the take any more than the errors Lindzen made and the refusal of a recognized peer review journal to publish so he had it placed in a little known Korean journal means all questioners of climate change are oil funded lobbyists.

That is why I feel it is so important to provide sources for any "facts" published on the internet. It allows people to actually judge the quality of the information presented. Anyone can say or post anything, but unless we know from where and who that "fact" came from, it really is just "he said she said" and instead of increasing actual knowledge it may just be mistakenly or worse yet intentionally misleading which is exactly the problem you describe.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Please provide your source for your claim of a 30% increase in Arctic ice. And is 30% increase covers what area of the area and what is the time period that the claimed increase is over.

Second Jazz, How is Science overruling democracy? Please explain.

I also disagree with your assessment of personal choice. If a democratic elected government says farmers can no longer use glyphosate for preharvest, then I do not have a choice to use it preharvest.

When the governments of Europe ended import of GMO canola, as a farmer I do not have a choice of selling RR canola to that market. Science says GMO canola is safe, yet democracy says we don't want it and I do not have a choice to sell it.

If people choose not to vaccinate, my taxes are still used to treat these people or their kids when they come down with a preventable disease. I have no choice but my taxes are still used for non vaccinated People's health care. In all three cases, science has deemed something safe, but democracy has taken away a choice for me. Maybe democracy is over ruling science!

But if you are right, science should never overrule democracy, please note that recent polls show more Canadians believe climate change is human caused than those who deny it. So you should be agreeing with climate change and the carbon tax just on democratic principles regardless of the findings of your pseudo science

Key findings Abacus Data poll of Canadians Feb 2018:
...Most Canadians believe climate change is happening, is caused by human behavior...
60% want governments to take more action to combat climate change...

https://ecofiscal.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Ecosfiscal_Polling_February2018_FINAL_RELEASE.pdf https://ecofiscal.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Ecosfiscal_Polling_February2018_FINAL_RELEASE.pdf

Nov 2018 Angus Reid poll
66% of Canadians feel Climate change is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities

https://www.citynews1130.com/2018/11/30/poll-canadians-climate-change/ https://www.citynews1130.com/2018/11/30/poll-canadians-climate-change/

March 17, 2019 Abacus Data:
• A total of 83% of Canadians say they are quite (26%), very (30%) or extremely (27%) concerned about climate change. Only 18% say they are not all that (12%) or not concerned (6%).

https://abacusdata.ca/will-climate-change-be-a-ballot-box-question-in-2019/ https://abacusdata.ca/will-climate-change-be-a-ballot-box-question-in-2019/

I actually agree with you on this one, and disagree with Jazz. So much so that I even liked the post returning the favour from when you accidentally liked my post above. Very well said.

I am much more concerned with the democratization of science, than vice versa. And that is exactly what is happening, just read Chuck, or similar zealots posts, calling on the authority of consensus, or worse yet consensus of politicians. The uninformed electorate can and does vote for things that science clearly does not support, one needs look no further than the ongoing evolution vs. creationism in schools debate going on in many US states. That is scary. But giving bonafide scientists a veto over democracy would not concern me in the least compared to uninformed, unqualified, emotionally, and economically driven power hungry politicians or voters having a veto over science.

There is absolutely no criteria to be met, or minimum level of knowledge required to be a politician or a voter, and it shows at all levels, and all over the world, we have two very prime examples right here in North America right now. Whereas, at least in theory, professionals do have to meet certain standards of education and experience, they stand to lose their professional certification if they are dishonest or corrupt. We don't expect a specialist scientist to be a jack of all trades, one might spend their entire career studying liver diseases of the three toed sloth, but, inexplicably, we expect our politicians and by extension those who vote for them to be experts in every possible field at a moments notice.

And the second half of your post is exactly the problem that we are talking about. And just like in my response to Chuck above, they use meaningless (in this context) words such as feel, and believe. Or in the case of the last one, even I would respond as being extremely concerned about climate change, considering that my living depends on it, long term weather trends are my biggest concern, but those responses in no way imply anything about what those same mostly uninformed people believe is causing that change, or even in which direction they are concerned about it changing.

And the 60% who want the government to take more action, is almost as high as the percentage of Canadians who either don't work, or work in the public sector coincidentally enough, and are likely the same percent who see government money as someone else's money. Did they try asking those same people if they personally should take more action, and how much of their own money they were willing to sacrifice to the good cause, because real world observations indicate that no one is willing to sacrifice any of their own money, even though they are very generous with other peoples money.

[dmlfarmer]

...and the 30% increase in Arctic ice.

And science should never overrule democracy. Those example you gave all involve personal choice. I can choose not to use glyphosate if I think its dangerous. I can choose not to eat GMOs and I can choose what vaccines I want to take. I cannot choose to not contribute to a carbon tax that has no real end purpose. Your pseudo science should not override my free choice.

Please provide your source for your claim of a 30% increase in Arctic ice. And is 30% increase covers what area of the area and what is the time period that the claimed increase is over.

Second Jazz, How is Science overruling democracy? Please explain.

I also disagree with your assessment of personal choice. If a democratic elected government says farmers can no longer use glyphosate for preharvest, then I do not have a choice to use it preharvest.

When the governments of Europe ended import of GMO canola, as a farmer I do not have a choice of selling RR canola to that market. Science says GMO canola is safe, yet democracy says we don't want it and I do not have a choice to sell it.

If people choose not to vaccinate, my taxes are still used to treat these people or their kids when they come down with a preventable disease. I have no choice but my taxes are still used for non vaccinated People's health care. In all three cases, science has deemed something safe, but democracy has taken away a choice for me. Maybe democracy is over ruling science!

But if you are right, science should never overrule democracy, please note that recent polls show more Canadians believe climate change is human caused than those who deny it. So you should be agreeing with climate change and the carbon tax just on democratic principles regardless of the findings of your pseudo science

Key findings Abacus Data poll of Canadians Feb 2018:
...Most Canadians believe climate change is happening, is caused by human behavior...
60% want governments to take more action to combat climate change...

https://ecofiscal.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Ecosfiscal_Polling_February2018_FINAL_RELEASE.pdf https://ecofiscal.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Ecosfiscal_Polling_February2018_FINAL_RELEASE.pdf

Nov 2018 Angus Reid poll
66% of Canadians feel Climate change is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities

https://www.citynews1130.com/2018/11/30/poll-canadians-climate-change/ https://www.citynews1130.com/2018/11/30/poll-canadians-climate-change/

March 17, 2019 Abacus Data:
• A total of 83% of Canadians say they are quite (26%), very (30%) or extremely (27%) concerned about climate change. Only 18% say they are not all that (12%) or not concerned (6%).

https://abacusdata.ca/will-climate-change-be-a-ballot-box-question-in-2019/ https://abacusdata.ca/will-climate-change-be-a-ballot-box-question-in-2019/

[dmlfarmer]

Whats up with sea ice chuck? Please square that with the models.

Little foxy ran from Norway to Canada on ice pack during the summer solstice.

Jazz, just wondering if you ever fact check things you post or if you are intentionally trying to mislead this forum?

Agrivillers, Jazz is right that a fox travelled from Norway to Canada, however not from continental Norway as he wants you to believe, but from Spitzsbergen in the Svalbard archipelago (Norwegian territory) which for those who does not know is roughly 1100 kms north west of the northern most point of continental Norway and is in fact only about 600 kms east of the north tip of Greenland.

Yes, it did travel on sea ice but not all the way to Canada, but only to Greenland and this travel across sea ice did not take place over the summer solstice but the fox left the Spitzsbergen on March 26, 2018 and arrived in Greenland on April 16th, 2018 long before summer arrived in the area and around the time when sea ice is thickest. In fact ice is thick enough than boats do not travel that far north at that time of the year. The fox crossed Greenland until June 6, 2018 before the short crossing over solid ice to Elsmere Island in the far north of Canada on June 10th, 2018, 12 days before the Solstice.

No question this was a remarkable journey, but it has nothing to do with climate change, or changes in sea ice. There is sea ice every spring around Svalbard archipelago. Foxes have made the same journey in the past, just this time the fox was wearing a tracking collar so we no the route and times that is detailed, with maps, in the link below.

Another example of Jazz sharing unsourced information to mislead Agrivillers!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/02/fantastic-arctic-fox-animal-walks-3500km-from-norway-to-canada https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/02/fantastic-arctic-fox-animal-walks-3500km-from-norway-to-canada

[flea beetle]

A colleague? He wasn't in the video.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

"Contrary to the IPCC's assessment, Lindzen said that climate models are inadequate. Despite accepted errors in their models, e.g., treatment of clouds, modelers still thought their climate predictions were valid.[50] Lindzen has stated that due to the non-linear effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, CO2 levels are now around 30% higher than pre-industrial levels but temperatures have responded by about 75% 0.6 °C (1.08 °F) of the expected value for a doubling of CO2. The IPCC (2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 to be about 3 °C (5.4 °F), ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of the Earth's climate sensitivity to be 0.5 °C based on ERBE data.[51] These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others,[52] and Lindzen accepted that his paper included "some stupid mistakes". When interviewed, he said "It was just embarrassing", and added that "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS.[53] The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication.[54] Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper.[53][55] Andrew Dessler published a paper which found errors in Lindzen and Choi 2011, and concluded that the observations it had presented "are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported."[56]

Thanks for confirming that you never watched the links. Plural. More than one.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Lindzen calls people who dispute the connection between rising CO2 and warming as nutty!

Lindzen calls people who think like you A5 as nutty. He may disagree with some aspects or models but he does believe in the basic science which you apparently don't believe! LOL

You can be very frustrating student. You are back to using the word belief in regards to science. I thought We had that issue settled by now, yet You think you are ready to have an adult discussion on the topic? Leave The believing to the religious fanatics please, not the scientists.

If you bothered to read anything I post, including further up in this thread, I gratefully acknowledge CO2 as a greenhouse gas, And readily point out the benefits humanity has received from warming, regardless of which Portion of that warming can be attributed to human versus natural causes.

You guys keep missing is that the Relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature is not Linear. At These high levels we are basically wasting most of this precious CO2 for progressively less additional temperature benefits

[jazz]

Whats up with sea ice chuck? Please square that with the models.

Little foxy ran from Norway to Canada on ice pack during the summer solstice.