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

[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]

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.

[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.

[fjlip]

Survey says...

[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...

[AlbertaFarmer5]

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.

I may have confused what you and Chuck said, and for no one deserves to be confused with Chuck, for that I apologize.

I also expect that nearly all climate scientists, and those on the periphery are honest, and not influenced by money, fame or power. If the three toed sloth scientist does a study on what effect climate change will have on the three toed sloth's habitat, no one expects him/her to first prove and verify that the climate models are correct, no, they start out with the premise that RCP 8.5 is a viable and probable scenario because some other scientist created it, then they base all their projections on that. In the end, since RCP 8.5 isn't even remotely plausible, it ends up being Garbage In= Garbage Out, but there is nothing sinister in it on their part, they are only applying the garbage to their own area of expertise.

[jazz]

I totally disagree with these watered down assessments. Most scientific research of non commercial value is conducted by govt institutions and academia which are supported by govts. Of course its politicized. Any study that comes out of those places is highly suspect as is all the climate change data.

Most of these scientists exist on the benevolence of public tax funds. They are socialist by nature. Thye have no job or purpose without those funds and making up climate data is the surest way to access funds off a politicized agenda. Why go do original research when you cna ride the multi decade scam. I imagine these guys look at their funding apps and say I can either submit something to watch a mouse for 10yrs, or I can ride the climate funding. Many of the so called scientists expanded their areas to cover the effects of climate change on whatever. So you will have a scientist who studies who knows what, algae or something, but then they will submit their funding app with the title The Effects of Climate Change on Algae and boom, approved. That's where the 97% of scientists agree fact comes from. Most of that group aren't even atmospheric scientists yet they agree with climate change.

Stop putting scientists on some pedestal. They are human. They exibit the same self interest as any group does.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I totally disagree with these watered down assessments. Most scientific research of non commercial value is conducted by govt institutions and academia which are supported by govts. Of course its politicized. Any study that comes out of those places is highly suspect as is all the climate change data.

Most of these scientists exist on the benevolence of public tax funds. They are socialist by nature. Thye have no job or purpose without those funds and making up climate data is the surest way to access funds off a politicized agenda. Why go do original research when you cna ride the multi decade scam. I imagine these guys look at their funding apps and say I can either submit something to watch a mouse for 10yrs, or I can ride the climate funding. Many of the so called scientists expanded their areas to cover the effects of climate change on whatever. So you will have a scientist who studies who knows what, algae or something, but then they will submit their funding app with the title The Effects of Climate Change on Algae and boom, approved. That's where the 97% of scientists agree fact comes from. Most of that group aren't even atmospheric scientists yet they agree with climate change.

Stop putting scientists on some pedestal. They are human. They exibit the same self interest as any group does.

Jazz, it is certainly unethical to make a GIGO study about the effects of climate change on algae or the three toed sloth, but not dishonest. There are a lot of honest and ethical scientists out there blowing the whistle on the truly unethical lately, mostly in regards to the climate change industry. Look at the success Peter Ridd is having in Australia. The tide is slowly turning, and many are going from quietly turning a blind eye to the likes of Micheal Mann, to taking active opposition to such actions that denigrate their profession.

[fjlip]

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/

[ATTACH]4508[/ATTACH]

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...

Wow! That is a great site, okay cultists, SEE ONLY politicians/Scientists think shit will happen. We the people of earth DO NOT agree! ha ha

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Wow! That is a great site, okay cultists, SEE ONLY politicians/Scientists think shit will happen. We the people of earth DO NOT agree! ha ha

And that is the UN's own survey, not some evil denier, Chuck loves to call on the authority of the UN over anyone else, but last time I posted this same info, he was suspiciously quiet about it. Apparently when you have no drinking water, no electricity, not sure where your next meal will come from, questionable healthcare, corrupt governments and police and very few opportunities for education, the abstract notion of global warming is not high on your priority list. Only those of us in the first world have the luxury of concerning ourselves with such things.

[farmaholic]

And that is the UN's own survey, not some evil denier, Chuck loves to call on the authority of the UN over anyone else, but last time I posted this same info, he was suspiciously quiet about it. Apparently when you have no drinking water, no electricity, not sure where your next meal will come from, questionable healthcare, corrupt governments and police and very few opportunities for education, the abstract notion of global warming is not high on your priority list. Only those of us in the first world have the luxury of concerning ourselves with such things.

Well said.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

DML, now that we have found some common ground, can you address my previous question.

I'll even reword it in simpler terms.

If I set up my redneck mobile home so the floor is exactly 1 foot above high tide today, in what year will I have to add a few more blocks under the wheels due to natural sea level rise, and how much sooner will my shag carpeting and Jeff Foxworthy DVD collection get reliably wet due to the human component of sea level rise?
And what are the confidence levels for those estimates, and have they been back tested with observable measurements?

[jazz]

Climate change will be exposed for the scam it is within the next few yrs. Hope DML will have enough humility to come back at that time and admit it was all a hoax created to enslave us to a perpetual shame tax that wasnt real. Going to be a lot of people feeling like fools.

[malleefarmer]

Quack quack

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12096103/Humans-could-evolve-webbed-feet-if-sea-levels-rise-scientist-claims.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12096103/Humans-could-evolve-webbed-feet-if-sea-levels-rise-scientist-claims.html

[AlbertaFarmer5]

DML, You took all the time and effort to debunk the anecdotal story about a fox, can you put The same effort into answering the question about natural versus human caused sealevel rise please?