CanucksCorner.com Forums

Topper wrote:A Foundation player.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world ... foundation

follow the money

Wow...That is not chump change...

Strangelove wrote:
It's a simple story of human nature.
The folks at the top of the "hoax" pyramid are making money hand-over-fist.
---
So embracing a popular alarminst theory can mean big money for opportunist authors/speakers.
At some point, embracing a popular alarmist theory such as AGW helps some politicians get elected
---
Like climate change, human corruption is a cycle.
So yeah, those at the top are probably mostly in it for the money.
Of course another aspect of human nature is in play, the human need for drama.
---
Throw in yet another aspect of human nature: Human need to feel morally superior.
Now we can see how a human corruption cycle comes into full bloom.
(the many on the bottom of the pyramid are the goosestepping stooges)

Much like organised religion.

Strangelove wrote:
Remember the "We're running out of landfill space!!" craze?
Remember the "Global Cooling! We're head for an Ice Age!!" craze?
Remember the "Acid Rain!!" craze?
Remember the "Hole in the ozone!!" craze?
Well you get the picture...

Actually, all of those were problems that mankind were facing, but that today have been solved.

The need for landfill space has diminshed because we are recycling more. It is still a problem in some countries, especially developing countries, but it is no longer a major headache.

The global cooling phenomenon was in part that many think the cycle we are in should be heading toward an ice age, in part because of particle emissions causing smog clouds that reflect the sunlight away from Earth and thus lower the temperature. Better smokestack filters and "cleaner" oil and petrol, containing less sulphur, has more or less eliminated the problem. In fact, there has been suggestions that we could "fix" global warming by sending more sulphur into the atmosphere... But then we'd get more acid rain again....

... which brings us to acid rain. As Topper has pointed out this occurs naturally as a result of volcano eruptions, but in the 60's and 70's it escalated because of the high sulphur content in much of the oil and petrol that was used. For most places it is not that much of a problem, except that it makes marble rot, so many classsic statues had to be brought inside and replaced by replicas, but in eg Sweden it was a huge problem because our soil (and bedrock) is very low in calcium. That meant that acidity increased significantly in many lakes, to the point that it killed off lots of fish, and especially problematic for crayfish and sweetwater mussles or clams, who use calcium in their shells, and were driven to the point of extinction. Throughout the eighties we spent huge amounts of money bombing lakes with calcium to maintain reasonable pH values. Thankfully better smokestack filters and "cleaner" oil and petrol has improved the situation dramatically, but some countries still use sulphur-rich oil (looking at you, Putin! ), so this problem is not completely solved.

And the ozone layer has been a real problem as well. When they started talking about it, in the 1960's there was still no hole in the layer. Today there is a big hole over the Antarctic, that sometimes even affects Australia. It's mainly problematic for frogs and other amphibians and some plants that die from exposure of unfiltered ultra-violet light, but it also increases the risk of contracting skin cancer, especially if you are of the Celtic freckled, red haired and green eyed persuasion. Populating Australia with Irish people was a really harebrained scheme the British came up with.... Anyway, the main culprit in the depletion of the ozone layer was CFCs, which we used in spray cans, air conditioning, rerigerators and foam plastic, but which was banned in most industrialised nations in 1996. Since then the depletion first slowed, and in the last few years the hole has even shrunk. It's expected that in fifty years or so the ozone layer should be back to normal.

So, what I'm saying is that there was actually a reason why we should be alarmed over these threats, but because we were alarmed we adressed these problems and solved them.

Facing your problems and solving them is actually often a better strategy than sticking your head in the sand and pretending it does not exist. Just saying.

Interesting times, how many "hoaxes" have been corrected because humans changed their ways.

Doc, seriously do you honestly believe humans are not having a negative impact on the earth? We all agree global warming occurs naturally, no question there. But do you not agree that over the past 50ish years the amount of crap we put into the air, the others things humans do has not caused the earths temperature to increase faster than it should have naturally ?

Strangelove wrote:

Cornuck wrote: Could Acid Rain have been slowed by laws requiring cleaner emissions?

Acid Rain has been here since long before we were making emissions
… as evidenced by ice-core samples.
This is because Acid Rain is caused by volcanoes/lightning/wildfires.
Note human activity in the form of firefighting in effect reduces that 3rd effect
… though overall, mankind’s effect on Acid Rain is negligible, both pre/post cleaner emissions .
Globally Acid Rain is present at the same levels it ever was.
Acid Rain is a natural occurrence and is important for plant life.
So yeah the “Acid Rain!!” craze from the 70s was just that: A craze.
(note sulfur-removing filters + longer smokestacks may have somewhat reduced local AR)

Acid rain has Always been a fact of Life on Earth, but the level of acidity has differed.
I have had a hard time finding generalized global data, but here's how the average acidity of rain water has changed in Delaware since the 1970's, when we started trying to do something about it:

http://www1.udel.edu/udaily/2012/may/ac ... 50212.html

I don't really understand the scale they use, but the average pH value has risen from 4.2 to 4.7, which may not sound like much, but actually translates to a 60% reduction of acidity levels.

So, yes, it seems stricter laws regarding pollution has had an effect on acid rain.

Mind you, pH 7 is neutral, so rain water is still acid, as it has always been, but it is now closer to where it ought to be than it was in the 60's or 70's.

As for longer smokestacks - that's a beggar thy neighbour solution, throw the garbage on your neighbour's lawn approach!
That's what they did in Great Britain to solve the problem, and sure, it worked for THEM.
With the prevailing winds following the gulf stream, the sulphur emissions flew north west toward Scandinavia and fell as rain over Norway and Sweden. Assholes!

Doc,

I wish I had the spare time you do.

But in the end, I hope you'll agree that even though I was a cunt and introduced the "pollution" factor into the debate you'll have to consider that man is fucking up the planet and politicians will continue to keep their heads in the sand (while leaving their hands out for donations) and let the slide to a toxic environment continue. Because, after all, this thread is about the election, right?

We can all link to any number of videos and articles and reports that will support each side of the story, but in the meantime, the oceans are being over-fished, the glaciers are melting, the environmental quality in the parts of the world where manufacture the crap we 'need' is causing health problems to humans and the natural world.

All of this combines to put the current course of action, which you seem to be supporting, down a path that is not going to end well for (current) life on the planet.

But hey, I'll be dead (relatively) soon and don't really give a shit how this all plays out.

Want to feel insignificant?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... dlier.html

I'm just saying, maybe we have been helping the situation to some degree but at the end of the day.
"We don't count as much as we think"

Donald & Hillary can't change that.

IMO, who can benefit the "American way of life", better, should be the one who wins.
I know what I think, but I don't get a vote.
I do know whatever happens down there, will affect us up here.....

Reefer2 wrote:Interesting times, how many "hoaxes" have been corrected because humans changed their ways.

Doc, seriously do you honestly believe humans are not having a negative impact on the earth? We all agree global warming occurs naturally, no question there. But do you not agree that over the past 50ish years the amount of crap we put into the air, the others things humans do has not caused the earths temperature to increase faster than it should have naturally ?

No, humans do not cause (and more importantly can't "fix") GW.

BTW what do you consider the optimum temperature for planet Earth?

Per, there is no scientific evidence man has "fixed" any of the 4 problems listed.

(no matter how hard you try to make it seem that way)

Cornuck wrote: But in the end, I hope you'll agree that even though I was a cunt and introduced the "pollution" factor into the debate you'll have to consider that man is fucking up the planet and politicians will continue to keep their heads in the sand (while leaving their hands out for donations) and let the slide to a toxic environment continue. Because, after all, this thread is about the election, right?

Oh yeah!

THE CLINTON... VS... THE DONALD

(and you'll be happy to know I'm going out for the rest of the day)

Strangelove wrote:

Cornuck wrote: What are the odds that phasing out fossil fuels will be better for everyone in the long run?

ZERO, after all fossil fuels are man’s best friend:
http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/A ... lFuels.php

A false friend, at best.
And we're already phasing them out.

In 1970, fossil fuels accounted for 80% of energy consumption in Sweden (oil alone was 76%).
Following the oil crisis of 1974/75, the government decided that it was fundamental that we stop depending on an energy source that must be imported. Today fossil fuels only account for 30% of energy consumption here, with hydro power, nuclear power and bio fuels picking up most of the slack, but wind, geothermal and solar energy are also increasing their share. When it comes to heating, oil accounts for roughly 2% and coal less than 1%. The fossil fuels we still use is mainly for transports. Sadly, most cars/boats/planes still depend on petroleum products, but change is on its way there as well!

In Norway, electrical plug-in cars now make up one quarter of new car sales, and their share keeps going up.
With any luck petrolum cars could be phased out within the next fifteen years. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/24/this-cou ... s-how.html

Fossil fuels are a remnant from the days of dinosaurs and the sooner they're gone the better.

A collapse of the oil market would be a very effective way to neuter both Putin and ISIS.

Strangelove wrote:

Cornuck wrote: Is Los Angeles' air getting better because the winds are blowing differently or because there's less man made pollution?

I don’t recall making a reference to any “Smog is gonna kill us!” craze.

Nah, the smog is mainly killing the Chinese.
Canadians? Not so much.

Cornuck wrote:Doc,
All of this combines to put the current course of action, which you seem to be supporting, down a path that is not going to end well for (current) life on the planet.

But hey, I'll be dead (relatively) soon and don't really give a shit how this all plays out.

He supports that path because he's a Christian conservative and he believes in free market capitalism and less government regulation like trump.

AGW would mean that the solution is more market regulation. That would take money out of big business' hands.

It's a fundamentally flawed position which is why doc who is normally a nice guy turns into wriggling snake trying. To defend basically an indefensible position clutching at obviously paid for party hacks spouting disinformation.

The irony is suppose is that conservatives support laws to restrict citizens freedoms for their own good because man cannot be trusted to do the right thing on their own.

But corporations however don't need laws to restrict their actions because ultimately they will choose to do the right thing.

It's funny how slave owners used to claim the same crap "we should get to keep our slaves because financially it's in our best interest to keep our slaves healthy and happy.

It's funny how the same argument was put forth to deregulate banks and then look what happened in 2008?


Yep it's a hypocritical position and Doc knows it which is why he still has not addressed the fact that overwhelmingly the climate deniers case is brought forward by card carrying members of the far right.

His fall back "strangehumour" is his only coping mechanism

Sad that cunts exist to ruin his day

Topper wrote:

Strangelove wrote:

ukcanuck wrote: I highly doubt you are sophisticated enough to get past your christian conservative, moral majority, homophobia to understand gay rights anyway.

What on God's green Earth has pedophilia to do with "gay rights"?!!

Schooled by a priest?

Well reared by Father McRapey.

Per wrote:

Strangelove wrote:

Cornuck wrote: What are the odds that phasing out fossil fuels will be better for everyone in the long run?

ZERO, after all fossil fuels are man’s best friend:
http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/A ... lFuels.php

A false friend, at best.
And we're already phasing them out.

In 1970, fossil fuels accounted for 80% of energy consumption in Sweden (oil alone was 76%).
Following the oil crisis of 1974/75, the government decided that it was fundamental that we stop depending on an energy source that must be imported. Today fossil fuels only account for 30% of energy consumption here, with hydro power, nuclear power and bio fuels picking up most of the slack, but wind, geothermal and solar energy are also increasing their share. When it comes to heating, oil accounts for roughly 2% and coal less than 1%. The fossil fuels we still use is mainly for transports. Sadly, most cars/boats/planes still depend on petroleum products, but change is on its way there as well!

In Norway, electrical plug-in cars now make up one quarter of new car sales, and their share keeps going up.
With any luck petrolum cars could be phased out within the next fifteen years. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/24/this-cou ... s-how.html

Fossil fuels are a remnant from the days of dinosaurs and the sooner they're gone the better.

We're a just a tad off topic here, and no one gives a turd about Sweden BUT...

Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Sweden:







Why didn't you mention how much nuclear power Sweden is relying on these days (meltdown imminent?)

You also forgot to mention how much Wind/Biomass sources are subsidized by your tax dollars...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08 ... print.html

Media controls the goosestepping morons....

Strangelove wrote:

We're a just a tad off topic here, and no one gives a turd about Sweden BUT...

Which is of course why John Kerry was here last week and Joe Biden is here right now.

Not to mention that The Donald keeps pretending that he's Swedish, when in reality his grandfather was a German brothel owner in Klondyke and his mother was Scottish. We probably should sue him for defamation!
http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-e ... 6/1.710948

Strangelove wrote: You also forgot to mention how much Wind/Biomass sources are subsidized by your tax dollars...

We don't use dollars.

But yes, as successive governments have seen it as fundamental to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, investing in and subsidizing technologies that can replace them has been a logical strategy to accomplish this.