Yup.
.
If you’re a journalist or editor, The Atlantic’s James Fallows really thinks you should read this:
.
And then there’s this:
.
Also, for the record: Price Tags on February 17, 2011 –
Climate-change denialism and reality
… here’s the thing: even if there wasn’t a denialist lobby, even if there was universal acceptance of climate change theory, it wouldn’t matter much if there was no manifestation of change in the actual environment. If reality could not be matched up with theory, there would be no incentive to change, particularly if it required a change in the comfortable status quo.
Likewise, it won’t matter much in the long run if the denialist lobby is triumphant in the short term if they dismiss extraordinary events as they become the new norm. If they’re obliged to dismiss storms, droughts, floods, heat waves and every manifestation of extreme weather that becomes a consistent pattern – not to mention the incremental rise in global temperature – then they become irrelevant.
The problem, of course, is the timing. If adaptation and mitigation are delayed because of denialism – and the consequences are severe – then I wonder what the reaction will be, simply as a matter of justice.
Amen.
“Likewise, it won’t matter much in the long run if the denialist lobby is triumphant in the short term if they dismiss extraordinary events as they become the new norm. If they’re obliged to dismiss storms, droughts, floods, heat waves and every manifestation of extreme weather that becomes a consistent pattern – not to mention the incremental rise in global temperature – then they become irrelevant.”
Who’s writing this drivel? “Irrelevant“! Stop the hysteria now. No one is denying anything. The earth warms! The earth cools! Storms come, storms go . . .
http://occupycorporatism.com/german-physicist-says-co2-effecting-climate-change-is-sheer-absurdity/
. . . absurdity indeed.
Of course everyone one this blog is too young (and brain washed) to remember Hurricane Freda that hit the lower Mainland in 1962. It was devastating. I was driving home along Hastings hazarding electric flashes, flying neon signs, downed trees and power poles, winds at 150kph. The Stanley Park Causeway was utterly inaccessible.
It did not generate the international headlines as has Sandy because Vancouver was even more of a backwater then than it is now: it lacked the Coney island board walk and presidential grandstanding.
No one had wet dream of global warming then.
Stick to you bike Gord before you make more of an ass of yourself.
The Global Warming Scam . . .
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming.html
Here in Manattan on the eve of the Marathon, I’d say people are quite aware that Sandy, following so closely after 2011’s Irene, is a game changer. The remarkable thing is how people are coping. Buses were free the last couple days. Our taxi driver spent 7 hours in a lineup for gas yesterday. Power in our building and ‘hood came on after 3 days yesterday around 5pm, to shouting in the streets. All venues with power were accommodating everyone who needed to recharge their devices in order to do what they need to do. Spirits seem to be very high in spite of it all. Yet throughout it all there is a sense of normality that prevails.
I can’t help but wonder how Vancouverites would respond.
@ Frank
“ . . . that Sandy, following so closely after 2011′s Irene, is a game changer.” Well , errrr, not quite . . .
“For example, by the beginning of September in an average year we would expect to have had four named systems, two of which would be hurricanes and one of which would be of category 3 or greater in strength.”
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/#bac
A weather events leave a lasting impression not so much for its horror but more for the infrastructure damage and presidential visit. If the system wipes out Coney Island it’s a news event. If a president visits it’s an opportunity.
The earth warms! The earth cools! Storms come and storms go!
Evidently there isn’t anything we can do about it . . . tiresome, eh!
I wish folks such as yourself would put aside your beliefs and act in the best interests of the generations to follow. You won’t be here much longer, but the impacts of your inaction will linger on. It’s the gift that keeps on taking.
PS I’ve been a sailor for large portions of my life, professionally late ’40’s in His Majesty’s RN, and the latter ten sailing the Salish Sea.
I sort of got used to watching the weather . . .
It’s a shame that blogger commentators still can’t all read or understand scientific literature and findings to save their lives, and still post meaningless online drivel written without a care in the world towards facts or fact-checking and call it an honest debate.
It’s easy to cherry pick some data that supports your cause. What is not so easy is to refute what is now decades upon decades of scientific literature that is as conclusive as science gets in telling us that current climate change is predominantly anthropogenic. So that’s usually just ignored, as is the case with Mr. Kemble’s references.
Of course, it’s not his future we’re talking about, so he doesn’t have to care. He may not live to truly understand how wrong he is. It’s not Gord’s either, so kudos to him for caring. Many in his generation probably don’t. But it’s my future and it very much matters to me.
Tessa – thanks for your comments, not including thse about Gord’s very real concerns about the planet’s future. I’m also quite tired of climate change denialists – what a determined and persistent bunch! I truly don’t how they can keep it up in spite of all evidence. I much rather get my information from Andrew Weaver and other true researchers on global warming.
The real issue before us is how to protect cities from such events as Sandy, as well as from rising sea levels in general.
Give this a good long read Roger:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Your absurd anecdotal evidence, like having been a sailor, does very little to convince me in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. These people have also “sort of got used to watching the weather”.
The earth warms! The earth cools! And it ain’t your fault!
I am always skeptical of rampant indignation without back up evidence!
No need to wait 100 years to see who is right?
Here’s mine . . .
http://www.aari.ru/odata/_d0015.php?lang=1&mod=0&yy=2012
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html?openGraphAuthor=%2Fhome%2Fsearch.html%3Fs%3D%26authornamef%3DDavid%2Brose
. . . where’s yours?
Gord, Ryan, Frank, Tessa, without back-up evidence your gossip is oh so tiresome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
You don’t know the difference between science and opinion. Look it up.
Oh dear god you’re citing the Daily Mail and a YouTube video… Give me strength.
Andrew Brown. Oh dear God the monolith has spoke!
Dear Mr. Brown your spurious, absolute certitude demonstrates the basest group thinq and fear in you.
You, sir, have the temerity to accuse scientists who openly explain their research on YouTube or the Daily Mail of being illegitimate: this is more an insight into your lack of integrity and threadbare confidence in your own thinquing.
If they do so thru popular access so be it.
There are dozens of real, qualified, legitimate scientists who question the conventional wisdom of your ragtag bevy. And they do it to acquaint us thru the popular media!
Questioning! That is scientist’s job. That is what science is: questioning what troglodytes like you arrogantly peddle.
Yours, your ilk’s, arrogance is stifling.
Be wary of consensus. It is not science it is bottom crawling.
I have this powerful image in my head of a very grumpy English walrus, smoking his pipe in his highback chair and sputtering gin-soaked lamentations about the state of the Empire. God save the Queen and all that chap! Just dreadful state of things isn’t it?
Since you’ve provided your Youtube video, it’s only fair that I provide some background on that video. And I trust that this “popular access” will be acceptable to you, given that Wikipedia has better sourcing than your video.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
Part of the problem is that folks such as the film maker latch onto this “global warming” term as if everywhere on the planet should be getting hotter. It’s a straw man. Climate change modifies weather patterns: some regions warm, some cool, some dry up, and some experience increased rainfall.
Pretty sure except for a fringe nutcase minority the debate about if global warming is occuring is over. The evidence is pretty overwhelming that global warming is occuring. There is still debate over the cause, but it seems that the large majority of the scientific community believe it is significantly human influenced.
What’s your problem Rico can’t you read . . .
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released–chart-prove-it.html?openGraphAuthor=%2Fhome%2Fsearch.html%3Fs%3D%26authorna
Yes I can read, but apparently you don’t bother to. The conclusion from your hand picked source you link to is Global Warming is real and is likely human caused but is not occuring as fast as current models predict. If you link to articles you should read more than the headlines.
interesting your source starts in 1997/98, an El Nino year that was at the time the hottest on record and hotter than the average for the 90’s. That tells us more about how cherry-picking works than science.
You might want to read this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
Next up Roger, did you bother to read the link Ryan provided? The ability to read does not do you much good if your mind is closed.
Ummmmm, interesting. Twice I have posted a response and twice it has not shown up.
Clearly Pricetags censor at work.
What I am trying to post is . . . Tessa y Rico Stop being hysterical and read to the end of the post yourselves . . .
“The most depressing feature of this debate is that anyone who questions the alarmist, doomsday scenario will automatically be labelled a climate change ‘denier’, and accused of jeopardising the future of humanity.”
The earth warms. The earth cools.
The most depressing feature is that people continue to ignore decades of scientific research and post a few internet links to cherry-picked sites and pretend to be crusaders fighting a giant conspiracy and cover up. And there’s nothing that can really be done to change a mind so focused on conspiracy.
Sorry to throw back to this topic as I could equally enjoyably lambaste Mr. Kemble for his views on fractional reserve banking, but I got some logic I gotta bust out right here.
Roger, the point isn’t that you can find a handful of scientists that don’t believe in global warming (although the number is shrinking by the year), the point is that the vast majority of scientists in relevant fields, and I daresay all fields, are on the same side on this issue.
We here are not scientists. And since Thomas Hobbes, science stopped being a sport for the layman. Sometimes it’s necessary to step aside and let the scientists do their work. You don’t question that the universe is 13.7 billion years old (I hope), yet I doubt you’ve double checked the math on that. So why not question astrophysicists as you do climatologists?
I’m not a climate expert so I refuse to debate this from a scientific standpoint – don’t bother showing me graphs of C02 levels and sunspot activity because I’m not qualified to understand them (and you aren’t qualified to teach me about them). In our increasingly technical world, you pretty much have to have a PhD to make intelligent claims about science (even PhDs are nervous about making claims regarding another scientist’s adjacent field). It’s impossible for each one of us to become experts in every field so that we can weed out all potential conspiracies. Thus, we often have to rely on the experts.
In order to function in life and in science, logical people believe things which are PROBABLY true beyond a reasonable doubt. If all experts in a relevant field believe something, it’s PROBABLY true. If the theory has mutually supportive evidence, is peer reviewed, and the theory ties into the rest of our web of knowledge nicely, it’s PROBABLY true.
So yes, no one can 100% prove that humans cause global warming, but based on the evidence we have at this time, it is the most likely explanation for the warming that’s occurring. There is no credible alternative explanation. That’s called inductive reasoning, my friend. Kiss Sir Francis Bacon’s butt.
Tessa if you are really looking for a meaningful crusade why not go after our creator of perpetual debt, the money system.
Canada is living in a dream world aided and abetted by that old carney Carney . . . fractional reserve banking, compound interest, a debt dependent monetary system, private interests promoting debt and profiting from debt.
Canadians, the most indebted in the world, suffer an artificially high housing bubble that will, sooner than later, burst.
There’s a crusade Tessa: go for it!
QED
Don’t blame Carney! He’s a cool guy. He rails against excessive consumer debt all the time, gosh!
What you are saying is nuts, so I shouldn’t bother, but I love debating on the internet because I can be anonymously rude, so I’ll engage. I bet you want to return to the gold standard, lol.
I don’t see how a concept like compound interest could be bad. In fact, it just seems laughable that “compound interest” could be a bad thing, because that means you are really opposed to “interest”. As you know, compound interest is simply what happens when you leave the interest you earn in the bank to earn interest on itself. Simple interest is what happens when you take the interest out every month and jam it in your mattress. With simple interest, your wealth grows linearly while with compound interest it grows exponentially.
Debt is also quite useful. It allows one person to be rewarded for delaying consumption and perhaps bearing some risk, while allowing the other person the opportunity to make investments today that will make us all richer in the future. It lets my idle money be your needed capital, rather than just sitting in my mattress. It’s the basis of capitalism and our entire economy, whatever.
Fractional reserve banking is also handy as it’s, you know, what banks do. Banks couldn’t exist without this idea. You know how you get to keep your money in the bank for free? Well, thank fractional reserve banking! The bank lends out more money than it actually has on hand so it can earn interest on it and allow other people to use it. The more you know!
So you see Roger? Capitalism isn’t you enemy, it’s a handy little idea invented by Ronald Reagan and Gordon Gecko to make your money work for you! Like with global warming, you rail against general consensus without offering any viable alternatives. There’s nothing wrong with criticizing the status quo, but my suggestion to you is to take smaller bites and chew them better.
Here’s a helpful graph to keep in mind: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2475
I don’t mean to be condescending… Oh wait, yes I do.
Gord – please let the rest of your pricetag followers know when this is no longer Mr. Kemble’s blog to dominate so we can return to a rational discussion. I truly hope it’s finally the time when world leaders can try to catch up on this monumental issue once and for all.
Frank Ducote “. . . this is no longer Mr. Kemble’s blog”
You sir are impertinent. This is not my blog: never has been. I contribute just like anyone else. Isn’t that not the purpose?
Such snide remarks reflects badly on you.
If you prefer to cringe on the side lines, resenting others opportunities that is your problem.
If you are so luridly wrapped up in your own importance that you are counting the posts that is your impotence and you have no place on an active blog . . .
When you’re quoting someone it’s only fair to get the complete gist, as follows: “… to dominate.” I think most of of us, possibly even you if you were the least realistic bout the matter, would concur you’re really trying to that, with insult if not the power of your argument. Though I know it’s a waste of time to suggest it, don’t you think it’s about time to pipe down for awhile with your impotent – to borrow your so tasteful phrase – rants and put-downs … sir? You are certainly not convincing anybody here about your point of view, as far as I can see.
Frank “You are certainly not convincing anybody here about your point of view, as far as I can see.” Unfortunately true, but then neither are you, neither is anyone . . . the blind leading the blind . . . just more petty resentments and vitriol . . . when there is a blind agglomeration of one point of view don’t expect enlightenment!
There is something profoundly wrong here: everyone agreeing: YOIKS EVERYONE. Can’t you see there is a problem here? Every one throwing mindless vitriol at one lone decenter who right or wrong can see the picture from another point of view.
From here all I can see is a bunch of sheeple ignoring many salient points of view . . . now go back to your unswerving paradise.
Roger the only one I see throwing around vitriol is yourself, though I’m happy you agree that it’s mindless.
PS BTW Frank have you noticed? We are led by the nose on this blog.
Everyone must agree and if one is precocious and recalcitrant enough to proffer a point of view challenging the accepted dogma . . . pounce you’re down for the count!
Discipline is rigorous.
We become engrossed in name calling anyone who varies from the accepted wisdom . . . then mira the boss decides to change the subject and like lemmings over the cliff we go . . .
Ummm summut wrong here . . .
I’ve noticed disenting opinions couched in friendly language are well recieved on this blog, maybe that is a better approach to discussion than grumpy windbag?
Good morning Rico
Why, now we have the trinketeers griping about over capacity of Canada Line . . .
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/oakridge-mall-reimagined-as-a-real-city-all-its-own/article4912826/
Frances has done a good job of exposing the issues: too many riders going to Richmond when the trinketeers want all the seats.
Now what is the problem? Is it a badly designed system? Is it premature over capacity?
I would suggest it is neither. Rather it is our unrealistic expectations.
Instead of designing a system to move everyone from point A to Point B, which is obviously not working, a more realistic approach would be to design a more integrated system of living/work/recreation/education proximity: bring point A and point B into that integrated configuration: i.e. closer together, more manageable.
Yunno, something like this . . .
http://members.shaw.ca/theyorkshirelad72/working.mount.pleasant.html
. . . adapted to the specific community: stop this mad dashing around, take a breath and live a little . . .
Unless we do that your beloved climate catastrophe is a certainty . . .
PS . . . as H. L. Menken said, “you can say what you like about me but spell my name correctly” . . Roger . . . without the d please Rico.
I think you have a fair point. Ideally we’ll live closer to where we work and spend our recreational time (I’ve certainly made that choice in my life and I’ve never been more stress free, and have had improving health). In reality I think this can be very difficult for a culture that is addicted to home ownership, as switching jobs would often mean switching housing for convenience of commute (and sanity and health, I would argue). Unfortunately this is often not possible to do at the frequency with which Canadians switch jobs, due in part to the high transaction costs associated with selling a home (and also due in part from a reluctance to uproot one’s home, I would surmise). Renting does make this easier but dealing with individual (condo) landlords can be troublesome, and there are not so many purpose-built rental buildings that are not 40 years old. It’s a tough one.