Carbon Tax increases NOT put on hold

[Jakezilla]

Global warming is a fact and that is the only one you need to know. The reality is forest fires ,flooding and ice cap's melting which is all backed up by scientists. Ask you 16 year old nephew and he will explain it to you on a level you might comprehend.

Then there is Mr OToole

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex...ervative-party

Should we start with your original BS statement that Lloyds is no longer insuring commercial buildings in Canada due to hurricanes, forest fires and flooding or should we jump right into climate change?

If we are going to start with climate change I need to clarify my position. The climate is changing, it always has and always will. However I have not been able to find any credible evidence that the cause of the current change is man.

I am open to changing my mind but everything I have been able to dig up over the years leans heavily towards my position.

Evidence showing no trend in increased floods due to climate change.

A study from the Journal of Hydrology, Sept 2017

Climate-driven variability in the occurrence of major floods across North America and Europe

"In the current study, trends in major-flood occurrence from 1961 to 2010 and from 1931 to 2010 were assessed using a very large dataset (>1200 gauges) of diverse catchments from North America and Europe; only minimally altered catchments were used, to focus on climate-driven changes rather than changes due to catchment alterations."

"Overall, the number of significant trends in major-flood occurrence across North America and Europe was approximately the number expected due to chance alone. Changes over time in the occurrence of major floods were dominated by multidecadal variability rather than by long-term trends. There were more than three times as many significant relationships between major-flood occurrence and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation than significant long-term trends."

Long term trends = climate change

Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation = the 65 to 70 yr cycle in the change of the sea surface temperature of the north Atlantic with a 0.4C range between extremes.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...2216941730478X

[MikePal]

^^^ excellent post..

I've said it here before, unless you can alter the rotation of the earth or stop the cyclical activity of solar flares on the Sun, Climate Change will continue unabated as it has for billions of years. Them there's the facts.

All the rest is just ignorance of those facts and the denial that there isn't a darn thing we can do about it. We'll just have to evolve as a species, like mammals have done since they have inhabited the earth.

Now if you are talking about pollution...heck yes, lets clean up the planet, banning plastic won't stop Climate Change but will make a lot less landfill. Raise the price on the single use plastics like grocery bags instead of the the price of gas and we will see far better gains in helping the planet.

[Gilroy]

Should we start with your original BS statement that Lloyds is no longer insuring commercial buildings in Canada due to hurricanes, forest fires and flooding or should we jump right into climate change?

If we are going to start with climate change I need to clarify my position. The climate is changing, it always has and always will. However I have not been able to find any credible evidence that the cause of the current change is man.

I am open to changing my mind but everything I have been able to dig up over the years leans heavily towards my position.

Evidence showing no trend in increased floods due to climate change.

A study from the Journal of Hydrology, Sept 2017

Climate-driven variability in the occurrence of major floods across North America and Europe

"In the current study, trends in major-flood occurrence from 1961 to 2010 and from 1931 to 2010 were assessed using a very large dataset (>1200 gauges) of diverse catchments from North America and Europe; only minimally altered catchments were used, to focus on climate-driven changes rather than changes due to catchment alterations."

"Overall, the number of significant trends in major-flood occurrence across North America and Europe was approximately the number expected due to chance alone. Changes over time in the occurrence of major floods were dominated by multidecadal variability rather than by long-term trends. There were more than three times as many significant relationships between major-flood occurrence and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation than significant long-term trends."

Long term trends = climate change

Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation = the 65 to 70 yr cycle in the change of the sea surface temperature of the north Atlantic with a 0.4C range between extremes.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...2216941730478X

I have no idea how you did not manage to find evidence "However I have not been able to find any credible evidence that the cause of the current change is man."

I found it in two seconds on the internet https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...-due-to-humans

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/are...global-warming

https://www.ft.com/content/5f4b30ee-...3-9a26f8c3cba4

I can provide you with scores links that you can read. You will have to decide if this is evidence.

In relation to your sources big question mark with these guys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier

[Jakezilla]

I have no idea how you did not manage to find evidence "However I have not been able to find any credible evidence that the cause of the current change is man."

I found it in two seconds on the internet https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...-due-to-humans

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/are...global-warming

https://www.ft.com/content/5f4b30ee-...3-9a26f8c3cba4

I can provide you with scores links that you can read. You will have to decide if this is evidence.

In relation to your sources big question mark with these guys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier

This isn't how the game is played. I provided evidence that shows no increase in floods due to climate change. Now you tell me why this is wrong.

Regarding your links, news articles aren't science. All the articles (except the FT article which I can't access) or the studies they are linked to refer to climate models. The science behind climate models is flawed. I suggest reading "CHAOS" by James Click as a primer on Chaos Theory.

The foundation that climate science rests on (climate models) is flawed. Any climate argument that goes back to or relies on models is suspect. There is a reason they can only predict the weather 14 days into the future. Once you understand how the models actually work and the assumptions they are based on, climate science turns into pseudo-science.

I have been chasing the answer to the question of man made climate change for 20 years and have been on both sides of the issue. This is an extremely complex issue and you can't just make blanket statements. The topics need to be dissected and analyzed separately to get an overall picture of the situation.

Regarding your cheap shot at Elsevier, are you saying the people that publish The Lancet shouldn't be trusted?

"Its products include journals such as The Lancet and Cell, the ScienceDirect collection of electronic journals,"

The study in the journal I posted shows no apparent link between climate change and the climate alarmist myth of increased floods. Show me how that is wrong or how the study was flawed.

[MarkB]

Personally I think we often make the mistake of blaming ANY particular issue on one thing or the other ... not both.
Often, the reality is there are multiple variables, and each of them contributes to the issue ....

On climate change, I think it is both a matter of nature, as well as human impact ... the question is, how much is each contributing ... if you solved the human impact, would it alter the course much? Not sure, no one knows for sure. The only thing is the consequence is severe ... so it's like one of those things ... we don't really know, but if we don't try and fix it ... it could be really bad. So we may as well give it a try.

For example ... I see no harm in humanity moving from burning fossil fuels to producing energy via other mechanisms like solar, wind and nuclear. I see no issue in electrifying our vehicle fleets. If it even helps a little bit ... that's great.

And no doubt we are royally effing up our environments with our consumption and waste (garbage dumps, contamination of streams/water, ocean's great garbage patches, amazon deforestation, etc). We should try and little harder ...

[greatwhite]

Actually just as many Climatologist disagree as do agree.

I'm doing my share testing burning coal in my workshop wood stove .

Hopefully we can warm this place up sooner.

[MikePal]

On climate change, I think it is both a matter of nature, as well as human impact ... the question is, how much is each contributing ... if you solved the human impact, would it alter the course much? Not sure, no one knows for sure.

The problem is committing $Billions to a scheme that potentially has little chance to make an impact, when the money could be better used to strengthen our health care system, ensure there is an MRI in every hospital, ensure our Long Term Care facilities are none profit and funded and staffed to ensure our elders are taken care of ....etc etc There is an endless list of organisations that need funding now for the betterment of our society.

Trudeau want's to reset our economy with the 'Environment' as it's cornerstone.....yet the pandemic has shown our greater need is our Health care system and the recovery of our economic he collapsed of his ill though-out approach to the pandemic emergency funding. Over a $trillion in debt will cripple us for years to come.

[mosquito]

The problem is committing $Billions to a scheme that potentially has little chance to make an impact, when the money could be better used to strengthen our health care system, ensure there is an MRI in every hospital, ensure our Long Term Care facilities are none profit and funded and staffed to ensure our elders are taken care of ....etc etc There is an endless list of organisations that need funding now for the betterment of our society.

Trudeau want's to reset our economy with the 'Environment' as it's cornerstone.....yet the pandemic has shown our greater need is our Health care system and the recovery of our economic he collapsed of his ill though-out approach to the pandemic emergency funding. Over a $trillion in debt will cripple us for years to come.

I wonder how that environmental and economics is working out... all I see is higher taxes, higher costs, huge spending and zero improvement to the environment... maybe sewage dumping and clean water on reserves are something he should look at since CO2 on the world scale isn't going the way the Libs want.

China tells mines to produce 'as much coal as possible'
https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-e...ible-1.5630944