Your intrepid reporter missed an event in Cobourg today but I received a report from Warren McCarthy. We all heard about the Swedish school girl Greta Thunberg eloquently addressing the United Nations asking us not to ruin the planet for the next generation. School children then staged nationwide strikes with a particularly large crowd in Montreal. Cobourg students were not to be left out as you can see in the photos. The demonstration was in front of Cobourg’s Town Hall at around noon.
So in lieu of my report, here is what Warren sent me.
“I think 130-140 people, several speakers including the young girl with the floral headband.
“Blue Dot & Sustainable Cobourg were visible.
“Green Party & Kim Rudd there – may have been others.
“I saw Suzanne Séguin, Adam Bureau and Nicole Beatty – may have been others.”
Photos are all from Warren. Thanks.
Print Article:
The irreverent George Carlin had this to say about the supposed Climate Change emergency:
“The planet has been through a lot worse than us… Earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, magnetic reversal of the poles, hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment from comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide fires, worldwide floods, tidal waves, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages, and we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. We are!
Well, I did not see this one coming back into our future… horse manure as a viable energy source. Like wood chips, apparently.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/manure-horse-show-1.5338327
“Over 150 megawatt hours of energy was created from the 91 tonnes of manure collected from competing horses during the event … That was enough to meet the event’s entire electric needs.”
Wow! ++WOW! How much poop will be required to power a city 24/7/365? Where will it be stored? How will it be stored? How many horses will be required to meet city needs?
“estimated 6 million horses in Europe could satisfy Finland’s entire electricity consumption.”
How many more millions and millions of horses will be needed to satisfy Germany’s entire electricity consumption, or France’s entire electricity consumption, or Hungary’s or Spain?
These are undeveloped fantasies, un-scalable to satisfy the electrical needs of any large city let alone a nation. Those needs can be satisfied with a far better energy source that is scalable and proven — nuclear energy.
In the recent election, two-thirds of Canadians took global warming seriously and voted for parties that support carbon-pricing.
This will leave the climate change deniers in the wilderness for generations.
No?
Stated differently, in the recent election only 42% of registered voters favoured parties supporting a carbon tax. And 93.5% of the votes were for a party with a male leader. The popular vote reflects which party has effective propaganda rather than what is right.
I am sorry Ken!
With you one has to be careful!
Two-thirds of the folks who voted, did so for for carbon-tax parties.
And they will continue to do so regardless of personalities.
And there will be more with each election.
Depend on it.
as has been said on this blog already, “climate change” has become a religion. We know how hard it is to influence religious convictions so as the religion gathers believers so to will it appear to be something more than it is. Religion does not rely on facts, rather it coerces the emotions and defies reason and intelligence. None of that means it is based on truth and that’s the danger of this whole mess. Truth gets sidelined to the detriment of humanity on the whole. But then, compliance is the ultimate objective anyway, however dishonest and convoluted the means.
Like you say, it’s a religion. Typical of tyrannical religions they have enemies that are called heretics, whom they vilify. Typical of the Green religion is the epithet, “denier“. It is curse used by those who are true believers of mass extinction. Anyone who don’t share their religion are denounced, largely because the true believers cannot dialogue, only monologue with ludicrous assertions and fantasies such as powering megalopolis’ with horse crap that will save us from mass extinction.
Sooth-sayer Walter looked into his crystal ball to predict the future. He also believes that we are at the “beginning of a mass extinction” and he believes it in spite of the fact that there is zero scientific evidence indicating such an outcome.
It might be more beneficial if Walter would satisfy all his household energy needs with horse manure as proselytized by Miriam Mutton.
What an incredibly stupid contention!
And really, how helpful is that sophormoronic taunt towards those who don’t share your view that we are at the “beginning of a mass extinction” proselytized by a child and echoed by adults who should know better.
And who are you to decide who is a denier or not? And what is the criteria that you apply that makes you determine that this or that person is a denier? It’s just a mob chant by loony leftists to shut down dialogue.
NASA does not claim that we are at the “beginning of a mass extinction.”
The IPCC denies that there is a climate emergency.
There is no credible science or scientist that supports the paranoid doomsday scenario of a mass extinction.
And in today’s news …
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/exxon-shell-climate-change-court-new-york-attorney-general-litigation-documents-1.5331228
Who will litigate China as the world’s biggest emitter of CO2? Who will litigate China for the construction of 700 coal plants at home and in other countries around the world?
Litigation of the oil industry will drag on for years and years, perhaps decades, just like the tobacco industry had done, and the only winners will be the lawyers, not the climate.
hi Wally,
I did not get the same convincing conclusions from NASA’s article. For example, the attributions were based on modelling while the measurements of ‘green’ were based on data. And as for how old or traditional technologies can be revamped to become sustainable technologies i.e. use of coal for energy or the mining for lithium used in rechargeable batteries, is still work in progress. Note that giant wetland and coastal systems are being created to minimize and moderate potential damage to built infrastructure in cities. How and if humans can adapt seem to be the big questions now.
” For example, the attributions were based on modelling while the measurements of ‘green’ were based on data.”
So you suggest that one should not attempt to extrapolate anything from data? The government institution of the IPCC uses modelling in excess to declare Global warming, er uh, global change. Your sentence is meaningless.
“old or traditional technologies can be revamped to become sustainable technologies i.e. use of coal for energy or the mining for lithium used in rechargeable batteries, is still work in progress.”
Really, do we have time for a work in progress? , China is building 700 coal plants and your reply is that it is still a work in progress? How about known technology right now called nuclear; carbon free, vastly smaller footprint than wind turbine farms and solar farms. It has been proven beyond all doubt that it is a safer and more reliable technology 24/7/365.
In the event that litigation takes place, Big Oil, can point to the studies that NASA endorses, to wit that the greening of the Earth has occurred at the same time, more food growth for humans and animals, retention of soil from erosion, and other benefits such as the increased production of oxygen by the real green industry — trees and foliage. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
Do click on the url at the bottom of the article for the pdf of the report.
Here is a reality check on the economics …
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/13/firms-ignoring-climate-crisis-bankrupt-mark-carney-bank-england-governor
within this article is nestled a statement that I believe reveals the stealthy strategy of the current political ‘climate change crisis’ and the actual “crisis” consuming the money people of the world … “Far from damaging the global economy, climate action bolsters economic growth, according to Carney. “There is a need for [action] to achieve net zero emissions, but actually it comes at a time when there is a need for a big increase in investment globally to accelerate the pace of global growth, to help get global interest rates up, to get us out of this low-growth, low-interest-rate trap we are in.” … Mark Carney.”
While there are spill over benefits from climate related ‘improvements’, in my view that is not the real purpose of using maleable young minds and emotions to manipulate our world order through ‘crisis mongering’ Follow the money!
It will be interesting to watch what ‘global growth’ will mean going forward. And, young minds today get to the main points faster. I suppose it could be argued that it takes a mind with a goal to gain benefits to make the connections which could lead to a win-win-win (people-planet-profits) situation.
“young minds today get to the main points faster.” This may be so but when one ignores or is unaware of complexities in matters before them, the examination of simplified issues loses something in the discussion.
As for “global growth”, my take on that is that “growth” can only come as a product of resource consumption or conversion. I also expect that the oversimplification of the trendy “climate change crisis” will at some point come to also include resource exploitation and that will certainly have as yet unknown impacts on said “global growth”.
One of the known impacts is that CO2 has contributed to green growth of foliage, contributed to increased crop yields to feed hungry people. That’s global growth of a sort.
There are close to a billion people living in extreme poverty, in energy poverty. They cook with wood or coal in their homes. China is building 700 coal plants to provide CHEAP energy to these people. What does the so-called green movement offer to alleviate that suffering? Wind turbines, solar farms? They are inadequate to the job of powering megalopolises. There needs to be an investment in nuclear energy because it emits no CO2, is safe, put a small footprint on the ground compared to wind and solar farms.
” I suppose it could be argued…”
WOW! The uncertainty of such a reply. It could be argued that horse manure will light up our megalopolies’ Farmers will be feeding them laxatives to boost production. It could be argued that 50,000 wind turbines stashed in Lake Ontario, affecting navigation and destroying views could provide electricity to all of Scarborough only on windy days. It could be argued that we have only 12 years to save the planet from mass extinction according to teenage prophets. Anything could be argued, but that doesn’t make anything true or viable.
“crisis-mongering”
I like that. It’s accurate.
Okay now to sum up:
Nuclear is the solution to the non-existing problem of global warming.
Brilliant Wally!
Hard to sum up Manfred because it is almost impossible to figure out what he is saying
Try to write shorter paragraphs.
Nuclear is the energy solution that does not send carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Nuclear is the energy solution for the billion people living in energy poverty.
Nuclear provides reliable 24/7/365 energy, whereas wind and solar do not.
Nuclear is capable of addressing the needs of many growing megalopolises, whereas wind and solar cannot.
Nuclear occupies little ground area whereas windfarms and solar farms occupy vast amounts of land and destroy the foliage and wildlife around them. Sheesh.
It is irrelevent, Albert, whether nuclear addresses global warming or not. Nuclear is advantageous and preferable for many other reasons that I present for your repulsion.
Okay so which is it. Global Warming or Climate Change? Why is it the so called emergency keeps changing other than to keep pace with the political flavour of the month?
It is obvious: When a prediction of calamity doesn’t materialize you need another boogeyman. “Climate change” is the perfect phrase. The climate has always changed. Even if there is no change that could be characterized as a change so “climate change” is perfect.
That’s funny, good call. Remember when Wally used to call him a “prose bag”?
The politically corrupt UN’s IPCC is opposed to nuclear energy for the most ridiculous reasons whatsoever.
Chapter 5 – Table 5.3 In spite of the industry’s overall safety track record, a non-negligible risk for accidents in nuclear power plants and waste treatment facilities remains. The long-term storage of nuclear waste is a politically fraught subject, with no large-scale long-term storage operational worldwide. Negative impacts from upsteam uranium mining and milling are comparable to those of coal, hence replacing fossil fuel combustion by nuclear power would be neutral in that aspect. Increased occurrence of childhood leukaemia in populations living within 5 km of nuclear power plants was identified by some studies, even though a direct causal relation to ionizing radiation could not be established and other studies could not confirm any correlation (low evidence/agreement in this issue). Table 5.3 http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_chapter5_table5_3.pd
And this is how the gloomy doomsters and progressive greeniks want to prevent the best solution to eliminate carbon while at the same time lifting a billion people out of energy poverty. The greeniks want the West to hang its trillion dollar hat on that IPCC ludicrousness. PRZT
Wally, your link to Table 5.3 fails.
I’m curious: What fraction of world’s children live within 5 km of a nuclear power plant?
Forbes published Michael Shellenberger, is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment” and Green Book Award Winner. He is also a frequent contributor to The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Scientific American, and other publications. His TED talks have been viewed over three million times. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/10/08/attacking-nuclear-as-dangerous-new-ipcc-climate-change-report-promotes-land-intensive-renewables/#3f3d1c58ae19
weirdly formatted web page tho
Solution: nuclear generating plants must be constructed 10 km away from population centres, and construction of residences must be forbidden within the 10 km zone.
Found it, Wally: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_Chapter5_High_Res.pdf for all of Chapter 5 include Table 5.3
Three studies about that ludicrous IPCC claim that may further erode your confidence in the IPCC. lol.
German study
an independent check of analyses published in Kaatsch P, Spix C, et al. Int J Cancer 2008; 1220: 721-726, children diagnosed with Leukaemia living near nuclear power plants. There is evidence of an increased incidence of acute leukaemia aged less than 5 years living less than 5 km from a Nuclear Power Plant. The best estimate of the odds ratio is 1.74. The above estimate is based on 21 cases occurring in children living within 5 km of a plant over a 13-year period. https://www.wesrch.com/medical/leukaemia-in-children-living-near-nuclear-power-plants-PFME162XSZWHRCO#page1
French study
A recent study indicated an excess risk of leukaemia among children under the age of 5 years living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in Germany. We present herein results about the incidence of childhood leukaemia in the vicinity of nuclear power plants in France for the same age range. These results don’t indicate an excess risk of leukaemia in young children living near French nuclear power plants. Results currently available in France do not corroborate the observation of the German study. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2738848/
Third study overall
A few reports of increased numbers of leukaemia cases (clusters) in children living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants (NPP) and other nuclear installations have triggered a heated debate over the possible causes of the disease. In this review the most important cases of childhood leukaemia clusters around NPPs are described and analyzed with special emphasis on the relationship between the environmental exposure to ionizing radiation and the risk of leukaemia. Since, as indicated, a lifetime residency in the proximity of an NPP does not pose any specific health risk to people and the emitted ionizing radiation is too small to cause cancer, a number of hypotheses have been proposed to explain the childhood leukaemia clusters. The most likely explanation for the clusters is ‘population mixing’, i.e., the influx of outside workers to rural regions where nuclear installations are being set up and where local people are not immune to pathogens brought along with the incomers. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4146329/
Here ya go Ken.
Childhood cancer and nuclear power plants in Switzerland: a census-based cohort study
Conclusions This nationwide cohort study found little evidence of an association between residence near NPPs and the risk of leukaemia or any childhood cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3204210/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/03/forget-paris-1600-new-coal-power-plants-built-around-the-world/
“Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal. The sickness is that this will bring these countries into the cycle of coal dependency. Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, expanding the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent. The fleet of new coal plants would make it virtually impossible to meet the goals set in the Paris climate accord…” NYT.
What gets stuck in my craw, is that there is not a single environmentalist, progressive, or gloomy doomster speaking out about that massive assault against the planet. THAT is criminal. On top of that, the greeniks lobby for the advantage of China’s massive solar panel and wind turbine industry, sucking our govt subsidies that would be better spent on modular nuke generators and big ones. Western environmentalists are the real deniers because they are willfully blind to Chinese perfidy and oppose the only real solution to raising a billion more people out of energy poverty – nuclear energy.
The gloomy doomsters contend we are at the beginning of a mass extinction. How drearily common this social hysteria appears in history.
Back in the early 80s during the second Cold War, after the Soviet Socialist dictatorshit stashed SS20 nuke missiles into eastern Europe, and the West rightly countered with Cruises and Pershings. This led to the rise of a second global peace movement. A survey was taken and published by Macleans in the early 80s, asking Canadians if they believe that there will be a nuclear exchange between the West and the socialist dictatorshits before the end of the decade, 1980s. The vast majority voted yes. There it is, consensus. Mass hysteria over mass extinction. It’s happened before that people will dupe themselves and others over and over again. The peace movement failed to end the Cold War; it took the steadfastness of the West that brought about the wonderful collapse of the Soviet Socialist empire. Likewise, the extinctionistas will not prevail, but to cooler heads of the climate science community that are not beholden to government handouts, keep up the good work. .
“The gloomy doomsters contend we are at the beginning of a mass extinction. How drearily common this social hysteria appears in history.”
One has to keep in mind that this newfound climate alarmism is a religion, plain and simple. And like all religions, a doomsday date or time is required to coerce compliance.
To say otherwise is heresy.
A sincere thank you to Wally and Manfred for providing your candid views and what perhaps is the best intellectual discussion I have ever read on this Blog. It was refreshing.
Read to end – – –
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulate, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate
conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the Gulf Stream still very warm. Great
masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
I must apologize. I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post – 93 years ago
Must have been caused by the Model T Ford emissions……..
oops… 97 years…by my math
In three days this post generated more comments than any other story in the last month. I’d say Greta Thunberg’s message is working. We need constructive discussion in order to solve a global crisis – and make no mistake it is a single greatest crisis known to mankind. This isn’t simply about climate change – this is about saving the only inhabitable planet that current exists. This is about the air we breath, the water that sustains all life on earth, our soil, human health and our ecosystems; all of which are being decimated without a concern for the future.
Given that the majority of posts are from people who deny the problem, no it’s not really working at all. The ones who understand the vastly overwhelming science and scientific opinion already know, and the ones who want to deny the clear evidence in favour of conspiracy and cynicism and adherence to discredited and unscientific nonsense will never change their minds. Guess we just have to hope that enough of that category of people get out of things like elected office in time for us to effect change that might prevent some of the worst incoming consequences of their ignorance and bullheadedness in their zeal to avoid taking literally any responsibility for what is happening to the world.
“Given that the majority of posts are from people who deny the problem…”
That is a crock. A large number of posts are by me advocating nuclear energy as the best option to reduce carbon dioxide emissions globally, while at the same time pulling a billion people out of the squalor of energy poverty.
There is the bullheadness of green zealots to avoid taking responsibility by refusing nuclear energy as an option at all. (Green zealots = 97 percent stupidity).
The fact that nobody can even mention the words ‘climate’ ‘environment’ or almost anything, without you jumping in to say “But nuclear power is the best!” is also a bit of a crock. Not every single discussion about everything to do with the environment needs, wants or is solved by Nuclear Power Advocacy.
I admire your zealotry, if not the way you put it into constantly hijacking every discussion with your one sole cause.
All you have provided this discussion is your righteous scold.
21 million people live in Lagos Nigeria. Streets are unlit, no sanitation, no anything because they live in energy poverty. Small modular nuclear installations could easily lift them out of squalor. Over a billion people are without energy in the world, so they burn wood to cook. The pollution kills millions. Those millions could be easily saved with smrs. It is individuals with Dan’s attitude that stands in the way of lifting these people up with emissions free energy nuclear.
Dan, you have provided not a single arguement against nuclear energy. None.
“I admire your zealotry,”
No need to kiss my butt, Dan. It’s not welcome coming from you. Please take it personally.
“if not the way you put it into constantly hijacking every discussion with your one sole cause.”
Dan, you have offered no solutions whatsoever just scold scold scold, whine whine whine. You sound like my generation when we were young and stupid and riding easy. https://youtu.be/qfZVu0alU0I
which problem?
and “what is happening to the world”, please clarify what you think that is.
If you want to influence me Dan, please begin by being completely clear on these two concerns. At least then we’ll be on the same page to start with, otherwise you have no hope of influencing anything.
Most people of our generation have just decided that there’s no point in even trying to influence your generation about this. You aren’t interested in accepting anything that puts any of the responsibility for this crisis on your own heads. To be completely honest, we’re mostly hoping your generation retires from any position of authority in any industry to do with environmental concerns before its too late.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Thanks for the NASA link, Dan. Did you know that NASA supports nuclear energy? Matter of fact they have developed a new deep space reactor that will power space missions. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ywxak7/nasas-decades-long-quest-to-build-a-deep-space-nuclear-reactor
“Most people of our generation have just decided that there’s no point in even trying to influence your generation about this.”
Then make a case instead of whine whine whine. How ludicrous is it that you, Dan, oppose energy generation that produces no carbon dioxide emissions.
and again Dan, which “crisis”? Let’s get specific. Which problem? What IS happening to the world? Enough with the generalities and doom-speak, lay it out so we can see what it is that you want to change in our minds and in the world. And then tell us what you want to see done to ‘solve these problems’!
and as for “the disaster that is going to ruin the world”, which disaster? You want to convince someone of something that YOU believe in, be clear and precise on what you are calling a “crisis” and “disaster”. These general meaningless words are just words until you give them substance so let’s have it.
Keep in mind that the IPCC is a political organizarion not a scientific organizarion.
Starting to sound a little like my scientist can beat up your scientist.
As usual, the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle. Time will tell.
The answer almost never actually lies in the middle. And when one side is “basically every scientist in the field” and the other side is “a tiny number of scientists in the field, and then a bunch of whoever thinks somebody might take their opinion seriously despite no actual qualifications to do so” it definitely doesn’t.
Basically every scientist in the field vs a tiny number of scientists. How utterly unscientific. An unconvincing argument. The science is not settled. I wouldn’t hang my credibility hat on the political assertions of a United Nations political organization.
In every dictatorshit the truth invariably resides with a tiny number of dissidents who are villfied and punished for their minority views. The vilification extends to those who advocate nuclear energy as the best option to address carbon emissions and provide reliable energy for the billion-plus people living and dying in energy poverty.
I am so done with the absolutely ridiculous attempts to claim that a bunch of science-denying old men who are completely unwilling to take even the tiniest shred of personal responsibility for the global disaster we’re facing right now are somehow our modern day Galileo.
Get completely over yourselves. You are not railing against the old orthodoxy. The old orthodoxy is YOU. Galileo came, and told you what was going on, and has successfully convinced everybody BUT YOU about the rightness of this thing with OVERWHELMING evidence and OVERWHELMING scientific consensus. And you’re standing there with your fingers in your ears and your eyes shut yelling “But some guy says you’re wrong, and that means you haven’t proven anything! I am very smart!”
I honestly don’t know what sense of masochism makes me keep trying to actually reason with this cadre at all. I need to just stop coming here because it’s just constantly enraging watching a bunch of people who basically won’t even be effected by the disaster that is going to ruin the world for their children and grandchildren strut around like they have the scientific or moral high ground. To hearken back to Greta Thunberg, how dare you.
For some people on this blog it’s all a big conspiracy.
From global warming, to high Lake levels to Holdco.
It’s what they come for.
What a pile of condescension! And blather babble. Who are the “some people”? Have some courage, Walter, and name them. And what “big conspiracy”? It’s not about a conspiracy, but a BIG conspiracy according to you. What “big” conspiracy are you referencing when you mention “global warming”? Give us some clarity instead of this banal bowl of Pablum you put forward. Otherwise, I see you haven’t provided a single intelligent comment about “climate change” so step up to the plate yourself.
Question: Do you support Greta Thunberg’s assertion that we are at the “beginning of a mass extinction.” I don’t. Greta advised that we should listen to the scientists; so I did, and I found 500 hundred of them opposed to Greta’s assertions. https://youtu.be/g9ZbSaL7JP0
Walter Luedtke is unable to contribute to the discussion of climate change, preferring the juvenile approach of ad hominem attacks. As well, Mr Luedtke’s commentary reeks of mediocrity — uber boring and completely unoriginal.
Hahaha!
Methinks I touched a nerve.
Well here goes, but I don’t think it will make any difference. Sigh!
This is what NASA has to say:
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
“Hahaha!
Methinks I touched a nerve.”
Sheesh, Walter, I understand your need to pat yourself on the back for touching a nerve, but to have to boast about it is soooo sophomoric.
Question: Do you believe Greta Thunberg when she asserts that we are at the “Beginning of a mass extinction”?
Affirmative!
Do you support nuclear energy?
Affirmative!
There really is no need to be fretful about world peace and saving the planet from extinction weather. There are 500 scientists who applied all of their expertise together in a letter to the UN https://www.theepochtimes.com/in-letter-to-un-scientists-say-there-is-no-climate-emergency_3093580.html
“The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose,” the letter, sent to Secretary-General António Guterres, states. “Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions of dollars on the basis of results from such immature models.”
I have a question for you: What percentage of scientists with qualifications in these fields do you think “500” represents?
Here’s a stat for you also:
“The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11,944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus.”
That holy 97 percent based on mere abstracts (let alone11,944) is largely a political fabrication by a government agency. Here is where Cook and co went wring. This video has blah blah until the 16 minute mark. This is where one can find out the source of that meaningless 97 percent. It raises enough doubt about whether to hang a trillion hat on it. https://youtu.be/NZq6zc0G018
Btw, that fabricated 97 percent has no merit whatsoever pertaining to the mass social progress that nuclear energy can provide.
“Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.”
Extremely likely eh? Wow, what a scientific term. The IPCC report previously used the phrase “very likely.” I wonder what it was that caused these 97 percent scientists to change “very” to “extremely”?
But here is something about the much maligned 3 percent. The power structures of dictatorshits are known for their oppression of dissidents. https://youtu.be/bipg0mZD_PI
To my learned friends Wally and Manfred:
“In science, there’s often not absolute certainty.
But, research reduces uncertainty. In many cases, theories have been tested and analyzed and examined so thoroughly that their chance of being wrong is infinitesimal.
Other times, uncertainties linger despite lengthy research. In those cases, scientists make it their job to explain how well something is known. When gaps in knowledge exist, scientists qualify the evidence to ensure others don’t form conclusions that go beyond what is known.”
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/certainty-vs-uncertainty.html
That’s science!
Concensus science of the day indicated that everything revolved around the earth. Then one of the 3 percenters of the day said that was not true; rather that the world revolved around the sun. Needless to say, that 3 percenter was persecuted for their dissident views.
Most of them use the word “suggests”. I guess it gives them an easy way out when(so far) their b.s. about coastal flooding has not happened.
“extremely likely” is conjecture, NOT science and if we say science is about discovery, what have we yet to discover about our current theories that would have bearing on them? Seems to me that conjecture is not unanimous nor absolute. What weight is given to opposing arguments and points of view that also are founded on and/or supported by the science of today?
Walter extols NASA as he claims belief in imminent extinction.
NASA claims increased carbon dioxide has been beneficial to the planet
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/10/benefits1.pdf
That is absolutely one of the best reports ever done. Easy to understand, and accurate truthful studies. Hope the “climate change” folks get a chance to read it so they might understand the truth.
I missed the NASA connection in that pdf file. Can you point me to it please? Page number?
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
and sometimes, Walter, the charge of ‘it’s all a conspiracy’ is thrown out there into the void left when no reasonable argument can be made in response to some difficult and pointed questions or comments.
And yes, I for one, am of the opinion that we are mired in many conspiracies, large, small, insignificant, monumental, devious and mischievous, imagined AND real, in this day and age. The stakes at all levels are higher than ever and the motivations are as varied as the colours in a rainbow. The challenge is to differentiate fiction from fact, yet even there, to be certain of what is in fact FACT, conspiracies abound. But, calling out the ‘C’ word does not take away from the argument behind the accused ‘conspiracy’, and when you think about it, it is a subtle form of shaming or bullying.
“But perhaps the most alarming and visible are those who oppose solutions to climate change because they believe, or at least claim to believe, that anthropogenic climate change is not really happening and that climate scientists are lying and their data is fake.”
Oxford Research Encyclopedia
If I promote nuclear energy does that mean I “oppose solutions to climate change”?
Simple question Walter.
Chuckles.
Thank you for keeping it simple.
Negative
Good, so you know that that contrived 97 percent from a government agency hosted by the politically corrupt United Nations has no application towards nuclear energy, or anything else for that matter.
…”solutions to climate change”…
to what percentage or portion of ‘climate change’? would that be to anything beyond humanity’s impact to date? Do solutions turn back the changes manifested to date, arrest further changes, mitigate in some alternative or further unknown changes or even cancel the impact of changes to date? Just what would we characterize “solutions” to actually mean and what result do we expect of implementing “solutions to climate change”? This inquiring mind wants to know more, much more.
Nice picture of you Walter. Does the hat come in your size?
According to the compendium of all knowledge, Wikipedia: “In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future.” That seems to aptly characterize almost everything associated with politics.
BTW, Walter, that is a nice portrait!
Some of the contributors with comments about Greta Thunberg might take the time to read this article from the Irish Times (and see if the shoe fits!)
>
> Subject: Why is Greta Thunberg so triggering for certain men?
>
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/why-is-greta-thunberg-so-triggering-for-certain-men-1.4002264
The linked Irish Times article has an interesting perspective. For me the most terrifying thing about Greta is not her bombast but the unthinking adoration by so many engendered by Greta’s angry and infantile rants. Perhaps they should look within for an explanation.
Is this National Abuse An Asperger’s Kid Week?
Good job!
Red herring alert! The focus should be on the message, not the messenger.
Michelle Stirling, (NOT a triggered male) Communications Manager of Friends of Science Society challenges Greta’s perspective in this video response. https://youtu.be/g9ZbSaL7JP0
Wind turbine blades need a cemetery, Casper, Wyoming is now taking in 1000 blades and other turbine components that are unrecyclable as landfill. https://www.npr.org/2019/09/10/759376113/unfurling-the-waste-problem-caused-by-wind-energy.
By comparison, the waste from nuclear energy is small in volume and remains on site, whereas other energy sources dispose of their waste into the environment, that includes wind and solar, as well as all the fossil fuels.
https://www.businessinsider.com/hanford-nuclear-site-photos-toxic-waste-2019-9?r=US&IR=T
Hanford Nuclear Reservation is the most polluted area in the United States. Buried beneath the complex is 56 million gallons of radioactive sludge.
All that nuclear crap comes from many sources, but none from nuclear power electricity generation stations according to the article.
Decades of nuclear waste has been stored at Darlington with exemplary results. The storage of nuclear waste at Darlington puts a small foot print on the earth compared to the huge footprint to bury turbine blades as landfill. Wind turbines require massive areas of land or water to generate unreliable energy. Nuclear power can reliably generate energy for a megalopolis, whereas wind turbines can unreliably generate energy for a town.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/01/what-should-we-do-with-radioactive-nuclear-waste
What should we do with radioactive nuclear waste?
The race is on to develop strategies for storing the most dangerous materials on Earth,
We should continue to improve the exemplary protocols of nuclear waste as exampled at the Darlington nuclear energy plant.
Germany will close down all of its nuclear energy plants by 2022, only three remain. France will continue to generate nuclear energy. As a result, electricity prices in Germany have soared compared to France. Also Germany failed to reach its emissions target, whereas France’s emissions remain smaller.
https://youtu.be/cto3–6fYNE
“While German citizen support for the energy transition remains high, the picture for businesses is mixed, with electricity prices a frequent point of criticism.
However, after balking at the Energiewende for many years, German industry has made a notable shift – embracing the energy transition with a new fervour.
Business increasingly sees money to be made from a low-carbon future, alongside benefits for the economy as a whole.”
Crazy, no?
It will be interesting how it will play out between France/Germany in the next ten years. Will the disparities widen, diminish or reverse? Stay tuned for the 2025 interim report.
In Australia it is illegal for any cabinet minister to sign off on anything regarding nuclear energy generation. This policy is disputed. The following video extols Ontario as a good example. But he also addresses nuclear waste protocols and storage. https://youtu.be/IzbI0UPwQHg
Seems that neither Philip Lawrence nor David Piccini attended a Climate Change Demo.
But!
The Federal Tories announced that the Green Home Renovation Tax Credit means up to $3,800 back in your family’s pockets.
At least that’s something.
And where is all this free election promise money coming from? More Liberal deficit borrowing and/or higher taxes on the middle class and rich (are there many left)? Sticking it to the Millennials and their children to ultimately pay for the election freebies on offer today is morally wrong.
The real crisis everyone should be focused on is our growing government debt. That is the real elephant in the room. However, worrying about the financial health of our nation for future generations isn’t sexy and doesn’t buy votes.
The Conservatives don’t run deficits? Have you seen Scheers platform?
All of the parties plan on running deficits. The only difference is how big and for how long. But not to worry. Be happy! The deficit will balance itself.
The elephant is still in the room no matter who the ringmaster is.
The geezers have come out in full force on this topic. You’re the ones that got us in the mess we’re in, not surprised to see you all patting yourselves on the back attacking a teenager who has to deal with the consequences. Baby boomers are unequivocally the most selfish generation to have greeted the planet and the effects will be felt for decades to come.
You sound bitter. Did your selfish parents ask you to leave their basement?
https://youtu.be/GpVBH-HY5Ow
Greta says to listen to the scientists, so here are some;
“On the same day that Greta Thunberg made an impassioned speech to the UN about her fears of a climate emergency, some 500 scientists sent a registered letter to the UN Secretary-General stating that there is no climate emergency and climate policies should be designed to benefit the lives of people. Read the full document and list of names here:
https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads…”
Dr Patrick Moore, founder of Greenpeace, PhD in Ecology, has this to say:
https://youtu.be/JYQ6eZDXXRE
But Huckabee may have baggage, so here is a more respectable venue (ZOOMER) for Dr Patrick Moore, who provides good graphs etc. https://youtu.be/UFHX526NPbE
Wally that is an excellent link and everyone should take the time to watch Dr. Moore. It is certainly more rational than Greta’s shrill and uninformed invective.
Well here is the full Dr Moore lesson. https://youtu.be/UWahKIG4BE4
Seems like this might be a useful tool for some people here.
And this https://youtu.be/UWahKIG4BE4 might be useful for you, Dan.
To Cornbread, Dubious, and other persons who offer crude, derogatory, disrespectful, and downright IGNORANT (in the true sense of that word) comments about dear Greta and her words of wisdom and manner of speech, I’m totally appalled at your lack of empathy to this wonderful child!
Your comments about her being “possessed” and “bombastic” are proof positive that you have absolutely NO UNDERSTANDING of her being an Aspergers Autism individual!
Aspergers individuals often exhibit supreme intelligence in one or more specific area e.g. piano playing, encyclopedic knowledge of a subject, ability to learn foreign languages etc., etc. Their focus on their specific area of interest is often all-encompassing, an utter passion/drive to delve themselves whole-heartedly to the Nth degree. They often have difficulty behaving according to “our imposed” social norms, so they frequently
speak with what we might consider extreme passion, over-exuberance etc. Oftentimes, people unaware of these innate behaviours of Aspergers individuals, consider them “odd”, or “eccentric”, or a “geek”. Hence, society will frequently either ignore them, or bully/name-call them, thus forcing them to become social outcasts. Greta is fully aware of being the object of these comments (as with the typical bullying comments from Trump aimed at Greta), but she, typical of Aspergers, soldiers on.
I have taught and worked with several Aspergers children and teens over the years, so I’m very impressed with Greta’s ability to actually stand up to so many in society that ignorantly scorn her idealism and mannerisms. Using Greta’s own words, “How dare you!”
To those that question who writes her speeches, SHE DOES! (Her parents protectively, have not actually wanted her to become a public figure, but her adamant drive will not be stopped, even by those that love her.)
To those that question her ability to speak so fluently in a foreign language to her, that also is common for an Aspergers’ ability. I taught a second-generation Polish 10 year old girl who self-taught herself in Japanese, by immersing herself in Japanese cartoons and library audio Japanese learning tapes. (When her family took her to a sushi restaurant, to the shock of the Japanese chef, this young Polish child had a detailed JAPANESE conversation with him.)
To Greta I say, “Good for you! You go girl!”
I’ve done my best to give up on a number of the blowhards who have parochial and outdated views on just about everything. Guess all we can do is wait them out. Assuming we actually have enough years left to do that. Lets hear from them in response now:
Here ya go Dan, respond to this https://youtu.be/UWahKIG4BE4
Whatever the CAUSE, Greta’s insulting behaviour is not acceptable. Logical argument rather than denigrating the listener is the only reasonable way to justify a position.
How, exactly, does your comment about Greta’s parents PROVE that she writes her own bombast?
the time has come for me to rant and get this hairy thing off my chest.
– the mind- blowing hypocrisy of the “save the planet” activists is so intense it drowns out any logical discussion of the matter. As a species that touts it’s own intelligence as the feature that sets it apart from and above the rest of the animal kingdom, it sure is vulnerable to mass manipulation. The most significant tools include mass and social media, personal conveniences and “devices”, all of which are a product of and contribute significantly to the world the activists point to in their maniacal prognostications. The most hilarious part is that they promote their ‘altruistic agenda’ through these tools. It may be hard to say exactly how much the development and use of these tools and the processes that provide them contribute to the very thing that’s at the centre of all of this but it’s certainly significant. Yet, I don’t expect that abandonment of these tools is part of their agenda, something that would give some degree of legitimacy and honesty to their “lofty positions”. Then again, brainwashing has always been a useful tool to give the masses an illusion of self-determination. Every once in a while we highlight an individual on the world stage as a beacon of hope to focus our restless and dissident energies for a while and when that ‘crisis’ becomes shopworn we move on to the next one. If this sounds like a conspiracy theory or just plain old negative outlook, it’s not. It is simply an observation of the perpetual human condition. We could do so much more with our energies than climb onto bandwagons that just go round and round in endless circles until we latch on to the next big thing but that would require more than cursory self examination and effort at thinking for oneself, something that seems to be way down the list of things of which we humans are capable.
there, all done, thanks for your indulgence.
I think little Greta T. should get her butt over to China and India where her message may have a larger impact instead of mouthing off in North America where we have been cleaning up for years. Only trouble is that China and India would probably throw her butt out of their countries. Clearly this kid is “possessed” and possibly needs medical attention…Go where the problem exists…talk about politics!
Nuclear is and will be the final answer…A large oil carrying ship burns about 20 tons of sulphur containing fuel every day, while a US aircraft carrier with 5,000 sailors on board, under nuclear power can travel the world for about 4 years on one fueling and still have the capacity to power a city while at port in an emergency situation.
Your ignorance is amazing. North Americans and that includes us, produce more carbon emissions per capita than any other nation in the world. What are you doing to help.
Canada according to experts absorbs 20 to 30% more CO2 than it produces.
there are sooo many ways to “help” through our everyday choices and actions that, if done on a broad scale, would go a very long way to mitigate humanity’s negative impact on earth’s environment. The cost, however, is some degree of inconvenience and that’s the fly in the ointment that gets in our selfish ways.
“North Americans and that includes us, produce more carbon emissions per capita than any other nation in the world.”
I don’t feel guilty at all about that. Canada is a vast country in a northern climate where people are vulnerable to dying of cold. Heating our homes is an existential issue.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/cold-deemed-deadlier-than-heat-when-it-comes-to-weather-deaths-1.3081053
“This study indicates that cold kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, with 7.3 per cent and 0.4 per cent of the number of deaths that occurred in the 13 countries within the study period being due to cold and heat, respectively,” said lead author Antonio Gasparrini from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in the U.K.
Is “per capita” the way China and India get a pass???
and once again, why are carbon emissions aka CO2 a bad thing? What does science say about this, not just the global warming science, but all legitimate scientific communities?
Nuclear has a carbon footprint close to 1/4 that of Solar according to most experts in the field. The problem with solar and wind is sometimes we don’t have the sun or the wind and we have no super efficient way of storing electrical energy (battery/capacitor/water tower) when we do. Therefore a backup system is always needed. ie: perhaps almost double the cost for the full system. Right now, without large government $ subsidies ( increased taxes) for wind and solar, I don’t think you would see too much wind & solar being done. Has any one figured out how much land would be required strategically to power Canada using only solar and wind…you would still need the gas plants. So folks, it looks like nuclear will be the final answer… and the output is adjustable as required.
Precisely, cornbread! It amazes me that the obvious requirements for very expensive backup generation is ignored by those who think that unpredictable solar/wind power is even part of the answer in most parts of Canada.
In the meantime, the Universe Will Do As It Pleases…the ultimate cause of Climate Change over the millions of years of our planets history. All this current BS is nothing but politics.
The beauty of fighting climate change is that politicians get more money to redistribute to purchase votes and at the same time are able to increase control over our lives. What is there not to like?
seems to me history tells us that millenniums ago this whole area was covered with ice? i am thinking maybe it might have disappeared because of global warming? also every weather report i watch will have the warmest days recorded being in the early part of the last century? (was that global warming)
Yes, there might have been some individual warm days locally (this is called weather) but have a look at what NASA has to say about global temperatures (this is called climate).
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
There are natural cycles, for sure, but there is also no doubt that we are living in an age of human-induced climate change.
Do you actually believe that Ms. Thunberg wrote her own speech, in a foreign language, at age 16? If so I’m impressed. It seems far more likely that it was carefully crafted by a group of more mature (and cynical) climate activists. In any case her bombastic and disrespectful delivery should be soundly condemned.
Even if one accepts your assertion that the climate is changing, claiming that the changes are human induced doesn’t prove anything. Nor does repeating the claim ad nauseam. Remember universally accepted scientific facts such as that the Earth is flat, Earth is the centre of the universe, there are four elements, bleeding cures disease, etc.
Just to chime in on this particular point: You shouldn’t be impressed. Most of Europe is bi to multilingual even at age 16. I’ve been to Sweden, and almost every single person I interacted with at all had no trouble whatsoever switching freely between Swedish and English, and their English was very good.
In addition to learning more than 1 to 1.5 languages in school (because our claims to actually teach everybody French in Ontario are laughable at best) Western English broadcasting in Sweden isn’t dubbed over, instead it’s in English with Swedish subtitles, so on top of better language education, they have substantially more exposure to English, in ways directly beneficial to learning and practicing it, than we do for French or any other language.
Also wonder if you ever considered that possibility that she wrote her own speech in Swedish, and then had it translated or had a translator go over the speech after she wrote it.
That was my impression of English in my travels in Europe during the Cold War. Eastern Europe had Russian taught as a second language at that time. It had the same success rate as teaching French in Ontario. The Soviets have gone and English has replaced the Russian. Greta’s pronunciation of English was very good — She has easy access to everything English in Sweden, and most of the rest of Europe as you point out.
with all that we think we know about the cosmos, its endless expansion and the theories about the decay of stars, etc., it seems only logical to accept that everything in the cosmos is undergoing continuous change. The fact that we are here now is also a result of that perpetual force of “change”. Why is it then that for some misguided reason we think “change” should now stop because it threatens us? Climate change is INEVITABLE and however we may ‘contribute’ to it, we do not have the power to alter that fact in the overall view of that cosmos. To think otherwise is just arrogant. What we can influence is how we manage the time we do have, as a small piece if its evolution, but nothing more grand than that. If each of us lives our life responsibly, we are doing what’s good for the earth and the next few generations. Anything else is delusional.