More People Should Listen to Dr McKitrick
- Thread starter masterblaster
- Start date
Oil companies are not allowed to walk away from their responsibility to abandon wells, unless of course the company goes bankrupt which happens from time to time due to the interference in Canada’s oil industry from eco terrorists and those who are attempting to hamstring the oil industry, much like was done to Canada’s Aviation Industry in the late 50’s.
Exactly. They have been funding propaganda mills like the Fraser Institute for decades, churning out any and every phony argument they can just to divert peoples' eyes away from the facts.
They are experts at nothing except lying; disinformation is their profession, not climate science.
Big bad oil companies. You go live your life without any petroleum products whatsoever. Go give it a try and let me know how it works for you.
Abandoned oil wells into solar sites.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...d-oil-wells-are-being-transformed-into-solar/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...d-oil-wells-are-being-transformed-into-solar/
That " agricultural hiccup" was the dry summer that produced millions of tons less hay....and a bitter cold winter that caused one of the largest mass die outs of cattle ,anyone had ever seen....all the way from Canada into the middle of the United States....followed by another drought summer....there where so many carcasses in Montana and Colorado ,there was no attempt to clean them up, and what water courses that remained, became polluted.
There are some economists that say it was the defining start line into the Great Depression....but nobody thinks farmers and ranchers contribute to the economy anyways.
All we seem to contribute is all your food, clothing ,and booze....the raw materials had dried to a trickle, manufacturing came to a halt, the slow chain reaction was inevitable.
What I was saying Sybian is that there had been production problems in the agricultural portion of the economy of the time that helped triggering the crash of 1929. What followed in the 30s with the droughts of 1930/31 , 1934, 1936 simply devastated the agricultural, farming and cattle industry in North America. I was not talking about what followed but the trigger ...what followed pretty
much created the deepest and longest depression of the industrial age. What followed was definitely not a hiccup
much created the deepest and longest depression of the industrial age. What followed was definitely not a hiccup
The droughts of the 1930s was a convenient time to crash an over leveraged stock market, that allowed oligarchs to buy assets at pennies on the dollar.
Didn't mean to walk all over you, your right you where talking about before....my apologies for misunderstanding.
I have some old historical paperwork from the late 20's and 30's from the Gang Ranch I found in an attic of an old log house....it's unbelievable to read about one of the largest in the world, sinking out of sight from a sequence of world events.
they might not be left wing sources, but, they are wrong often, just like all the other groups who estimate things
the numbers they are quoting, just like the AER in Alberta, are worst case scenarios, just like the "scientists" who are making an educated guess
based on some facts, some theory, which they've been wrong about too
the seas haven't risen the amount they said they would have by now, ect...
we've been hearing this for a hundred years, there were "scientists" ranting early last century too
yet you say something that isn't true, at least in Alberta
our "weather" is pretty average compared to when you were a kid, or are you 115? lol
cause I know where I live, we still have rinks just like we did when I was a kid 20-40+yrs ago
some yrs were better than others, some not, but snow, cold, very similar
I remember no snow till end of Dec one yr, plus 15 this time of the yr, ice till march, not that long ago
look at the stats the local weather guys always spout off, they aren't that odd
people are so stupid they can't remember past last month, let alone last yr, accurately
the weather guy was just talking about that a day ago
how people "believe" how much worse or better it was, yet, guess what, they're out to lunch
our winters in Alberta, not too different than 40yrs ago, not really, not when you look at actual weather stats
We hear a lot of people spouting on about conclusive science and hard facts, but actually I don’t see much in the way of specific scientific findings being cited, direct journal references, or theoretical proofs when I hear most of the climate change rhetoric. I hear a lot of generalized statements and opinions that scientists agree on this and that, and to me (a non-climate scientist), such sweeping statements are unobjective and actually unhelpful to fully understanding what is going on. I try to keep an open mind about scientific evidence and analysis, and recognize differing scientists in different fields have various findings that should be objectively considered. Otherwise all we have is polarizing emotional viewpoints which spread more heat than light on the subject. So when I hear unquestioning statements of fact, I have to take any arguments that follow with a big grain of salt.
Sometimes science outside of one field influences or re-frames another, or creates a whole new field of study. This is good because otherwise we would all still live on a flat earth that the sun and and planets revolve around, heavier objects would of course fall faster than light ones, space would be dimensionally fixed, light would speed up and slow down as the earth travelled through the ether, the atom would be the smallest elementary particle, dna would just be a rapper, and the universe would expand at a constant speed. Big scientific breakthroughs often require left-field objective interventions that challenge popularly held current understandings of reality. So I want to hear what the outliers have to say, look closely at the evidence and conclusions drawn therefrom, and see where there are conjectures, leaps of faith, and correlations being passed off as causes. Big difference. I also want to search out those nuggets that re-frame our fundamental understanding of nature.
Speaking of polarizing, I learned some things from a recent Nova episode called Polar Extremes by Kirk Johnson, a Paleantologist. It shows how the earth has cycled through long hot greenhouse periods presumably due mostly to heavy volcanic activity, followed by colder shorter ice-world periods. We are in one of these ice world periods now, and one could say we find ourselves in a happy goldilocks temperature range, but temperatures are on the up-swing and the atmospheric CO2 level supports a furrher warming trajectory. The carbon cycle was explained well too I thought—and suggests we need lots of rain to entrain atmospheric CO2 where it flows to the ocean, combines with minerals, gets integrated into organisms, and falls to the ocean floor. Hmmm, I don’t hear activists calling for more rain.
I read about forrests (the Amazon in particular) being roughly carbon neutral. Apparently the trees and vegetation produce as much catbon as they absorb. Hmmm, I like trees but doesn’t look like more of them will save us. Then there is the whole solar activity and earth orbit eccentricity correlations that make me like feel people are puny again and possibly arrogant to think we matter so much.
Concerned?—yes. Causally Convinced?—not there yet. Outraged?—no, but good see attentioned being given to the world we live in that wasn’t there 30 years ago. Using low flush toilets, driving and flying less, using LEDs, turning off my lights, and recycling everything I can?—you bet! And I wonder to make a real difference if only new nuclear + hydro power, all new EV’s, and a fundamental shift away from consumer driven economies will occur in my lifetime. I still think I live in the best time ever, and am grateful for that.
-Punt.
Sometimes science outside of one field influences or re-frames another, or creates a whole new field of study. This is good because otherwise we would all still live on a flat earth that the sun and and planets revolve around, heavier objects would of course fall faster than light ones, space would be dimensionally fixed, light would speed up and slow down as the earth travelled through the ether, the atom would be the smallest elementary particle, dna would just be a rapper, and the universe would expand at a constant speed. Big scientific breakthroughs often require left-field objective interventions that challenge popularly held current understandings of reality. So I want to hear what the outliers have to say, look closely at the evidence and conclusions drawn therefrom, and see where there are conjectures, leaps of faith, and correlations being passed off as causes. Big difference. I also want to search out those nuggets that re-frame our fundamental understanding of nature.
Speaking of polarizing, I learned some things from a recent Nova episode called Polar Extremes by Kirk Johnson, a Paleantologist. It shows how the earth has cycled through long hot greenhouse periods presumably due mostly to heavy volcanic activity, followed by colder shorter ice-world periods. We are in one of these ice world periods now, and one could say we find ourselves in a happy goldilocks temperature range, but temperatures are on the up-swing and the atmospheric CO2 level supports a furrher warming trajectory. The carbon cycle was explained well too I thought—and suggests we need lots of rain to entrain atmospheric CO2 where it flows to the ocean, combines with minerals, gets integrated into organisms, and falls to the ocean floor. Hmmm, I don’t hear activists calling for more rain.
I read about forrests (the Amazon in particular) being roughly carbon neutral. Apparently the trees and vegetation produce as much catbon as they absorb. Hmmm, I like trees but doesn’t look like more of them will save us. Then there is the whole solar activity and earth orbit eccentricity correlations that make me like feel people are puny again and possibly arrogant to think we matter so much.
Concerned?—yes. Causally Convinced?—not there yet. Outraged?—no, but good see attentioned being given to the world we live in that wasn’t there 30 years ago. Using low flush toilets, driving and flying less, using LEDs, turning off my lights, and recycling everything I can?—you bet! And I wonder to make a real difference if only new nuclear + hydro power, all new EV’s, and a fundamental shift away from consumer driven economies will occur in my lifetime. I still think I live in the best time ever, and am grateful for that.
-Punt.
For the stock market crash. http://www.history.com/news/what-caused-the-stock-market-crash-of-1929
I believe is was over speculation of stock (with really nothing to back them up; like the dot.com crash of 2000-2002) and borrowing on credit to buy stock with no real assets. The American government made rules against doing that sort of thing right after the stock market crash. The stock market crashes of 87 and 08 are a direct result in the lowering of those rules the Americian government passed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_market_crashes_and_bear_markets
I found the video to have a undertone, no statistics were mentioned. He did note that the CO2 level increase was man made. As to how far it affects the climate he dosen't know. He alluded to the floods happening in the last 10 year to being poor drainage, look at Calgary and Winnipeg, excess water got dumped on them, I believe it was greater than the 300 year limit, poor drainage, streams flow downhill.
When I went to elementary school in the 70s; 1 kid in the grade had asthma, now its 2-3 per class have asthma. I'm not going to attribute that to doctors killing off the weak ones when they were born as in the 60's when they euthanised the mentally retarded, and the deformed. It has to be whats in the atmosphere (I grew up in the interior of BC, no heavy industry and still not today, but there has been an increase in air pollutioin due to cars and burning fossil fuels) that gives these kids asthma...
Now for statistics. Really its a your guess is as good as my guess with statistics. In statistics there are no right or wrong answears, just trends. Its up to the individual to determine what the outcome is by their own interpretation....
Flipping a coin is supposed to give you a 50:50 result.
Today flip the coin over 10 times....
Tomorrow flip the coin over 10 times.....
The next day flip the coin over 10 times.....
You don't get the same answear every day.... this is why most stats are misleading and depends on how you interpret them....
And in statistics it depends on which tools you use. You get a different result with a small hand held gardening shovel; with a shovel, a bobcalt with front loader and a big caterpillar bulldozer.....The different size of tool gave you different results....
I believe is was over speculation of stock (with really nothing to back them up; like the dot.com crash of 2000-2002) and borrowing on credit to buy stock with no real assets. The American government made rules against doing that sort of thing right after the stock market crash. The stock market crashes of 87 and 08 are a direct result in the lowering of those rules the Americian government passed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_market_crashes_and_bear_markets
I found the video to have a undertone, no statistics were mentioned. He did note that the CO2 level increase was man made. As to how far it affects the climate he dosen't know. He alluded to the floods happening in the last 10 year to being poor drainage, look at Calgary and Winnipeg, excess water got dumped on them, I believe it was greater than the 300 year limit, poor drainage, streams flow downhill.
When I went to elementary school in the 70s; 1 kid in the grade had asthma, now its 2-3 per class have asthma. I'm not going to attribute that to doctors killing off the weak ones when they were born as in the 60's when they euthanised the mentally retarded, and the deformed. It has to be whats in the atmosphere (I grew up in the interior of BC, no heavy industry and still not today, but there has been an increase in air pollutioin due to cars and burning fossil fuels) that gives these kids asthma...
Now for statistics. Really its a your guess is as good as my guess with statistics. In statistics there are no right or wrong answears, just trends. Its up to the individual to determine what the outcome is by their own interpretation....
Flipping a coin is supposed to give you a 50:50 result.
Today flip the coin over 10 times....
Tomorrow flip the coin over 10 times.....
The next day flip the coin over 10 times.....
You don't get the same answear every day.... this is why most stats are misleading and depends on how you interpret them....
And in statistics it depends on which tools you use. You get a different result with a small hand held gardening shovel; with a shovel, a bobcalt with front loader and a big caterpillar bulldozer.....The different size of tool gave you different results....
Actually, it could be quite the opposite. I have seen reports that kids today are brought up far too clean. They should puddle in the dirt and let their immune system learn to deal with interlopers. Instead, it turns on itself since it is not exposed to external threats and you get a lot more asthma and allergies later in life. Now, is that true? I don't know. It has not been proved definitively, at least not yet. Keep an open mind though.
