Congratulations on the most nonsensical post in the thread. So far.
Climate Change
- Thread starter fictionfactor
- Start date
No, there is not. We have found more, but the total amount on Earth hasn't changed. Eventually it will run out.
No, but many things previously made from oil-based plastics can be made from bamboo, or other materials. This really isn't hard to understand.
That was shot down almost as soon as it hit the headlines. But you didn't see headlines retracting it because people don't care about things that aren't happening. Global cooling
The acid rain around Sudbury was not misinformation. Many of the lakes within a few hundred miles had all fish species die off as a result of the big stack peppering the atmosphere with toxins that came down with the rain. Lakes that where bowl-shaped were hit hardest because the shape of the surrounding topography resulted in runoff from the rain contributing to the death of indigenous species of plants and animals living in the lakes. The list of dead lakes in northern Ontario in the seventies was staggering and the locals will attest to that. Acid rain hit lakes harder than trees so our analogies are divergent in that respect however the effects of acid rain were real and heartfelt by indigenous people and as well anyone taking sustenance from the lakes. I can Remember Lake Ramsay being coated in dead brown slime and there was nothing alive there until the late nineties as a result of the introduction of lime treatment and the re-introduction of fish species via the government's efforts in repopulating the lakes. Acid rain was real for some more than others.
The List Of 120 Years Of Climate Scares By Scientists
The List Of 120 Years Of Climate Scares By Scientists | 710 WOR | Mark Simone (iheart.com)
Show me a solar panel made of bamboo . Your previous replies don't consider a reply .
thanks for the information, I am sure it is true I wonder though why they dont talk about it anymore? when I was kid it was on the news all the time, i guess we solved the problem for the most of it
Scientific American
Skeptical Science
Physics Today
My 1975 'Cooling World' Story Doesn't Make Today's Climate Scientists Wrong
New Scientist
climatefeedback.org
I'll let you have a look at those. Might help if someone read them to you.
Hard to develop and use technology if folk don't believe there is a problem. Pity.
Almost nobody actually cares about the homeless situation unless they get in your face and there are activists out there who will make sure that problem will never be solved [see the camping in parks situation.
Not the same thing at all.
Also what, are you suggesting that the homeless don't exist? It's a scam? What's the connection between that and than calling climate change a scam.
I looked into that during the peak oil fear mongering that the fringe people were so on about. No it won't. I suppose at some point if we kept expanding our use than sometime in the future we would get to the point where the cost of extracting it would not be worth it. However we will move away from fossil fuels long before that point. Either because of action on climate change or just better alternatives. As one OPEC dude I think it was said, the stone age didn't end because they ran out of stone.
Nearly two-thirds of Canadians support oil and gas emissions cap, even if it puts jobs at risk: poll - The Globe and Mail
Sixty-three per cent of respondents to a Nanos Research poll said they agree or somewhat agree that Canada should immediately limit emissions from the oil and gas sector and curtail them over time
www.theglobeandmail.com
Nearly two-thirds of Canadians support oil and gas emissions cap, even if it puts jobs at risk: poll
MARIEKE WALSH
OTTAWA
PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 12, 2021
:format(jpeg)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tgam/ZYHM2B5BFZMXDCDOV3ZB77CA2Y.jpg)
A flare stack lights the sky from an oil refinery in Edmonton, on Dec. 28, 2018.
JASON FRANSON/THE CANADIAN PRESS
Almost two-thirds of Canadians support immediately capping greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands – even if it puts jobs at risk, according to a new poll.
Sixty-three per cent of respondents to a Nanos Research poll said they agree or somewhat agree that Canada should immediately limit emissions from the oil and gas sector and curtail them over time. Thirty-four per cent said they either disagree or somewhat disagree, and 3 per cent said they are unsure.
The poll, conducted for The Globe and Mail, also shows the country is “fundamentally divided” between the Prairie provinces and the rest of Canada, Nanos Research founder Nik Nanos said.
As such, it reveals the political calculus for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as his government plans to implement a cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector, Mr. Nanos added, because the regions with the most support for such a cap are also Liberal strongholds.
The regional breakdown reveals a gulf between the main producers of oil and gas and other regions. In the Prairies, 57 per cent of respondents said they disagree or somewhat disagree with limiting emissions, whereas Quebec had the lowest level of dissent, with just 16 per cent not in favour. In Atlantic Canada and British Columbia, 29 per cent and 30 per cent, respectively, said they oppose a cap.
The oil and gas sector is the leading contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, but it is also critical to the economy. Mr. Nanos said the poll shows the country’s regions are “out of sync,” with “the Prairies at one end of the spectrum and then Quebec at the other.”
During the recent election campaign, the Liberals pledged to put a cap on the sector’s emissions, with the ceiling shrinking over time. The government has said it will set five-year targets, starting in 2025. Because the path to a majority government runs through Quebec, Mr. Nanos said there may not be much incentive for Mr. Trudeau to bridge the regional divide.
“Good policy for the federation may become victim to a good political strategy for the Liberals, that’s what we have to watch out for,” he said.
The Prairies, though, “aren’t immune to climate-fueled wildfires and droughts,” said Keith Stewart with Greenpeace Canada. “The best policy for the federation is to help each other through a rapid transition to green energy so we capture the jobs that come with it,” he said.
On Nov. 9, former prime minister Stephen Harper told a closed-door meeting that the federal government’s climate policy unfairly singled out “certain parts of the country.”
The week prior at international climate negotiations in Glasgow, Mr. Trudeau called his government’s planned emissions cap on oil and gas “a big step that’s absolutely necessary,” Mr. Trudeau acknowledged in his Nov. 1 speech that imposing limits will be “no small task for an oil-and-gas-producing country.”
The Prairie provinces were also the exception in a separate Nanos Research poll for The Globe on equalization payments. On that question, more people in the Prairies want equalization removed from the Constitution than respondents from other regions.
Overall, 61 per cent of respondents said they disagree or somewhat disagree with removing equalization payments from the Constitution, while 30 per cent agree or somewhat agree. Nine per cent said they are unsure.
In the regional breakdown, though, 50 per cent of respondents from the Prairies said they want the payments removed from the Constitution.
Respondents from Quebec were the least likely to support the change, with just 20 per cent saying they would back it.
Last month, Albertans voted in favour of removing equalization from the Constitution in a referendum that Premier Jason Kenney said was designed to put pressure on Ottawa to address the province’s many grievances. Results posted by Elections Alberta showed 61.7 per cent voted “Yes.”
Mr. Nanos said the timing of the referendum means the issue was much more front and centre for respondents in the Prairies, adding that it’s not clear if people in the region are truly outliers or if the results there simply reflect what others would think if equalization got more attention.
The hybrid telephone and online random surveys ran from Oct. 31 to Nov. 3, with 1,026 respondents. They have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
You need an energy source to move materials. There are current and future alternatives to fossil fuel.
So, once again, materials and fossil fuel are two different issues.
In my experience, many of the same people who use the "what about the homeless?" argument are the same people who walk by a person begging on the street and say "get a fucking job!"
