Toronto Passions

Climate Change

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
93,961
23,576
113
If you bother to read the sources I linked quoting Government of both countries all saying arsonists are setting fires. and if you did high school geography you will learn that Algeria near the coast and Greece all have climates with hot dry summers and cool rainy winters aka the Mediterranean climate.
I read both of your articles, they label all fires started by people as 'arson', but that's nonsense.
Most human started fires are accidental, not intentional.
Clearly you refuse read the sources I posted which points out these arguments and provides evidence to back up their claim.

Its you that refuses to read anything contrary to your anti science stance.

Take this National Post article as an example. I'm sure you'd quote it for its claim that humans start more forest fires so therefore its not climate change, but it includes this quote:

Fires occur naturally from lightning and heat. Add inconsistent forest management practices and you end up with a giant tinderbox.

What is missing is a balanced and fair assessment of an obvious truth: a sizable number of forest fires are not related to climate change but, instead, are a result of human activity, such as campfires and ATVs, questionable forest management practices and even arson.


And this is the headline:
Chris Sankey: Stop blaming forest fires on climate change
A sizable number of forest fires are not related to climate change but, instead, are a result of human activity


Your articles try to claim all human started forest fires are arson and that's bullshit.

Yes, people start forest fires accidentally all the time but without climate change setting the conditions for those fires to become massive quickly they'd largely die out.
Now with forests suffering drought the fires get out of control super quickly.

Its still climate change that makes them worse.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
27,838
8,623
113
Room 112

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
13,899
2,236
113
Ghawar
It may sound unbelievable but the deception of decarbonisation is how
climate leaders are going to continue support of while badmouthing the
oil industry. One of Steven Guilbeault's excuse for the approval of the deep
water Bay Du Nord oil drilling project is that it will attain zero-emission by
2050. Eventually all oil resources will be developed and produced contingent
on zero-emission target being reached by oil producers.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
93,961
23,576
113
Precisely why we will never end fossil fuels. Decarbonisation is a myth. Any leader that uses that work should be held to account.
What we need to change is burning fossil fuels and putting more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Decarbonization is very possible.

Otherwise humanity is screwed.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
93,961
23,576
113
It may sound unbelievable but the deception of decarbonisation is how
climate leaders are going to continue support of while badmouthing the
oil industry. One of Steven Guilbeault's excuse for the approval of the deep
water Bay Du Nord oil drilling project is that it will attain zero-emission by
2050. Eventually all oil resources will be developed and produced contingent
on zero-emission target being reached by oil producers.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: K Douglas

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,964
3,551
113
They love to preach, but they dont practice any of it themselves. Guys like Bill gates and DiCaprio fly around in private planes which create more CO2's in 1 flight then an entire family does in 1 year driving their cars. They are the ultimate hypocrites.

Tell me which points you agree with with, and which you dont. And tell me why
Tell me LaRue, do you agree with my following points:

  • Earth is warming SLIGHTLY but its no big concern. I estimate its only warming by about 0.1 C degrees per decade.
this is possible
  1. satellite data shows a slight upward trend over 40 years, not definitive
  2. the surface temp records is a mess (incomplete, filled with errors, contaminate by urban development & has been fiddled with)
  3. we are still emerging from an ice age, that is a long term trend
  • We have been burning fossil fuels for about 100 years and sea levels havent risen dramatically.
  • same rate of rise over the past thousand years
  • Antartica holds 90% of the planets ice and it is frozen 99% of the time, with only the costal regions hitting zero occasionally
  • We have been burning fossil fuels for about 100 years and earth hasn't warmed significantly.
  • correct, a 0.1% change in atmospheric composition is not going to warm the atmosphere, land and oceans
  • absorption is a low energy physical process
  • water vapor is the greenhouse gas
  • our planet is 2/3 covered in water , natures magnificent temperature/ climate regulator

  • Even in worst case scenarios the North pole, South pole, and Greenland ice sheet arent going to melt and flood the world.
  • correct Antartica holds 90% of the planets ice and it is frozen 99% of the time, with only the costal regions hitting zero occasionally
  • We have only 45 years of oil left, so we have no choice but to switch to electric cars anyways.
  • disagree, peak oil has been predicted many times. technological innovations will likely extend reserves
  • there are lots of Nat gas and coal reserves
  • without a rapid expansion of nuclear power generation, the electric car will not replace the ice car

[/QUOTE]
 

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,964
3,551
113
It may sound unbelievable but the deception of decarbonisation is how
climate leaders are going to continue support of while badmouthing the
oil industry. One of Steven Guilbeault's excuse for the approval of the deep
water Bay Du Nord oil drilling project is that it will attain zero-emission by
2050. Eventually all oil resources will be developed and produced contingent
on zero-emission target being reached by oil producers.
i disagree
oil resources will be developed and produced contingent upon demand

politicians push the net zero fallacy will be voted out
you can not intentionally make life more and more difficult / expensive for the electorate and expect to retain power via the ballot box
 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
13,899
2,236
113
Ghawar
i disagree
oil resources will be developed and produced contingent upon demand

politicians push the net zero fallacy will be voted out
This may turn out to be the case some years from now when voters
finally wake up to the government's deception. Until then zero-emission
will be one excuse for the government granting approval of major new oil
projects. Steven Guilbeault in fact came across as serious about Bay
Du Nord reaching net zero by 2050. The project will entail drilling 500
km offshore Newfoundland. How it is possible for the operation to be
emission free is beyond me. Maybe Guilbeault had in mind the deep sea
drilling ship to be deployed will be running on batteries charged by renewable
energy source. In the UK the massive North Sea Rosebank oil project is going to
proceed notwithstanding the government's endorsement of net-zero emission.
Perhaps some carbon-capture facilities will be in place near the oil field to remove
carbon emission produced from drilling and transportation operations.


So long as climate sheeple voters remain the idiots they are growth of oil, gas
and coal production will continue to be supported by government elected on
promises of zero-emission.




you can not intentionally make life more and more difficult / expensive for the electorate and expect to retain power via the ballot box
 
Last edited:

Not getting younger

Well-known member
Jun 29, 2022
4,549
2,450
113
Can also add. What ever “new” green scheme dreamed up, or forced down people’s throats.
what about the damage they do….Be that lithium mines…those are ok, because like gas plants in Mississauga…out of sight out of mind…

Or wind farms.
How much fossil does each of those monstrosities take….what is their life expectancy…..and how much damage do they do to the environment……and are out of sight, out of mind…

Can also add deforestation.
Climate champions are pointing at wildfires. In Ontario…across the pond. Crying massive amounts of saline..But razing forest for our homes, big decks to have cold beers, and BBQs on…don’t mind me, don’t look here…I will real dollars almost no one here has ever been in a bush plane and seen what’s over the crest of the hills in Algonquin park…..out of sight, out of mind…

Last I checked. Massive forest fires, while undesirable….are a natural thing. Are good for the forest. Getting rid of old growth, making room for new….and nature always come back…

Can also add most citizens of Canada, absolutely add most residents of the GTA. One of the single largest polluters in the world per capita. Who, literally piss and shit in our lakes and streams. Drive to cottages every weekend, piss in our fresh water lakes, in the crotch rockets and more. Love playing 18 on the hundreds of courses that use massive amounts of water, wash their shiny cars, water and fertilize their manicured lawns…….Like there’s No tomorrow.

while many other places in the world are running out of clean, fresh water…..What happens to nature when there’s no clean fresh water…….it’s just the life blood of the planet.
 
Last edited:

JohnLarue

Well-known member
Jan 19, 2005
17,964
3,551
113
This may turn out to be the case some years from now when voters
finally wake up to the government's deception.
likely sooner than that, inflation has hit consumers hard

Until then zero-emission
will be one excuse for the government granting approval of major new oil
projects.
deception masquerading as political correctness
Steven Guilbeault in fact came across as serious about Bay
Du Nord reaching net zero by 2050.
Steven Guilbeault is not a serious person

The project will entail drilling 500
km offshore Newfoundland. How it is possible for the operation to be
emission free is beyond me.
it is not possible
you can not run this on batteries, wind / solar
1690886296931.png

the will claim net zero via the purchase of carbon offsets
 
  • Like
Reactions: Not getting younger

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
13,899
2,236
113
Ghawar
Sunak: UK should ‘max out’ developments in North Sea oil and gas
July 31, 2023

Rishi Sunak has insisted he wants to “max out” developments in the North Sea – as he claimed Labour’s refusal to support new oil and gas fields would be “bad for the British economy”.

The Prime Minister spoke out as he travelled to Scotland to announce Government support for future oil and gas licensing rounds.

And while he refused to say if the controversial Rosebank field to the west of Shetland – the development of which is fiercely opposed by environmental campaigners including Greta Thunberg – would get the green light, his remarks hinted that it could.

Asked about the Rosebank field during a visit to Aberdeenshire on Monday, Mr Sunak stressed that “individual licensing decisions are made through a regulatory process”.

But he added: “My view is we should max out the opportunities that we have in the North Sea because that’s good for our energy security, it’s good for jobs – particularly here in Scotland – but it’s also good for the climate, because the alternative is shipping energy here from halfway around the world with three or four times the carbon emissions.

“So, any which way you look at it, the right thing to do is to invest and to back our North Sea and that’s what we’re doing.”

With Labour having said it would not give new fields the go ahead if Sir Keir Starmer wins the next general election, Mr Sunak insisted his rival’s policy was “bad for our energy security”.

Continuing his criticism of Labour, the Tory insisted the refusal to support new developments in the North Sea was “bad for the British economy and, in particular, Scottish jobs” and was also “bad for the environment as well”.

Labour’s policy would make the UK “more reliant on energy that comes from abroad” the Prime Minister said.

Mr Sunak said: “It’s bad for the economy and jobs – 200,000 jobs are supported by this industry, many of those here in Scotland – they would be putting people out of work.

“And, thirdly, it’s bad for the environment because if you look at the research that’s been published today – LNG (liquefied natural gas) for example, that comes here from somewhere else, typically has carbon emissions that are three, if not four times, higher than the energy that we can get from here at home.

“So, any which way you look at it, I don’t think that’s the right policy. What we’re doing is right for the country.”

Regulators at the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) are currently running the 33rd round of offshore oil and gas licensing, with more than 100 licences in total expected to be awarded from this autumn onward.

Mr Sunak insisted this was “consistent with our ambitions” for the UK to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, adding that oil and gas would still be needed to supply about a quarter of the UK’s energy needs by then.

“Given that, the question you have to ask yourself is where would you like to get that energy from, and it seems to me unequivocally the right thing is to get that energy from here at home,” he said.

Friends of the Earth said the priority of the Prime Minister should be to insulate homes.

Jamie Peters, climate co-ordinator at the group, said: “Locking the UK into decades more oil and gas extraction is reckless policy that will drive a coach and horses through the Prime Minister’s international reputation on climate change while doing nothing to improve energy security or bring down bills.

“Delaying vital, and ultimately inevitable, climate action will cost us all in the long run – both financially and in terms of the huge human impact as climate breakdown intensifies.

“The Government’s own climate advisers, along with the International Energy Agency, the UN and the world’s top climate scientists, have said that we cannot afford to bring new fossil fuel projects online if we’re to secure a safe and liveable future.

“That’s why a drive to insulate homes, alongside building a world-class industry in homegrown renewable power, should be at the heart of Rishi Sunak’s energy plan if he genuinely wants our economy – and the planet – to thrive.

“Both of these are cheap to deliver, popular with the public and will actually make a difference to the nation’s sky-high bills.”

End Fuel Poverty Coalition warned the new licences will “only provide a year’s worth of gas for domestic use”.

Coordinator Simon Francis said: “The Government needs to stop giving people false hope.

“What we urgently need are genuine solutions to the energy crisis.

“We need to reduce our dependence on unaffordable gas, by tackling energy waste through insulation and shifting to renewables.”

 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
13,899
2,236
113
Ghawar
Approving Rosebank oil and gas field would be ‘death sentence’ say activists
July 31, 2023

Approving the Rosebank oil and gas field in the North Atlantic would be a “death sentence”, climate activists have said.

Regulators are considering granting the Norwegian company Equinor permission to begin exploiting one of the largest reserves of fossil fuels in the region.

It would see up to 500 million barrels of oil pulled out over its lifetime, with many scientists and campaigners voicing their opposition to the project in recent weeks.

But, where is the Rosebank oil field, when could the project be approved and what have activists been saying about it?

The Rosebank oil field is in the west of the Shetland Islands.

The fossil fuel reserve, which is the largest untapped oil field in the UK, was first discovered back in 2004.

In 2019, Equinor acquired the field and shared that it expects to produce 500 million barrels of oil from the area.

In early July, Sky News revealed that, despite expectations, the parliament would not be making a decision on the Rosebank oilfield before their summer recess, which kicked off on July 20 and will conclude on September 4.

This month, the North Sea Transition Authority has delayed its decision on whether to approve Rosebank, reportedly because of concerns that its operations emissions may not be compatible with the Government’s net zero targets.

The earliest the topic could be discussed in parliament and approved is, thus, September 2023. And, if approved, oil and gas production could start as early as 2026.

In recent days, Equinor has shared that it has “clear expectation” that the project will be approved, with the firm’s Chief Financial Officer saying he was “awaiting final conclusion on a couple of topics, and final approval from the regulators”.

Speaking at the Southbank Centre’s Planet Summer festival, the group of young activists that included Greta Thunberg and Mya-Rose Craig, said the development of the oil field would exacerbate the destructive effects of climate change such as heatwaves and wildfires experienced in many parts of the world this summer.

Climate activist Tori Tsui said: “There are fires raging across the world, this is the hottest summer ever recorded.

“All the while our energy security and net zero Minister Grant Shapps says that we need to max out our oil and gas reserves. It is a death sentence.”

The Government and Offshore Energies UK, which represents UK oil and gas companies, have said extracting fossil fuels in the North Atlantic and North Sea is more environmentally friendly than buying it from other countries because it would save emissions on shipping.

Climate change minister Graham Stuart has repeatedly expressed his support for continuing to exploit the North Sea’s “declining basin” in preference to buying oil and gas from other countries.

Critics, including shadow climate change secretary Ed Miliband, said up to 80% of Rosebank’s oil would not be sold to the UK.

Greta Thunberg

On Friday, the group of activists protested outside the office of Mr Shapps, urging ministers to block its development.

Ms Thunberg, who attended the demonstration, told a packed-out audience in the Royal Festival Hall it was her 258th week of protesting.

When asked how to make sure phasing out fossil fuels is on the agenda at the upcoming climate change conference Cop28, she said: “Raise our voices. I mean, that’s all we can do.

“We’re not the ones in power. The ones in the world with the most powerful voices, with the most resources, are the ones who are destroying the world.”

Ati Viviam Villafaña, from the Arhuaco people of Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta in northern Colombia, said that if we put all our hopes into stopping climate change at Cop28 we are “wasting our time”.

The UK Government, two years after hosting the UN climate conference in Glasgow, has begun reviewing its environmental policies after the narrow Conservative by-election win in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, where the Ultra Low Emission Zone (Ulez) was considered a deciding factor.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak criticised Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer for changing his policies on the basis of recent headlines after reading headlines about Ulez being an electoral asset for the Conservatives.

Ms Craig, who has been an activist since she was 11 and founded a charity at 13, said she has been writing to Jacob Rees-Mogg, her local MP, about environmental issues.

She told the Southbank audience: “I’ve been writing letters to him. I think he must hate me. I’ll say, I saw you voted about this, we’re not happy about it.

“Because I think we need to remind our Government that this is an issue that is make or break for a lot of people.”

The hour-and-a-half talk finished with the group unveiling the same pink StopRosebank banner shown at their central London protest on Friday.

 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
27,838
8,623
113
Room 112
One thing the alarmists neglect to tell you is that there is some evidence to suggest that the Arctic had ice free summers in the early 20th century. We only have reliable records on arctic sea ice extent since satellites were developed in the mid 70's. So we're going on a record that is less than 2 climate data points. Yet these fuckers want us to decarbonize by 2050 and collapse our economies. No thank you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dutch Oven

Not getting younger

Well-known member
Jun 29, 2022
4,549
2,450
113
One thing the alarmists neglect to tell you is that there is some evidence to suggest that the Arctic had ice free summers in the early 20th century. We only have reliable records on arctic sea ice extent since satellites were developed in the mid 70's. So we're going on a record that is less than 2 climate data points. Yet these fuckers want us to decarbonize by 2050 and collapse our economies. No thank you.
half tongue in cheek.
They can tell us what the world will look like in 50 years, but can’t tell us where wheat/corn will grow….can’t tell us, what the weather is going to be next week. Let alone tomorrow
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
27,838
8,623
113
Room 112
Antarctic Sea Ice Volumes.jpg
 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,172
2,699
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
During the summer of 1911, it was 94 degrees in Greenland. The warm weather in Greenland that summer and the following winter caused a large number of icebergs to form, which was blamed for the sinking of the Titanic.





08 May 1912, 9 – The Morning Post at Newspapers.com
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
93,961
23,576
113
During the summer of 1911, it was 94 degrees in Greenland. The warm weather in Greenland that summer and the following winter caused a large number of icebergs to form, which was blamed for the sinking of the Titanic.
That's still local weather in a debate about global climate.
Will you ever understand the difference?

 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,172
2,699
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
Record Global Temperatures Driven by Hunga-Tonga Volcanic Water Vapor – Visualized
That's still local weather in a debate about global climate.
Will you ever understand the difference?



constantly posting graphs that started in 1850 does not make it true
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
93,961
23,576
113
Record Global Temperatures Driven by Hunga-Tonga Volcanic Water Vapor – Visualized




constantly posting graphs that started in 1850 does not make it true
No, its not the temporary increase in water vapour from Hunga Tonga.
Did you just read the Mann tweet that mentioned this earlier and just finally look it up?

First you guys argue that trace elements can't effect the atmosphere, now you're arguing that trace elements like an extra 10% temporary boost in water vapour can?
At least you're finally admitting that trace elements can effect the climate.
That's a start.


 

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
32,172
2,699
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
No, its not the temporary increase in water vapour from Hunga Tonga.
Did you just read the Mann tweet that mentioned this earlier and just finally look it up?

First you guys argue that trace elements can't effect the atmosphere, now you're arguing that trace elements like an extra 10% temporary boost in water vapour can?
At least you're finally admitting that trace elements can effect the climate.
That's a start.



carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. plants need carbon dioxide



Dr. Tim Ball Defeats Michael Mann’s Climate Lawsuit (climatechangedispatch.com)


[Updated Aug. 24, 2019, here]

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has dismissed Dr. Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit against skeptical Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball. Full legal costs were awarded to Dr. Ball, the defendant in the case.

The Canadian court issued its final ruling in favor of the Dismissal motion that was filed May 2019 by Dr. Tim Ball’s libel lawyers.

Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, first published in 1998, was featured prominently in the U.N. IPCC 2001 climate report.



The graph showed a spike in global average temperature in the 20th Century after about 500 years of stability. Skeptics have long claimed Mann’s graph was fraudulent.

On Friday morning (August 23, 2019) Dr. Ball sent an email to WUWT revealing:


“Michael Mann’s Case Against Me Was Dismissed This Morning By The BC Supreme Court And They Awarded Me [Court] Costs.”
Professor Mann is a climate professor at Penn State University. Mann filed his action in 2010 for Ball’s allegedly libelous statement that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.”

The final court ruling, in effect, vindicates Ball’s criticisms.

On Feb. 03, 2010, a self-serving and superficial academic ‘investigation‘ by Pennsylvania State University had cleared Mann of misconduct. Mann also falsely claimed the NAS found nothing untoward with his work.

But the burden of proof in a court of law is higher.

Not only did the B.C. Supreme Court grant Ball’s application for dismissal of the nine-year, multi-million dollar lawsuit, it also took the additional step of awarding full legal costs to Ball.
 
Toronto Escorts