Voters In Almost Every Riding Are Worried About Climate Change, Data Suggests

[WyattEarp]

Bang on. First it was overpopulation which was threatening the food supply. Then when that was debunked it was the CO2 global warming bogeyman. Once that has been played out up next will the the water shortage crisis.

Interesting perspective. You're right. Before long, the water shortage crisis is going to be the next play.

Many foolish Californians think the perpetual drought is a climate change phenomenon. Not 24 million people living in the middle of a fucking desert.

 

[Charlemagne]

Bang on. First it was overpopulation which was threatening the food supply. Then when that was debunked it was the CO2 global warming bogeyman. Once that has been played out up next will the the water shortage crisis.

 

[Frankfooter]

Don't forget acid rain and the depleting ozone later.

Acid rain was solved by using scrubbers, problem detected by scientists and then fixed after listening to their advice.
Ozone layer issues have been controlled after being detected by scientists and then having industry switch out coolants after listening to scientists' advice.

Good examples.

 

[WyattEarp]

The hysteria, exaggeration and conflating of every weather event as man-made does not help the discussion. We can debate this, but can people really be serious about climate change if they refuse to consider natural gas development and nuclear power as options.

If you convince very idealistic people that clean, renewable energy can power the world in twenty years they aren't going to be pragmatic and flexible. They won't even care what it costs.

 

[bluecolt]

'Cuz billionaires like Trump just give tax breaks to the rich while fools like Ford cut services and give useless corporate tax breaks.

You are a damn troll. Where and what are these tax breaks that you speak of? If you look through the recent IRS materials and documents, there are no specific decreases in the top rates, no tax incentives specific to the wealthy. In fact, there are rules that discourage the accumulation of cash in foreign tax havens and additional pressure of companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple to integrate foreign earnings into American income to pay up more in income tax.

Your day to day Trump Derangement Syndrome bullshit is exasperating. It sounds like a damn recording saying the same horseshit over and over again. Your bullshit baffles logic.

 

[Frankfooter]

You are a damn troll. Where and what are these tax breaks that you speak of? If you look through the recent IRS materials and documents, there are no specific decreases in the top rates, no tax incentives specific to the wealthy. In fact, there are rules that discourage the accumulation of cash in foreign tax havens and additional pressure of companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon and Apple to integrate foreign earnings into American income to pay up more in income tax.

Your day to day Trump Derangement Syndrome bullshit is exasperating. It sounds like a damn recording saying the same horseshit over and over again. Your bullshit baffles logic.

Troll?
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tax-plan-consequences/
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/22/tru...-gop-states-more-than-in-democrat-states.html

You should apologize.

 

[K Douglas]

Acid rain was solved by using scrubbers, problem detected by scientists and then fixed after listening to their advice.
Ozone layer issues have been controlled after being detected by scientists and then having industry switch out coolants after listening to scientists' advice.

Good examples.

That's why I didn't mention them. They were legitimate issues that were solved through advances in scientific technology. Climate change CANNOT be solved by technology (or anything for that matter)

 

[Frankfooter]

That's why I didn't mention them. They were legitimate issues that were solved through advances in scientific technology. Climate change CANNOT be solved by technology (or anything for that matter)

Sure it can, don't be silly.

Exxon knew about the effects of their products 40 years ago so decided to fund disinformation campaigns rather than do anything about it.
The solutions for climate change will be way harder than for acid rain or the ozone layer, but they are just as doable.
The big difference is that the risks of doing nothing are much, much higher this time.

 

[K Douglas]

Sure it can, don't be silly.

Exxon knew about the effects of their products 40 years ago so decided to fund disinformation campaigns rather than do anything about it.
The solutions for climate change will be way harder than for acid rain or the ozone layer, but they are just as doable.
The big difference is that the risks of doing nothing are much, much higher this time.

You're living a pipe dream. Or shall I say a nightmare. Because that is what we'd be living in should we ban fossil fuel usage.

 

[Frankfooter]

You're living a pipe dream. Or shall I say a nightmare. Because that is what we'd be living in should we ban fossil fuel usage.

That would be better than the nightmare of a 4ºC warmer planet.

Dangerous new hot zones are spreading around the world

https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...vironment/climate-change-world/?noredirect=on

 

[K Douglas]

That would be better than the nightmare of a 4ºC warmer planet.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...vironment/climate-change-world/?noredirect=on

Better than a 4°C cooler planet that's for damn sure. Nevertheless, contrary to your belief we aren't headed to a 4°C warmer planet. The models got it wrong big time.

 

[Frankfooter]

Better than a 4°C cooler planet that's for damn sure. Nevertheless, contrary to your belief we aren't headed to a 4°C warmer planet. The models got it wrong big time.

The models have been incredibly accurate so far, don't know what you're talking about.

 

[onthebottom]

The CBC has done its job.

This is an opportunity for Canada, it could become an inhabitable country.

 

[onthebottom]

The models have been incredibly accurate so far, don't know what you're talking about.

That’s a 19yr old graphic

 

[Frankfooter]

That’s a 19yr old graphic

Can't read a chart, can you?

 

[onthebottom]

Can't read a chart, can you?

Given that the “Forecast” begins in 2000 I’d say I can read a chart, not so sure about you.

 

[Frankfooter]

Given that the “Forecast” begins in 2000 I’d say I can read a chart, not so sure about you.

If you read the chart you can see that they started doing computer climate modelling around 2000 (CMIP was launched in 1995), so that was the first year they mapped out reasonable computer projections.

There are earlier projections, Exxon did a fairly accurate projection in 1982 that they buried and are being sued for burying. But the birth of solid computer modelling was around 1995-2000.

 

[bver_hunter]

If you read the chart you can see that they started doing computer climate modelling around 2000 (CMIP was launched in 1995), so that was the first year they mapped out reasonable computer projections.

There are earlier projections, Exxon did a fairly accurate projection in 1982 that they buried and are being sued for burying. But the birth of solid computer modelling was around 1995-2000.

Which Canadian candidates are the right wingers going to vote for?? None of them resonate this notion that Climate Change is a "Hoax" perpetrated by the "Alarmists"!! We saw Baby Scheer come up with his rather muddled solution to it in todays debate. But all the same he still believes in the Climate Change and the Greenhouse gas Emissions as he wants to "punish" those emitters. However, we know that there are only around 6% of the Climate Change Deniers in Canada, but they seem to be concentrated on this Board!!

 

[onthebottom]

If you read the chart you can see that they started doing computer climate modelling around 2000 (CMIP was launched in 1995), so that was the first year they mapped out reasonable computer projections.

There are earlier projections, Exxon did a fairly accurate projection in 1982 that they buried and are being sued for burying. But the birth of solid computer modelling was around 1995-2000.

The chart you used is 19 years old and you didn’t realize it, perhaps you are not well prepared to talk about subjects that involve math.

 

[Frankfooter]

The chart you used is 19 years old and you didn’t realize it, perhaps you are not well prepared to talk about subjects that involve math.

You really can't read a chart, can you.
Take a look at this chart and try reading the legend.
The black line is the average of model projections made around 2000, with the grey bar its range.
The next lines are the different global temp measurements, from HadCRUT to GISTEMP.
Note that the projection goes to 2020, while the measurements end at 2018, which is the latest annual report.

That means it shows the very latest measurements of global temperature, which means this is the very latest update of 2000 computer model projections vs all global temperature readings.

Sheesh.