1. Connection ?

    You mean scientist should also be believed ?

    Or that smoking causes heat waves ?

    Or that Southern Europeans smoke more, therefore it is hotter in the summer than in northern Europe ?

    Or that America is wealthier than S-Europe – partly because they have less regulations, left the unrealistic Paris climate accord and have more coal plants than socialist Europe – therefore they have far more A/C units in cars, condos and houses – probably approaching 100% – to make life more bearable in this annual summer heat ?

    Or that A/C units pose a bigger threat than fossil fuels as they blow a lot of hot air and will use far FAR more electricity ?

  2. Yes, Thomas. Very well put, love that stream of consciousness. Now if I only understood what the f*ck you were talking about.

    1. If it’s hot, unusually windy or very rainy: it’s climate change – or now a climate emergency or climate crisis, but if it is unusually cold or snowy or glaciers expand it’s just weather ?

      In other news, on the heal of the federal climate emergency declaration and B.C. Premier Horgan’s continues (and futile) opposition to the TMX pipeline expansion: YVR expands airport and plans to spend over 9 billion on it

      Go figure.

      Enjoy your long weekend – perhaps take a stroll or bike ride on the beautiful sea wall before it is (allegedly soon, but likely not for 200 years, if ever) submerged !!

      Ideally not smoking while walking or riding your (e)bike as that is actually scientifically proven to be unhealthy – and widely accepted unlike other weather related theories !!

      1. Still trying to find the answer to what climate scientists got wrong, Beyer? You’ve had a week. Not so good when it comes to real evidence are you? Obviously you prefer following wing-nuts on the topic. Your lack of understanding is truly impressive.

        I’d define 97% as widely accepted. You’re not going to have any success pulling informed people into your delusion but you’re having plenty of success looking like a stubborn (old) fool.

        1. 97% consensus refers to “Do you agree that it is warming and that there is some human impact?” This is not consensus on an emergency or draconian New Green Deals or vastly increased energy costs to force unreliable solar or wind farms !!

          1. That isn’t true at all. The 97% scientific consensus refers to the agreement that the earth is warming, and that humans are the primary cause of it. Many studies put it at around 110% human caused, which is to say that if we weren’t influencing the climate with GHG emissions the world would be cooling, eg we have reversed the natural cycle.

            The rest of your post refers to political questions, not scientific questions.

          2. “unreliable solar”

            Me and Annie would both bet our bottom dollar on the sun coming out tomorrow. It must suck to be more depressed than a plucky Depression era orphan.

          3. NASA:

            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.

            At 2 degrees Celsius warming, the deadly heatwaves India and Pakistan saw in 2015 may occur annually.

            Projected food availability will be less at 2 degrees Celsius warming than at 1.5 degrees in Southern Africa, the Mediterranean, the Sahel, Central Europe and the Amazon.

            Warming of 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius will lead to a reduction of rainforest biomass and will increase deforestation and wildfires. Trees at the southern boundaries of boreal forests will die.

            Ocean warming, acidification and more intense storms will cause coral reefs to decline by 70 to 90 percent at 1.5 degrees Celsius warming, becoming all but non-existent at 2 degrees warming.


            Only we’re headed for four degrees or more if we don’t get things turned around really quick.

            Beyer wants to leave behind a degraded planet that will be increasingly deadly and miserable just so he can avoid admitting he’s wrong. Shallow much? Insecure?

            Add pathetic and immoral to foolish. Foolish is way too kind.

          4. The 97% “consensus” is false. Many papers about it. Or here
            Or here

            Even if humans are a driver or main driver even, it begs the question on what to do about it and at what cost. Are artificially increasing energy costs and impoverishing people the best approach or is it better to have far more far more wealthy humans with more means to build higher dykes or install A/C units in all homes or cars, unlike Europe where not even 4% of homes have A/C for example. Poorer, sweltering with no A/C is better why?

            Cost – benefit analysis is missing when discussing where to spend a billion or a trillion over a few decades. If it is such an alleged emergency why do we expand YVR, allow immigration on a large scale or stall a subway to UBC ?

          5. Your pathetic, hopeless delusion continues Beyer. I’ll take NASA’s claim based on several peer reviewed evaluations of the consensus rather than an article in Forbes. And even that piece shows the science is settled while they nit-pic over the exact number.

            Are you going to equip polar bears, orcas and coral reefs with A/C? Is everything expendable to you Beyer?

            Are you going to help fund dikes for the billions of people affected by rising oceans when they aren’t of your obviously superior race?

            You have no evidence that human wealth would be reduced by climate action. Certainly fossil fuel profits would decline and eventually disappear and that’s why they work so hard to convince the gullible that we’re forever a slave to their product. And the gullible buy it. They love you Thomas! They really really do.

          6. The orcas? Do they know the difference between a cruiseship, a BC Ferries ship, an inbound oil tanker to WA state (with allegedly good oil) or an outbound oil tanker to Asia from BC (with allegedly evil tar sands oil?).

            Where are the protests to protest the massive expansion of cruise ships into Vancouver Harbor over the last decade and a half ? You honestly believe one tanker a day (up from 4/month to about 30/month) makes a difference ? WA state has far FAR more oil tankers arriving/going than from any BC port. Where are those protests ?

            Opportunity costs matter. If we spend $s on climate change then that $ cannot be used elsewhere, say on cancer research or new drug research, or on mitigating toxins into air or water (and there are many and far more dangerous such as diesel soot, coal dust, NOx, SO2, methane, ..)

            Humans will adapt to a warmer world, where they live, how they dress, what they drive or what they grow. It’s a non-issue, and at least a minor one.

            Oh yeah, and the polar bears: they are thriving too

          7. Missing the point is your preferred defense strategy so you’ve become very good at it.

            Anthropomorphic global warming and climate change unbalance ecosystems that can’t adapt quickly enough and lead to the extinction of species, further degrading the ecosystems humans depend on for survival in a vicious cycle. I wasn’t talking about the number of ships (which is also a problem) but the degradation of our biosphere in general. If the biosphere suffers humans suffer. I know that’s way over your head but maybe one day you’ll get it.

            If we spend money on climate change measures that money circulates in the economy just as fossil fuel money does. The wealth remains within society, it does not disappear. One used to be able to argue that the energy produced by fossil fuels added economic value that wouldn’t otherwise exist, but with renewables becoming economically competitive that argument is no longer valid. Whether we invest in filthy old technology or cleaner new technology society reaps the same immediate economic benefit – arguably more because the wealth is, by its nature, more evenly distributed. Fossil infrastructure needs a constant source of fuel which fossil companies are happy to keep selling you over and over and over. Sucker! Renewables get it virtually for free.

            If we continue to invest in filthy old technology we’ll pay a much higher price in unnecessary infrastructure, more air and water pollution, flooding, fire, drought, famine, disease, mass migration and war with increasingly degraded ecosystems leaving humans vulnerable to further strife even if you, personally, don’t give a damn about the wellbeing of the creates we share our only planet with. Do you really want us to believe that you think that species around the globe are benefiting from such human activity?

            The best way to reduce all those other pollutants you are concerned about is to stop burning fossil fuels!

            There is no valid economic argument in remaining in the caves where your ilk would have us. Which societies have thrived and which have crumbled? The ones that identified threats, innovated and moved forward have always fared much better than the ones that stagnated under the orthodoxy and paralysis that you prefer.

          8. Beyer likes to get his latest scientific information from blogs because they tell him what he wants to hear.

            From a peer reviewed scientific study.

            Increasing surface temperatures, Arctic sea-ice loss, and other evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are acknowledged by every major scientific organization in the world. However, there is a wide gap between this broad scientific consensus and public opinion. Internet blogs have strongly contributed to this consensus gap by fomenting misunderstandings of AGW causes and consequences. Polar bears (Ursus maritimus) have become a “poster species” for AGW, making them a target of those denying AGW evidence. Here, focusing on Arctic sea ice and polar bears, we show that blogs that deny or downplay AGW disregard the overwhelming scientific evidence of Arctic sea-ice loss and polar bear vulnerability. By denying the impacts of AGW on polar bears, bloggers aim to cast doubt on other established ecological consequences of AGW, aggravating the consensus gap. To counter misinformation and reduce this gap, scientists should directly engage the public in the media and blogosphere.

          9. I too love green clean energy. For the same price and comfort incl range I too prefer an EV over an ICE vehicle. Who wouldn’t?

            However it will not solve humanity’s goods and food production and distribution needs, naming just one of many issues. There’s a reason why the entire good and food chain today is not based on solar or wind or even hydro or nuclear. Where are all the eTrucks, eShips, eCombines and eTractors? Are you aware of the enormous costs to switch to electric machinery at scale for 8B people? That will vastly increase food costs, you realize that? You prefer starvation, even food wars on a grand scale? It’s one thing to have a cordless electric lawnmower. It’s another to have an eTractor that pull huge equipment for a section of land in the middle of nowhere SK or Nebraska.

            Scale matters. Many things “clean and green” fail at scale. Or in the winter. SK is not balmy green ground zero, Vancouver or Gulf Islands.

            Another example: No one is forced to fly to Hawaii or Mexico, or buy a V8 pickup truck, or buy a big house which costs more to heat or cool than a small one, yet people do all the time. What does that tell you?

            I am not advocating fossil fuel investments over solar, for example. I am merely pointing out what is done because it is a necessity. There’s a reason we’re burning over 1000 barrels of oil a second, and growing. Peak oil around 2040 then slow decline. Rising food costs too, btw.

            Enjoy your long weekend. Granville Island packed. With cars. Why don’t they all get there by bus or bike?

          10. Alternative fuel medium and heavy duty trucks. Where are they? At ACT.


            250 exhibitors.

            Electric agricultural tractors:


            Note the reported 50% savings in operating costs. What were you saying about increased food production costs? Did you have any rational basis for that claim? Or are you just parroting the Heritage Foundation?

            All the cars on Granville Island? We rode past today without stopping. Too many cars. We will ride back tomorrow when vehicle access is closed off for Canada Day.

          11. A tractor or combine with a one km long cable? The future of agriculture is secure.

            Rapid transition from fossil fuels? Throughout history, new energy sources have largely been added to traditional supplies rather than replacing them entirely:

            The change will be very very slow, due to economics mainly. While NA slowly gets off coal plants and use gas or even solar (very few solar power plants at reliable large scale, btw) Africa and Asia adds coal plants by the dozens.

            Why doesn’t green and forward thinking Vancouver use only e-buses rather than dirty diesel buses? Where is the EV only zone downtown Vancouver forcing affluent NVaners or WVaners to switch from ICE vehicles? All doable yet not done. Why?

          12. I knew it would come to this. Didn’t we all? Time to bow to the guru of all wisdom. Thank you Beyer for saving us from ourselves. What would we ever have done without you? We’ve been defeated by the all knowing wise one,

            All hail Beyer!

            A lack of action is clearly proof of a lack of a problem.

            Shall we sing Kumbaya? Please join me in rousing chorus.

          13. My apologies if I borrowed that sing-a-long solution from somebody that came to this conclusion earlier. It seems familiar… but then, that may be the point. There is no other way to express our adoration.

          14. Thomas wrote: “A tractor or combine with a one km long cable? The future of agriculture is secure.”

            You should check out large mining equipment. Shovels and drills are predominantly electric, with long cables. Even in the oil sands. Imagine that.

      2. “If it’s hot, unusually windy or very rainy: it’s climate change – or now a climate emergency or climate crisis, but if it is unusually cold or snowy or glaciers expand it’s just weather ”

        That’s called begging the question. If you are going to debate, don’t do that. It’s lame. It’s also wrong. One of the central facts around climate change is more extreme swings in weather patterns as an overall cooling trend continues. Whether you are a climate change adherent or not, misrepresenting positions to bolster your own illogic is bad form old boy.

  3. “ Are you aware of the enormous costs to switch to electric machinery at scale for 8B people.”

    I will go out on a limb and say we will not be needing everyone to have their own tractor.

    I will add that addressing climate change by its very nature will help with food waste and air pollution. We won’t end up fighting over food if we get busy dealing with climate change. But if we don’t, we will burn the last of the oil fighting over the last of our water. Because there’s plenty of food when things really get hairy. It’s called long pig and we are headed there fast. But water is a little harder to get when scarcity is an issue.

  4. On June 30, 2019: U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called on governments to stop building new coal plants by 2020, cut greenhouse emissions by 45% over the next decade and overhauling fossil fuel-driven economies with new technologies like solar and wind. The world, he said, “is facing a grave climate emergency.”

  5. ” No one is forced to fly to Hawaii or Mexico, or buy a V8 pickup truck, or buy a big house which costs more to heat or cool than a small one, yet people do all the time. What does that tell you?”

    Advertising works and the people who work in the industry (including the media outlets which requires the ad revenue to survive) are largely bereft of any sense of responsibility to the future or acccountability for the stories they promote.

    Next Mr Beyer will tell me brainwashing doesn’t work, despite all the evidence to the contrary — including his own unwavering allegiance to falsehoods.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *