Comments

  1. What saddens me deeply are the people who still argue that we don’t need to do anything, or that country X is a bigger polluter so they should do it.

    Or that the opportunity to make petro-dollars is reason enough to destroy the planet.

    To these fools I have one question

    WHAT IF YOU’RE WRONG?

    1. What do you suggest we do?

      Kill the world economy? Sail like Greta Thunberg only ? Disallow cars, trucks, buses and ships that currently power the world’s food, goods and people movement. 8B folks gotta eat and wish to aspire to western world’s life styles. Deny them that? Send them back into the primitive stone age ?

      The best we can do is encourage more gas use in lieu of coal in SE Asia, notably China and India as THE worst polluters on the planet with the highest CO2 growth.

      1. C’mon Thomas, answer the question. What happens if you’re wrong and the climate scientists are right? What if Australia is the canary in the coalmine and we’re on the brink of a planet sized disaster?

        Just how much are you prepared to gamble? Or, alternately, how much damage is the Australian economy suffering this year? If you’re wrong and North America isn’t immune to climate changes then how badly will BC and Vancouver suffer when everything arrives here?

        Right now you’re sounding like the guy smoking two packs a day because he believes that maybe he won’t get cancer. Fifty years ago you could almost make that claim, but those days are long gone.

        Or, to say it a third way, If I’m wrong, and if regardless of that we put a brake on fossil fuel use as widely as possible (and concrete too I guess) we will see some economic changes, but we’ll also wind up with much cleaner environment, hopefully without climate warming. And economies recover from the inevitable and cyclic crashes and downturns.

        Your turn: if YOU’RE wrong, and we do nothing and spiral into climate catastrophe what future do you foresee?

        1. Most of these dire predictions the last 40 years HAVE BEEN WRONG. Polar ice melting completely. No more oil. We’re running out of water. We’re running out of resources. Oceans are rising 10 meters .. all this is hype. Oceans aren’t rising much, there’s no proven link between more extreme weather and CO2 and even teh CO2 and temperature link is weak at best.

          Resilience matters.

          Wealthier folks can afford to build dykes, if need be. Or grow food in 4 degree warmer weather with different crops or irrigation techniques.

          There are far FAR more dangerous and urgent issues to spend precious $s on, for example: over fishing, ocean pollution from ag runoff or plastics, under-educated females in developing world, malnutrition, dirty air from unfiltered coal, bad air from burning fires in India, removal of forests .. who cares about 0.4 degrees warmer weather or an ocean that is 2 cm higher on average ?

          Paris Agreement is far too expensive. Trillions with very few, if any, benefits: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/a-climate-of-burning-money/news-story/3b1b07a6de6fd03957db72d497b03359 “Work by Nobel laureate climate economist William Nordhaus based on the UN findings shows the likeliest outcome is a cost to the planet of about 3 per cent of gross domestic product in coming centuries. That should be taken seriously — but it does not equal Armageddon. ..

          The Copenhagen Consensus Centre asked 27 of the world’s top climate economists to examine policy options for responding to climate change. This analysis showed that the best investment is in green energy R&D. For every dollar spent, $11 of climate damages would be avoided.”

          Ergo: we need more, FAR MORE, greener and cheaper energy.

          1. If you’re going to debate climate science, then debate climate scientists. Write to them. Even the most well-funded and strident deniers/delayers/doubters will not do that because they know they will be proven wrong on facts and evidence, and even theory time and again.

            Your sources fail the peer review test. Doing so is anathema to placing their ideas and critiques under scientific scrutiny by genuine scientists in a science format. It fails every single time. The Arctic sea ice is melting and the heat gain in the Arctic ocean is distorting the once stable jet streams. That is the documented evidence. Deniers deny it, or cast doubt on even direct observations in order to delay action on lowering emissions from fossil fuels. And the deniers, delayers and doubters are invariably funded by industry, one way or another.

            Or will you deny that evidence too in an attempt to protect the value of your shares in Suncor?

  2. I have no sympathy for Australia just as I had no sympathy for Fort McMurray. I do have sympathy for the individuals in the country who are doing their best but cannot get a responsible government in place because of the overwhelming greed and/or stupidity of their neighbours.

    But Canada is equally guilty. Let’s not begin to be smug! Both Countries along with the US and a few others have the highest emissions in the world and they are not declining. How many have taken bold action in their lives? Australia had a short lived carbon tax and there’s nothing to say Canada won’t do the same. We had an environment slashing tyrant in power for almost a decade and Trudeau only looks good by comparison. He’s terrible. Liberal policies are not nearly good enough for the severity of the emergency. And while the majority voted on the side of climate action there is nothing to prove people actually voted for climate action. We could lose what little we’ve gained before four years are up.

    Unfortunately we all suffer from the climate feedbacks occurring in those places that deserve what they’re getting. And there are increasingly people/regions countries who are bearing the brunt through no fault of their own.

    We’ve put political leaders in jail or even hung them for crimes against humanity after war atrocities. It’s about time we make it known that that will be the fate of those who take the world into this even more evil territory.

  3. The deniers’ ‘how else are we going to power our society’ argument is interesting in that it reveals an understanding of the disruptive potential of change – but only just enough understanding to be both stupid and dangerous. They see the possibility of economic recession as a greater threat than total societal collapse.

  4. Unfortunately this blog now ventures into far too much into far way natural events and climate hype bordering on religion, rather than focus on urban policy and transportation issues.

    Lots and lots of arson and natural fire causes for these large fire in Australia which make, of course, for spectacular TV images. https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/01/we-dont-just-have-a-bushfire-crisis-we-have-an-arson-crisis-too/

    we build more bike lanes in Vancouver (a good idea) or denser housing (mainly a good idea too) and we change the weather in Australia to prevent wildfires, ie wildfires that occur naturally every year in very dry climates such as Australia or California ?

    1. You’ve been on this blog longer than I have, Sue-Tom, so one could wonder why “sustainability” isn’t part of your vocabulary with respect to cities and human existence. Contrarianism for the sake of being contrary is an outward demonstration of a circular personality; it defines and answers nothing while consuming space and time, like a dog chasing its tail. When everything, including the laws of physics, gets down to mere politics, then it’s a simple step to stop devoting much time and energy to wondering and engaging. Having said this, it’s also entertaining to watch magical thinking and denial bend and sway certain individuals. And it’s oh so predictable that the money — it’s always the money — doing the bending and swaying invariably comes from the fossil fuel industry.

      To some of us, engaging with your specious arguments is just another minor rehearsal to strengthen our resolve to deal with climate change through mature, professional ideas, discourse and evidence. Otherwise, one could decide to ignore or dismiss your arguments as a disjointed dog’s breakfast of mostly discredited ideas from previous centuries. Better to limit the engagement to small change and not get too worked up with a known contrarian lest the fun disappears.

      1. The climate hype is off the charts.

        More cycling in Vancouver = less wildfires in Australia ?

        “Serving as further proof of our mainstream media’s sickening ‘warm-mongering’ agenda, at least 50 cold-related deaths in Bangladesh, Southern Asia, have gone widely unreported.

        Australia’s 20 wildfire fatalities since October 2019 continue to dominate the headlines —as that natural disaster is dutifully following the AGW narrative— and although a local tragedy, the numbers simply don’t compare to the cold-related deaths occurring in other regions of the planet:

        Bangladesh

        Recently, at least 50 people have died in Bangladesh as extreme cold weather sweeps the country.

        Cold-related diseases have affected 5,998 people in the last 24 hours alone, reports unb.com.bd.

        Hospitals are struggling to cope with the surge of people suffering from illnesses such as influenza, dehydration and pneumonia, said Ayesha Akhter, a senior official of the government’s health directorate. …”

        1. Unusually cold weather is one of the outcomes of climate change.

          https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/161026081551.htm

          You don’t come off looking smart, Thomas. You come off looking like one of the dwindling cohort of deniers who are too stubborn to admit they are wrong. A couple of decades ago, the fossil propaganda machine had the majority convinced the climate wasn’t changing at all. Where are all those people now?

          They quietly changed their mind – just as the vast majority has come to accept five decades of increasingly robust science. You can hang out with the flat earthers and the biblical fanatics who believe the universe is 6000 years old. They need more gullible people like you.

        2. “The climate hype is off the charts.”

          I have friends who live in three widely different parts of Australia, including Tasmania which is 300 km offshore from Melbourne. All of them, and reportedly everyone they know, is greatly affected by these fires, either with health issues or by evacuation (or both). Toss them your hype comment and you’ll be as welcomed as the current prime minister at one of hundreds firefighter’s station. By your mindset, “hype” actually lit an entire continent on fire. Point to anyone alive today who can remember that happening anywhere. Ever.

          1. Fires & associated smoke are bad, obviously. No one denies that. TVs love those images. Far better than frozen bodies in northern climates. More drama.

            It has nothing to do with climate though.

          2. How do you know it has nothing to do with climate change? What is your evidence of this?

          3. “It has nothing to do with climate though.”

            Incredible.

            One glance at the latest heat map of the Australian continent that is almost totally encompassed by temperatures never recorded before in red — two huge blobs are over 45 degrees! — even in southern coastal areas, and your comment becomes a joke.

        3. If Australia was even half as densely populated as Bangladesh, then the toll would be far, far higher. You seem to have trouble understanding what ‘extreme weather events’ actually entail. Climate scientists have written about this extensively for years, and their hypotheses are being proven at an increasing rate. Now that it’s happening at larger scales and more frequently, you call it “hype.” What planet do you live on anyway?

          As it is, drastic political change is in the works once the smoke clears late in the Australian autumn.

  5. Susan Beyer, if I’d written your 3.32pm comment above, I’d be embarassed. BTW what are your prefered pronouns when we are referring to you?

    Good news is, us Boomers will be dead soon and leave the terrible environmental consequences of our profligate fossil fuelled lifestyles to future generations to deal with.

    Bad news is climate change consequences caused by our huge consumption of fossil fuels are coming so fast we’ll be alive to live through some of them.

  6. The last few weeks in Australia are utterly disastrous. There is no historical precedent to an entire country the size of the continental US being on fire all at once. Every single region, according to the latest maps, glows red. Imagine if all 10 provinces and three territories in Canada were all on fire everywhere at the same time. The heat has exceeded 45 degrees C on the south coast of Western Australia, not just the centre of the Outback where’s you’d expect it. This of course follows an unprecedented drought that has now exceeded a decade, the clearest indication of long-term heating trends as part of climate change if there ever was one.

    The denialist-delaying-doubting government of Australia is starting to crack. The Prime Minister stopped touring devastated sites when he was widely booed and threatened. As with every single climate denying government, donations from the fossil fuel industry and its supporters back their fallacious economic assertions and ridiculously canned statements. This government cut budgets for fire fighting … during a severe drought. Now his minister of energy (coal being the biggie there) has broken with his cabinet colleagues, including the PM who once cradled a hunk of coal in parliament like a baby, and is calling for policies to fight climate change once they get through the current disaster. He may be toast in that government, so to speak, but the public is suffering terribly in every corner of the nation together largely due to the policies of this and all previous governments there, and there will probably be a backlash to dump them and wise up to the climate crisis.

    That can’t come soon enough there and elsewhere.

  7. Extreme climate events are regularly reported in the media. We should not be distracted by propagandists as we observe the present and contemplate the future, as we get ourselves organized to respond with action. We are now in an early public education phase of a climate emergency. Youth are at the forefront of a world wide effort in public education, political action representation, policy legislation, budget allocations, communications development. The age of the armature and its’ attachments has arrived, time to accelerate production and adoption at a war scale rate across the globe.

    1. Youth are by and large clueless about cost, taxes, budgets and PROGRESS thus far due to cheap energy. Human’s live far longer, far healthier and there are far FAR more of them. Cheap energy is a main cause of that.

      There is no easy solution. Many proposed solutions have ENORMOUS COST – or are outright unscalable – that are not clearly articulated to an ever more brain washed public.

      Why doesn’t China use gas on a massive scale, or solar panels? Or India ? Why do they use coal ? Because it is cheap AND it works for 2.5B people. Solar or wind doesn’t.

      Why aren’t EVs flying off the shelves ? Because they are very expensive. Even the well selling Tesla 3 is now over Can$60,000 .. for a very basic car. The $8000 rebate is now phased out as it is unsustainable. One can get a similar car with an internal combustion engine, very energy efficient or hybrid for half that.

      Why isn’t TransLink installing e-buses on a mass scale? I’d love to see those stinkin’ diesel buses replaced ASAP, but is the populace willing to pay $4/ticket now instead of $2.45?

      There’s no easy, fast, cheap answer to deliver food DAILY and RELIABLY for ~8B people on the planet with electric power only. Today we need fossil fuel powered trucks, ships, tractor or combines for that. Promoting unrealistic options, or even mandating them means starvation on a vast scale as you cannot feed 8B folks today without fossil fuels. Maybe in 50 years. Maybe 100. We shall see. Drivig EVs in cold weather or heating homes in cold vast Canada is not practical electrically. Clean burning natural gas makes a lot of sense here.

      btw: I drive a hybrid. I love to e-bike. But I also love to go to Hawaii, Mexico or Europe once in a while and there’s no electric alternative, likely ever. I also like to eat. Like the other 8B !!

      The hype is off the chart. More realism please. Such as that by Bjorn Lomborg. Any action has cost. Show that too, not just the alleged benefits that allegedly cost little or nothing. You cannot make steel or cement or fly without fossil fuels. You can’t feed 8B people today without fossil fuels, and that’s why we are marching to a peak oil of about 110M barrel a day by late 2030s / early 2040s with only slow decline after that.

      More bike lanes or EVs or e-buses in Vancouver are great & encouraged. It won’t change the climate though nor the Australian or California fires that always happen when it’s dry. I would link some articles but the blog editor often removes them unfortunately.

      Happy New Year !!

      1. While most people know that there will be some economic costs associated with our switch to clean alternatives, it is you, Thomas, who has no clue about the cost of *not* doing so. You choose not to see what is in front of your nose and make glib comments that it is not the climate. Just how many climate related disasters have to happen before you stand up like a real man and admit you’ve been a fool?

        It is science that has created the modern world we enjoy. Inasmuch as cheap energy played a major role, cheap fossil fuels are running out anyway and alternatives are increasingly competitive with what’s left. And that’s without costing the health problems and death they bring.

        Have you ever posted a link to science instead of some sensationalist denial article, blog or charlatan like Lomborg? Try this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwMPFDqyfrA to see how Lomborg deliberately omits and distorts to make his claims.

        On the other hand there will also be new opportunities and businesses and advancements in the human condition as we transition from the sunset fuels. EVs are already becoming cheaper than ICE over the life of the car. Passive House and other energy efficient buildings are cheaper over their life. Denier alarmists talk about the high cost of building out sustainable infrastructure while completely ignoring that most of that cost would come anyway – in the replacement cost of conventional facilities.

        When the last tree has burned to the ground and a few survivors are crawling around in the oppressive heat eating bugs, Beyer will still be denying the science. It’s all he knows how to do.

      2. Transformation to a clean world economy requires organization of knowledge into a plan of action.

        The electrification of the globe requires an international administrative organization of signatory countries with an efficient, evidence based governance structure. The organization will need capacity to enforce electrification policies and deliver solutions globally. That is the idea, Canadians can popularize this approach as a new world economy.

        The transformation plan bans emission producing activities and redirects investment to electrification programs through a phased transition process. Guidelines and regulations have always been used to control the propositions of the industrial age, and they have always been effective.

        World Wide Actions:
        suspend all non-essential urban, civic, and military construction
        stand down all military operations across the globe
        suspend all non-essential air traffic
        prohibit all non-essential air freight
        ban fossil fuels for ship propulsion
        convert rail diesel engines to hydrogen electric
        ban burning fossil fuels for heating
        suspend production of all non electric vehicles

        Nation Steps:
        first step: increase power supplies using hydro
        first step: increase power supplies using wind turbines
        first step; increase power supplies using solar cells
        first step; increase power supplies using geothermal sources
        second step: establish electric cities with economies based on manufacturing electric systems
        second step: concentrate on a rapid refit of transport propulsion to electric motors
        second step: increase ion-lithium battery production

        third step: the energized human:
        design a rechargeable human power pack / specify in kilowatts per hour per hour
        this is the idea of technological transformation at the foundation of populations
        clean / portable / renewable / reliable / power supply for any where on the planet
        with this system of life support humans can live independently of cities, towns, even villages in any environment, anywhere on the planet, you decide where you want to live in the wild world
        team; design engineers, manufacturing engineers, electrical engineers, physicists, electronics engineers, materials scientists, computer scientists, software engineers, imaging and communications specialists, logistics specialists.
        plan for complete retirement of the combustion machines in transportation and in industry
        plan for complete replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy pathways_
        this transformation should be evenly balanced at all times
        in terms of labour transfers over the next decade 2020-2030

        Conclusion: There is no place in the future for Thomas Beyer and his many fake names and false stories.

        1. Good luck with this for 8B folks.

          “World Wide Actions:
          suspend all non-essential urban, civic, and military construction
          stand down all military operations across the globe
          suspend all non-essential air traffic
          prohibit all non-essential air freight
          ban fossil fuels for ship propulsion
          convert rail diesel engines to hydrogen electric
          ban burning fossil fuels for heating
          suspend production of all non electric vehicles“

          We can certainly do with less military, more insulated homes and more fuel efficient ships, planes or cars.

          Has it occurred to you that in cities most A/C systems are already electric, that in warmer climates almost no gas is used to heat homes, but that A/C systems create a lot of warm air that is blown out (on small scale on windows or balconies and one a large scale usually on roof tops). As such cities are warming even with 0 fossil fuels.

          Heating homes in cold climate is energetically more efficient than hearing them electrically due to energy loss over long distances.

          There is a large body of (suppressed) research that doesn’t fit the “oil is bad” climate religion.

          There is also no proven link to more extreme weather events, floods or hurricanes. The main cause of more damage is more humans who settle in ever more hostile or remote places, or closer to rivers, ocean shores or islands prone to natural disasters historically. 24×7 internet and TV allows this to be streamed constantly into our computers.

          Modern life without gas or oil is just not feasible for 8B people.

          Net zero by 2050 is a lie by vote buying politicians. Will we reduce per $ of GDP or per human: sure, maybe 30-50% but not 100%.

          1. If there is a large body of suppressed research then either a) you should have no problem providing some links to it or b) you believe this to be true without the slightest evidence.

            Since you never provide links to proper research one must conclude that your world view is not backed by evidence. That is certainly clear to me. I’m guessing it’s clear to everybody who reads your posts since your only supporter is your own alter-ego.

            As for home heating you are wrong – as usual. The vast majority of homes are far from significant electrical generation capacity *and* from fossil fuel sources. There are losses in both systems getting the energy to your home. But fossil fuels can never exceed 100% efficient while electricity can be 300% to 400% efficient with current technology. Furthermore, electrical generation is moving closer to where we live. The same can’t be said for fossils.

            Climate science predicts more extreme weather events and there are more extreme weather events. They occur in long settled areas as much as in newly settled and more vulnerable ones. Are you trying to suggest that the Australian cities, where people can barely breathe, are hostile and remote? Is it normal that their entire coast is on fire? Why do you confuse normal historical fire cycles with increasing conflagrations?

            Vancouver has suffered prolonged extreme smoke 3 times in the last 4 years where it’s been a rare occurrence previously. I guess that’s only because we have computers, right?

            There are undoubtedly those who resisted civilization’s advancement from the stone age. Where are they now? A few remote tribes living as we all did 10,000 years ago. Do you really want to be among those sorts as the rest of the world advances out of the fossil age? Why are you so determined to hold civilization back?

          2. I have documented here a plan to manage our transition to electrons, yes it will cause havoc, but on our terms and not as do nothing victims of nature, not as victims of our own stupidity.

      3. Re: “ENORMOUS COST.”

        Two recent Alberta electricity auctions (i.e. the marketplace) recorded 3.4 cents per kW/hr for wind, and under 5 cents per kW/hr for solar. These prices outcompete fossil fuels, including natural gas.

        An auction for large scale in India returned a similar price that actually outcompeted coal.

        Like too many of your other assertions, the “enormous cost” of renewables narrative is defunct.

  8. “Modern life without gas or oil is just not feasible for 8B people”

    We should probably stop burning it on unnecessary trips to “Hawaii, Mexico or Europe once in a while ” then.

    Lead, follow or get out of the way I say.

    1. I hate to break it to you, but modem life for 8B people without oil, gas or coal isn’t doable for at least a century, possibly forever, as it provides about 70-75% of all energy today, despite heavy growth of renewables and more energy efficiency. We can do with less coal and filter the dust. For example by shipping more B.C. LNG to Asia where most of this coal growth is happening. Yet it’s opposed here. Why? Think globally and act locally.

      Without gas you cannot survive in 95% of Canada. To eat today anywhere in Canada we need trucks and ships – all oil driven and for the next few decades, likely a century. Are you promoting death by starvation, or by freezing?

      I provide ample links and research but it’s usually clipped in this ever more biased and discussion suppressing blog, which is too bad.

      People don’t want to starve, freeze or be told they can’t fly or drive anywhere. Air plane travel to double by 2040, btw. None of it electric. Zero. Nada. Null. https://www.internationalairportreview.com/article/106229/world-airport-traffic-forecasts-aci-world/

      I love biking. And BC’s clean air. What we have is not the world norm btw. Get out more. Go to SK in the winter and try to survive with gas, for example. Sail to Vancouver Island in the winter and see how uncomfortable this is vs flying or taking a ferry – both fossil fuel dependent. Try to eat anything in Vancouver that hasn’t been produced or shipped to the store with fossil fuels. Good luck with that.

      More and more and ever more prosperous and longer living humans means far more energy will be required in the future. Far FAR more. Work on that please. Cheap energy please, not expensive. Hydro is great. But the UN now says it’s racist and many green folks even don’t support Site C. Why? Where’s Site D, E and F btw ? We surely need them with more people in BC, more EVs, more electric ships, no more gas even in cold northern B.C. etc ..

  9. “Without gas you cannot survive in 95% of Canada.”

    Reinforcing my point that those who use it profligately without good reason are traitors to their species.

    1. Seriously ? You ever been to AB, northern BC, SK, MB or ON? In the winter you cannot survive without heat. That means gas for 99%+ of their homes. or used to be oil. Before that wood for a few. Burning wood is better ? In some instances very expensive hydro (or nucleo in Ontario). EVs don’t work so well at -25 and neither does electric heat. That is why most northern climates install gas heating. Even for water it is used in warmer parts of BC. I guess you prefer cold showers ?

      Global warming is not an issue at all in northern climates that concerns citizens. Only for (relatively affluent) folks in balmy BC.

      Humans are part of nature btw.

      Have a Happy New year !

      btw: I like this guy’s blog. Very sensible. From BC. https://achemistinlangley.net/
      Or Judith Curry: https://judithcurry.com/
      Or Bjorn Lomborg’s of course.

      All three sensible fact filled climate related blogs with this irrational climate hype.

        1. As I said before and as his topic states “Why a Pragmatic Environmentalist supports BC LNG – doing the climate math”

          You forgot to continue ie forgot quote his next sentences: “That being said I believe the Paris Agreement is deeply flawed. It treats each country like a silo and ignores how trade affects carbon emissions. This is a problem because the Paris Agreement allows developing countries to set less stringent targets for reducing their carbon emissions. As a result many highly-developed countries have off-shored their carbon emissions. ?

          More LNG from Canada will help the world. Less coal is better. But this irrational hype “we can get off fossil fuels fast, and if we don’t we all burn” is just utter BS. Net zero by Canada (or EU) by 2050 despite heavy immigration is another lie not analyzed anywhere.

          1. You’re missing the point as usual Beyer. What we choose do about climate change is an entirely different topic than whether it exists or not.

            You claim it doesn’t exist. The person you cite claims it does and that does and is a fundamental threat.

            You are confusing science with politics.

      1. And who is Judith Curry?

        “In 2019 she stated that she would not “bother with” peer-reviewed journals, in favor of publishing her own papers so that she could editorialize and write what she wanted “without worrying about the norms and agendas of the ‘establishment.’”.[7]”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry

        Whether one agrees with the conclusions of the latest science or not, the scientific method is the best thing we’ve got to ensure reliable advancement based on the best empirical evidence. If you’ve got proof that the science is wrong then prove it within the bounds of peer-review. If you can’t convince a reputable scientific journal that your research has any credibility then you are most likely a rogue and have little if anything to add to the understanding.

        Now, there is the possibility that the entire climate science profession is collectively conspiring to fudge evidence and keep out the real and robust evidence provided by a few outliers. But then how did the 3% of contrarian research ever get published? Could it be that there are indeed some small pieces of the puzzle that are not completely understood and when scientists provide solid evidence of this they are published? Could it be that when a “scientist” has a political agenda and hasn’t met the bar of proper scientific methodology that they don’t get published? Isn’t it possible that such a person might declare the entire profession corrupt and go off and claim they know better than all of them?

        And isn’t it possible that somebody who has staked their reputation on denial that they will put all their faith in a few unpublished outliers and throw out the entire global scientific consensus?

        That sounds very much like how the denial industry works.

        1. Science is now heavily politicized. There’s just far too much money in it.

          Just look at how Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace is being eliminated from even the Greenpeace pages as he fundamentally disagrees with current Greenpeace’s politics, agenda, science and methods.

          Ditto with Judith Curry. Google this for example: judith curry manipulation science

          Ditto Google and Wikipedia searches – now highly biased as Wikipedia entries massaged now.

          The truth is being manipulated.

          The science is being corrupted. Co2 is just a nice way to milk more taxes, with every breath you take ! Brilliant.

          There is certainly no climate emergency in Canada.

          1. Most assuredly the truth is being manipulated. The fossil industries have hundreds of $millions they can afford to spend on propaganda and many $trillions to lose if they don’t.

            What does the green side have? It’s David and Goliath.

            Be honest.

            Your own link confirmed the science is real. What will it take for you to admit it?

            Be honest.

            *Reporting* of science is politicized. I’d be foolish to think there is absolutely no politics in science but that isn’t the way science works. The scientists have been bending over backwards to avoid getting involved with the politics. They are terribly under-represented in the conversation. Multiple research papers back a minimum 97% consensus of AGW. Is that what we’re hearing in the public discourse? Have you ever seen a public debate where one denier is put up against 30 scientists?

            Be honest.

            What is more likely – that a powerful group of vested interests is doing what is can to save the cash cow that has made them filthy rich for a century or that a diverse bunch scientists from all over the world with differing cultures and political backgrounds are all conspiring to… to do what exactly?

            Be honest.

            Are the scientists pocketing the carbon taxes? What’s in it for them?

            Be honest.

            Even if you could argue that Canada is getting off light in terms of harm (which you can’t) it would be immoral for you to impose your harm on others. As a Canadian you are among the highest emitters.

            Be honest.

            That’s asking a lot of you, I know. But try.

          2. Chris / Ron / Greta:

            how do YOU suggest to feed 8B people TODAY and the next few decades?

            People don’t buy oil (or gas) because it is pretty. They’d switch if more viable alternatives existed.

            Who wouldn’t prefer an e-bus or an e-ferry over one powered by stinkin’ diesel ?

            Once EVs cost $20,000, run 700 km AND you can get charged up anywhere cheaply of course EVs will be heavily used. By then electricity though 30-40 cents per kwh like in Germany today and the EV advantage of lower op costs will disappear quickly. Not so easy so for the e-tractor in rural Nebraska pulling a heavy 60 m wide harvester, or the ocean going vessel from Mexico or Asia to Vancouver port with fruit and goods, or the vacationing family going to Hawaii !

            Food costs will explode as we already starting to see with higher and higher CO2 taxes. There will be a point soon where people will resist this (CO2) money grab, as you already see in the cold weather provinces. Google energy poverty Germany

          3. I’ll be happy to debate you on what to do once you admit it is a real problem to be dealt with. I’m not going to expend a lot of energy debating the hows until I’m confident you won’t just go back down your denial hole.

            Be a man, Thomas. Or be a woman if you prefer, Sue. But be honest.

      2. Re: Judith Curry.

        Here are just a few of the comments recorded on the well-referenced Source Watch site about Curry. The take away? She is funded by fossil fuel interests and her statements are regularly discredited by climate scientists and academic researchers. That is the established pattern of the great majority of deniers/delayers/doubters.

        ***

        Laundry list

        Curry’s contrarian-leaning “public outreach” public communication is criticized by prominent climate scientists and other science-aligned climate bloggers for a propensity toward “inflammatory language and over-the-top accusations …with the…absence of any concrete evidence and [with] errors in matters of simple fact.”[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16].

        “…Examples of the unreliability of Curry’s blog publications are illustrated by Michael Tobis[17] and James Annan[18], who both showed basic flaws in her understanding of uncertainty and probability, or at least an irresponsible level of sloppiness in expressing herself. Arthur Smith pointed out an under-grad level misunderstanding[19] in her own field’s basic terminology,” said Coby Beck.[11]

        Climate scientist James Annan has provided examples (with rebuttals) of assertions made by Curry on topics like no-feedback climate sensitivity, aerosols, climate change detection&attribution, and the IPCC tolerance of challengers; he finds there’s a pattern of “throwing up vague or demonstrably wrong claims, then running away when shown to be wrong”,[20]

        Willingness to criticize based on second-hand info from contrarian, inexpert sources

        “In a 2010 comment[21] she called blogger Deep Climate’s detailed and well-documented investigation into the Wegman Report “one of the most reprehensible attacks on a reputable scientist that I have seen” even as she revealed in her incorrect synopsis of the charges that she had not even read it for herself. … [i.e.] she shows herself ready to publicly criticise someone else in the strongest terms based entirely on second hand information gleaned from places like Climate Audit and Watts Up With That.”[11]

        Offering off-the-cuff, uninformed criticism of mainstream climate science

        Gavin Schmidt has criticised Curry for “not knowing enough about what she has chosen to talk about[22], for not thinking clearly about the claims she has made with respect to the IPCC[23], and for flinging serious accusations at other scientists without just cause.”[24].

        ***

        Bjorn Lomborg also generates a lot of referenced scientific criticism at Source Watch and other sites.

  10. “I provide ample links and research but it’s usually clipped in this ever more biased and discussion suppressing blog, which is too bad”

    Start your own blog and no one will edit you. Or read you either probably, but so it goes.

  11. “You ever been to AB, northern BC, SK, MB or ON? In the winter you cannot survive without heat.”

    You don’t actually read other’s posts do you? My position is that wasting fossil fuels when they are critical to life for some is very suspect behaviour, but you seem happy to countenance it. A point you miss again and again.

    1. Eating and heating (in winter especially) is critical for me, and BILLIONS of others. Hence the large worldwide truck use, ship use, combine use or tractor use. What’s the reasonably priced alternative, Greta ?

      Even vacations, while not critical, are certainly desired. That is why airplane travel is expected to double the next 20 years.

      If we truly had a climate emergency as many believe, esp in BC, why is the YVR airport undergoing a $8B+ expansion ? 8 Billions or more .. with a B !

      Everyone laments the allegedly scientifically proven fact that it is warming, allegedly unnaturally fast yet no one here on this blog provides any real solutions besides socialism, vastly reduced living standards and very expensive energy, rejected by most of fast growing Asia, notably the very populous nations of India and China.

      What is the REAL solution, besides my suggestions: we need far FAR more gas & oil from Canada to replace coal in India and China AND provide far FAR more cheap green energy (wind, solar, cheap storage for cloudy & non-windy days, geothermal ..) all of which are done and still make little dent into the energy mix as oil, gas & coal still well over 70% of world wide energy mix ???????

      What is ??

      1. My name is Chris Keam. Not Greta. I just use the one identity online. Keeps it easier than trying to remember which sock I’m puppeting on a partic. comment. You should try it.

        “What is the REAL solution?”

        Oh, I didn’t realize you wanted the REAL solution in all caps. Now we are talking. Unfortunately, when someone suggests a ‘real’ solution, Thomas Beyer or one of his secret identities usually screams socialism!!!!, dominates the conversation with idiotic links, and sucks the air out of the room.

        “If we truly had a climate emergency as many believe, esp in BC, why is the YVR airport undergoing a $8B+ expansion ? 8 Billions or more .. with a B !”

        Anyone equating the warnings provided by scientific data with the behaviour of consumers and industry, and worse yet, looking for rationales to argue for or against the warning within those behaviours, is probably possessed of five gallons of stupid in a three gallon bucket.

  12. In “Critical Path”, Buckminster Fuller wrote of a global energy grid. It’s always sunny somewhere on earth. Storage and distribution are the problem.
    With Elon Musk’s forays into solar grids, and battery factories, how long can it be to fulfill Bucky’s vision.
    Meanwhile, live simply, buy locally, don’t buy a vehicle. Don’t fly to Cancun to blow off steam. And there is no such thing as an ecotourist.

    1. And don’t pretend large windmills with ever larger blades are “renewable” energy as the blades are very tough to impossible to recycle and have to be dismantled, cut up, shipped and deposited in landfills, which requires substantial money .. and energy. https://srsroccoreport.com/the-renewable-green-energy-myth-50000-tons-of-non-recyclable-wind-turbine-blades-dumped-in-the-landfill/

      Not everything labeled green actually is. Any energy form has pro’s and con’s, upstart cost & energy requirements, life time costs and shutdown costs. The total energy required for 8B (and growing) humans is rising substantially the next few decades. There is no easy, and certainly not easy cheap solution. Likely ALL energy forms will be around for decades, only the mix shifts a bit % wise.

      Who teaches this inconvenient truth to Greta and similarly aged high school kids? Do they debate pros and cons of wind energy in high school, for example. Or is it this simple: oil bad. Wind and solar good ?

  13. Fossil fuels are burned once and can do nothing more but pollute and heat the planet. No recycling going on there!

    Most things can be recycled but aren’t because there isn’t an economic case. Yet. Unlike fossil fuels, there may yet be one or there can be regulations imposed to ensure they are. They may eventually be regulated to ensure they are easier to recycle in future.

    Fossil fuels will run out anyway. In Thomas’s world that will mean the end of civilization. So shouldn’t we be innovating away from that eventuality? And while we’re at it, shouldn’t we also be reducing the short and long term harms that come with burning fossil fuels?

    Clearly nobody has been able to teach Beyer anything about climate change. I’m curious why he thinks the kids these days, whose future is at stake, would be being taught less.

  14. This is what we need to do to keep a lid on the temperature of the planet:
    Top ten global bans and conversion programs for reducing global emissions:
    1 Ban gas and diesel combustion engines in passenger vehicles.
    2 Ban gas and diesel combustion engines in all trucks.
    3 Convert transit systems to clean energy.
    4 Convert freight and passenger rail to electric.
    5-Ban aviation fueled aircraft engines.
    6 Ban bunker C fueled ships.
    7 Ban cruise ships.
    8 Ban thermal coal.
    9 Limit military operations
    10 Ban new construction projects in all sectors
    Get this done in a ten-year period and do it using clean energy. Mobilize resources, expertise and the population for a life rescue mission, remember it’s not just us it’s also nearly every other living thing on this planet that needs rescuing. We can’t live on Mars and we can’t live on a dead planet, time to get it done.

    1. Teach kids just the basic facts. Not the hype. Costs matter. Scalability matters. Jobs matter. Healthy economy matters. Tax base matters. Heating your home at -30 matters. Life expectancies matter. What works for you and me in Vancouver, or Greta in Sweden, may not be practical in Alberta, Russia, N-US or developing SE Asia or Africa.

      Good article about the link between energy and prosperity – as enjoyed today by Greta and her protesting (but often ill informed) teenagers is here https://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/2018/10/09/the-miracle-of-prosperity-and-trap-of-poverty/

      Electrification is desirable in many instances but heavy A/C in cities will warm the city air even today with 0 fossil fuels used for A/C system, for example !

      Many of your suggestions make sense, Jolson, IN TIME. Some are plain silly.

      Oil bans for trucks, cars, trains or ships don’t work YET as we need realistic transportation options first. Realistic in range AND price. We’re not there yet. Urban small cars and small delivery trucks (UPS, Fedex, Amazon etc) first, in the 2030s. Then longer range cars. Long range trucks, ships and planes likely never, or not for many decades.

      Banning cruisehips, flights, military is just plain silly. Cruiseships like many large container ships or bulk freighters can work with small nuclear power plants or clean gas, rather than heavy oil, but at add’l risk.

      The trick is to not waste scarce resources, incl cash, on silly options that yield little. Take windmills, for example with its ever larger blades that are expensive to recycle. Any energy form take $s and energy to install, more $s & energy to maintain, and then $s and energy to dismantle. A coal or gas plant that may last 50-100 years may be more efficient than windmills, for example. Energy storage today very expensive so intermittent solar and wind needs base load back up – usually coal, gas, nuclear or hydro.

      Enjoy your cruise while it’s not banned.

      If Vancouver is so serious about its alleged “climate emergency” it should indeed forbid YVR expansion for $9B and cruiseships. But it doesn’t of course, as jobs are important, tax base is and because there’s no climate emergency whatsoever in BC.

      1. I understand everything you say Thomas. And I dismiss most of it because it is built on a foundation of climate change denial. Without an understanding of the problem you cannot prioritize the solutions in a meaningful way.

        I understand that the solutions may sometimes be difficult, expensive and/or disruptive. But that doesn’t change what needs to be done any more than the difficult, expensive and disruptive treatments required to beat cancer. The propaganda machine keeps telling you the solutions are more difficult, more expensive and more disruptive than they actually are. I don’t fall for that like you do.

        You do not understand climate science. Yo do not understand the urgency and therefore the determination to solve this threat among those who do. You are part of a quickly dwindling cohort of deniers. That gives me hope. Where once the majority was skeptical, now it’s a clear minority – and falling. The fewer you are the more you dig in your heels. It’s not working. That should be obvious, even to you. $Billions in propaganda undermined by an honest teenager. Goliath is set to take a rock to the forehead.

        For the moment the machine is still successful at buying the elections of strategic fossil governments. After all, they must get something for their $billions. But that won’t last.

        So you can keep repeating yourself as if anybody is listening. Whereas I understand everything you say I will keep dismissing your ramblings because you do not understand. That puts you at a distinct disadvantage.

          1. Do you mean poverty like Scandinavia? Or do you mean poverty like the impoverished in the US or the Downtown East Side? Which kind of poverty do you mean?

  15. Eventually the constructed world will look like the top ten list. How we get there is a matter of speculation. There are those who argue for a rational evidence based approach, there are those who argue against any public appropriation no matter the public policy. We must begin with strong purpose to manage the transformation from carbon to electrons or else our species will suffer the consequences in generations to come. Each item on the top ten is a management problem. Each item can be solved through science and engineering. Each item represents a new economic order and new opportunity.

Leave a Reply

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