There is hope for spring | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

There is hope for spring

Forum Sponsor
jc100 said:
You can absolutely change nature. On the human scale if you drink enough or abuse opioids you change brain chemistry, demonstrably, quantifiably ....you do that. If you ingest potent carcinogens you cause proliferated unchecked cell growth. Man made climate change is just the same thing on a larger scale. It’s an upset to homeostasis/natural cycles caused by us that exacerbates effects. There is/was a buffer I believe, but buffering capability is only so much and we exceeded that a while ago.
Click to expand...

We are finding out so many new things in the last decade. It is human nature to look at nature and climate as homeostatic, but it's not. We look at short periods of our lifetime or 100 years, cause that is only what we know unless we do ice sample testing. More and more scientist are now coming out and saying man-made global warming is bunk. And I used to believe the CO2 levels were the cause, and now scientists are saying there was more CO2 in the air thousands of years ago when the planet was in one of its cooling off phases. It was that genius Al Gore who made $250 million from his movie and subsequently that fueled this whole nonsense and we bought into man's ego that we are so great that we have an effect on the planet.

So Gore was a financial/business genius; while Clinton was the bad-boy looking for ways to get more p***y and defending himself and lying to America, Gore was thinking of running for president but lost and then made more money than even he expected. A genius because he was not a scientist but a fantastic salesman, and the USA and now the world has made an industry of it by assigning carbon tax credits.
 
Back on topic, as long as it's warm Thursday I couldn't care less if it's raining or not. It'll either be a motorcycle or dirtbike day.
 
Oh for FFS HH give it up ....such dated nonsense. The fossil fuel companies just agreed in court that AGW is real and caused by CO2 from use of fossil fuels. The remaining area of contention is who pays for the consequences.

Fossil fuels are the problem, say fossil fuel companies being sued
By Nathanael Johnson on Mar 21, 2018

Big Oil and the cities suing them in federal court agreed on at least one thing on Wednesday: Human-made climate change is real.

In the country’s first court hearing on the science behind climate change, a lawyer for Chevron, Theodore Boutrous Jr., said the oil company accepts the scientific consensus. He quoted chapter and verse from the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the thousands of scientists assembled by the United Nations to figure out exactly what’s going on. “From Chevron’s perspective, there is no debate about the science of climate change,” Boutrous said.

Oil companies have recently started saying they’re on the side of science, but they’ve never said it so clearly in court.
Click to expand...

but now they are trying to move the responsibility to the consumer

San Francisco and Oakland are suing BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell, arguing that the corporations that profit from fossil fuels should pay for the seawalls and pumps needed to protect them from rising tides. But Boutrous, the only oil company lawyer to speak at the hearing, didn’t accept blame, pointing the finger instead at the people who burned the fossil fuels. In other words, oil doesn’t cause climate change. People burning oil cause climate change.
Click to expand...


•••••

Yeah Thursday for sure - see ya at the Forks.
 
6 degrees this afternoon....will see if showers develop ....sorting out all the scattered warm gear - moving is *****.
Thought about a different bike but solved my top case need by swiping the kids Shad for touring.

Let the season begin. :D
 
Macdoc, you keep referencing that article, but I find no legitimacy if it. Seems the site is filled with hippie crap. There is no actual evidence in that article.

I wish people would convince China & india Climate change exists.
 
Al Gore made millions lecturing people about climate change. Something he has no qualifications for! That's the same as Bill Nye (science guy) who do not have a master's degree lecturing people about science.

What a sham!
 
I blame cows and other livestock for “global warming”. We should all do our part and eat more meat ?!!!

Note to self...need to shut up now and get out riding...stay safe people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I wish people would convince China & india Climate change exists.
Click to expand...

Ummm China is doing more than any other nation ......get out of the ****ing right wing echo chamber and learn some ****ing science. Enough right wing tripe already ....Gore and Nye are communicators.
You are simply wilfully misinformed.

These are all working climate science.....
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
come back when you've read ALL the links and can have a rational conversation instead of your political tripe.

••

Outside in the sun was nice tho still chilly ...tidying up from the move and hunting down all the motorcycle bits.
 
I mostly blame the USA, China, India and continental Europe. They produce the lions share.

I think Canada gets shafted a bit in this debate. We always look at the output but ignore the sink, kind of like looking at one side of an income statement. Canada protects vast forests, wetlands and waterways that absorb carbon - I never see the net of output minus sink for any country. We also contribute to long term removal when we harvest and reharvest timber and other biomass, that permanently sequesters carbon. We could have cut and burned all this as they did in most of the world, we didn't -- we should get some credit for that, our politicians should leverage that, we shouldn't be trading carbon credits solely based on our output -- but on out net.

We should do our part. When we're doing other's work, maybe we should get paid for that.
 
MacDoc said:
Ummm China is doing more than any other nation ......get out of the ****ing right wing echo chamber and learn some ****ing science. Enough right wing tripe already ....Gore and Nye are communicators.
You are simply wilfully misinformed.

These are all working climate science.....
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
come back when you've read ALL the links and can have a rational conversation instead of your political tripe.

••

Outside in the sun was nice tho still chilly ...tidying up from the move and hunting down all the motorcycle bits.
Click to expand...

This is the problem with science being politicized... Our resident dumbass himself posted a link showing that it was being discussed in the 60s-70s already but people here are still going on about Al Gore and his movie. If that's not cognitive dissonance, I don't know what is. Also apparently RG thinks Bill Nye the Science Guy and An Inconvenient Truth is academic discourse and what climate science is based off of.

For the couple of guys in this thread still arguing against the evidence, there's no kind way of saying it, but you guys are dumb as **** and off the deep end on conspiracy theories. I truly and from the bottom of my heart hope that one day you will bother to understand the basics of the scientific method, what it takes to publish an academic paper, the blind peer review process, and just the basics of critical thought and parsing written information. Some of you are so blatantly and proudly ignorant of things that could be googled and figured out by a child...

Speaking of Chinese and Indians, they're the 2 heaviest investors in green technology. If this thread is representative of what the west has to offer, we're ****ed...
 
MacDoc said:
Ummm China is doing more than any other nation ......get out of the ****ing right wing echo chamber and learn some ****ing science. Enough right wing tripe already ....Gore and Nye are communicators.
You are simply wilfully misinformed.

These are all working climate science.....
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
come back when you've read ALL the links and can have a rational conversation instead of your political tripe.

••

Outside in the sun was nice tho still chilly ...tidying up from the move and hunting down all the motorcycle bits.
Click to expand...
Before we move on, I want to set this straight. You & PP keep attacking my education. I want to know what form of education you have & what qualifications you have. I need to get this off my chest.
 
Mad Mike said:
I mostly blame the USA, China, India and continental Europe. They produce the lions share.

I think Canada gets shafted a bit in this debate. We always look at the output but ignore the sink, kind of like looking at one side of an income statement. Canada protects vast forests, wetlands and waterways that absorb carbon - I never see the net of output minus sink for any country. We also contribute to long term removal when we harvest and reharvest timber and other biomass, that permanently sequesters carbon. We could have cut and burned all this as they did in most of the world, we didn't -- we should get some credit for that, our politicians should leverage that, we shouldn't be trading carbon credits solely based on our output -- but on out net.

We should do our part. When we're doing other's work, maybe we should get paid for that.
Click to expand...

Agreed, the net effect is definitely what we as a planet should be focusing on. The challenge with it being implemented state by state though is that the cheaper and more readily available fuels put the countries that are pursuing greener technology at a disadvantage... the economics for a lot of green energy production still aren't that attractive compared to traditional methods. It's hard to convince people to give up fortunes in energy and mining, especially for a risk that is quite distant in the future.

A handful of smaller countries, like Costa Rica, are already carbon neutral, but without global buy in we're still screwed because pollution doesn't stop at the border...
 
Mad Mike said:
I mostly blame the USA, China, India and continental Europe. They produce the lions share.

I think Canada gets shafted a bit in this debate. We always look at the output but ignore the sink, kind of like looking at one side of an income statement. Canada protects vast forests, wetlands and waterways that absorb carbon - I never see the net of output minus sink for any country. We also contribute to long term removal when we harvest and reharvest timber and other biomass, that permanently sequesters carbon. We could have cut and burned all this as they did in most of the world, we didn't -- we should get some credit for that, our politicians should leverage that, we shouldn't be trading carbon credits solely based on our output -- but on out net.

We should do our part. When we're doing other's work, maybe we should get paid for that.
Click to expand...
Sorry Mike, but the majority of the O2 produced from earth comes from the Ocean. A large forest like the Amazon produces just enough O2 for the animals living in it.
 
RockerGuy said:
Before we move on, I want to set this straight. You & PP keep attacking my education. I want to know what form of education you have & what qualifications you have. I need to get this off my chest.
Click to expand...

But why is it relevant, RG? MacDoc or PP provided you with scientific data and resources that you yourself could explore and form your own thoughts; they didn't invent or collect the research themselves (I'm assuming... MacDoc appears to be pretty informed so I wouldn't be surprised if he had some sort of scientific background). You don't need a PhD to form an opinion on this stuff. I assure you that your favourite politicians don't have PhDs either, they simply listened to scientists. When it became apparent that the science was a threat to some of their constituents and supporters' large businesses, they simply cherry picked results to cast doubt on the general consensus. Obviously their supporters bought it up, but this is now purely a political debate, the science is settled on "whether we have an effect". Scientists are now only disagreeing on magnitude and timeframe because as with anything, it's very hard to make accurate predictions into the distant future, but you can predict directionality and some order of magnitude.

At a basic level, you don't need to be ultra educated.
 
Last edited:
RockerGuy said:
Sorry Mike, but the majority of the O2 produced from earth comes from the Ocean. A large forest like the Amazon produces just enough O2 for the animals living in it.
Click to expand...

O2 is oxygen, CO2 is carbon dioxide which is what people are worried about. Oceans and trees are carbon sinks, they're a good thing. Excess CO2 in the atmosphere is a bad thing.
 
HarleyHare said:
We are finding out so many new things in the last decade. It is human nature to look at nature and climate as homeostatic, but it's not. We look at short periods of our lifetime or 100 years, cause that is only what we know unless we do ice sample testing. More and more scientist are now coming out and saying man-made global warming is bunk. And I used to believe the CO2 levels were the cause, and now scientists are saying there was more CO2 in the air thousands of years ago when the planet was in one of its cooling off phases. It was that genius Al Gore who made $250 million from his movie and subsequently that fueled this whole nonsense and we bought into man's ego that we are so great that we have an effect on the planet.

So Gore was a financial/business genius; while Clinton was the bad-boy looking for ways to get more p***y and defending himself and lying to America, Gore was thinking of running for president but lost and then made more money than even he expected. A genius because he was not a scientist but a fantastic salesman, and the USA and now the world has made an industry of it by assigning carbon tax credits.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you fully understand the science here. We don’t look at short periods, we have the geological record to look at that takes us back to way before humans walked the earth. More and more scientists are NOT coming out and stating what you state. That’s just not true, it’s only true in the minds of the climate change deniers. Al Gore was in a position of power to bring attention to a cause. A cause that absolutely requires attention.
 
Type17 said:
Speaking of Chinese and Indians, they're the 2 heaviest investors in green technology. If this thread is representative of what the west has to offer, we're ****ed...
Click to expand...

and a huge opportunity lost
Ontario should have stepped up and taken leadership in alternatives manufacturing
advantageous location for logistics, cheap power, skilled population
but we're just gonna let the car manufacturing economy die
and replace those jobs with service-sector employment

provincially it is a failure
and federally we had a guy happy to let our economy become a gas station
 
Type17 said:
But why is it relevant, RG? MacDoc or PP provided you with scientific data and resources that you yourself could explore and form your own thoughts; they didn't invent or collect the research themselves (I'm assuming... MacDoc appears to be pretty informed so I wouldn't be surprised if he had some sort of scientific background). You don't need a PhD to form an opinion on this stuff. I assure you that your favourite politicians don't have PhDs either, they simply listened to scientists. When it became apparent that the science was a threat to some of their constituents and supporters' large businesses, they simply cherry picked results to cast doubt on the general consensus. Obviously their supporters bought it up, but this is now purely a political debate, the science is settled on "whether we have an effect". Scientists are now only disagreeing on magnitude and timeframe because as with anything, it's very hard to make accurate predictions into the distant future, but you can predict directionality and some order of magnitude.

At a basic level, you don't need to be ultra educated.
Click to expand...
He didn't provide a legitimate link. Would those link be recognized in a scientific community?
Type17 said:
O2 is oxygen, CO2 is carbon dioxide which is what people are worried about. Oceans and trees are carbon sinks, they're a good thing. Excess CO2 in the atmosphere is a bad thing.
Click to expand...
Any living system that absorbs CO2 emits O2 as a by product. The ocean is still the largest CO2 sink.

I am still waiting for academic credentials to prove I'm less educated than Macdoc or PP
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom