Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

show me, minus the BS.

Wow - Rush Limbaugh and Ted Danson. I have some barrels you might want scrape.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Stu quoted-mined, which shows a definite lack of intellectual integrity.

Had he bothered to read to the end:

Jack do you really believe the BS from Calgary city government? They get their power from Bow Valley power . The company says that they provide power to customers that is generated by coal, natural gas and hydro as well as biomass solar and wind. I'm sure if all the renewable power sources stopped for some reason the city would continue using power.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Some science for you.

Wow, just wow!

According to that paper, GDP is greater for Germany, UK, France than it is for Indonesia, India and Nigeria. And it's all because the latter three are hotter than 15 degrees and the former three are colder than 15 degrees.

And you call that science?

Here's some science for you:

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Jack do you really believe the be from Calgary city government? They get their power from Bow Valley power . The company says that they provide power to customers that is generated by coal, natural gas and hydro as well as biomass solar and wind. I'm sure if all the renewable power sources stopped for some reason the city would continue using power.

New - I provide sources for my information. Let's see yours.

Read carefully

Calgary’s LRT and city operations are running on 100 per cent renewable energy

Not the whole city.

All we seem to get from you is unsupported supposition.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Stu quoted-mined, which shows a definite lack of intellectual integrity.

Had he bothered to read to the end:

I'm in a good mood today, so I'll give you a pass on that one. Once!


The true bottom lime is that wind and solar are incapable of providing consistent base load power and to claim than anything which runs 24/7/365 operates solely on either of them is total BS.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

I'm in a good mood today, so I'll give you a pass on that one. Once!

Originally Posted by StuM

Typical greenie propaganda, distortions and lies.

I have already given you a pass today.

The difference is I have evidence of what you are.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

New - I provide sources for my information. Let's see yours.

Read carefully

Not the whole city.

All we seem to get from you is unsupported supposition.

OK then, provide a reliable source which shows that the Calgary LRT and City operations are run on a grid which is not connected to any fossil fuel powered base load power stations. Not just a press release from a green power advocacy group.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The difference is I have evidence of what you are.

Which is? Go on, say it!

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

New - I provide sources for my information. Let's see yours.

Read carefully



Not the whole city.

All we seem to get from you is unsupported supposition.

OK here ya go dig out the nuggets Bow Valley Power - Alberta's Green Power and Electricity CompanyBow Valley Power and scroll down to the bottom of their home page they state they produce 1k grams of co2 per kWh in Alberta and the national average is 200.
I did not say the whole city I said the city government and I bet the light rail would continue to function as well if no " green" power was being produced for whatever reason.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

OK then, provide a reliable source which shows that the Calgary LRT and City operations are run on a grid which is not connected to any fossil fuel powered base load power stations. Not just a press release from a green power advocacy group.

You are spinning Stu.

A three-car CTrain can carry over 600 passengers, equal to 545 private vehicle trips. And the great thing about your CTrain is it’s powered by wind. This initiative made Calgary the first wind-powered public transit system in North America and reduced CO2 emissions by over 56,000 tonnes in 2012.

https://www.calgarytransit.com/getti...ental-benefits



https://books.google.ca/books?id=nFZ...dpower&f=false

https://books.google.ca/books?id=br2...dpower&f=false

Calgary makes its wind-powered commuter train a reality by involving
private companies: The City of Calgary’s “Ride the Wind” initiative, using wind
to power the city’s light rail mass transit (LRT), took off after the initial electric
powering (from former coal and natural gas fuel) of the system began to work.
Vision Quest, a power generation and wholesale marketing company, entered
into a contract for green energy with Enmax, which, in turn, entered into an
agreement with City Transit to deliver wind power to the LRT. All emission
reduction credits were transferred to City Transit via Enmax, and ten new wind
turbines were financed, constructed, owned and operated by Vision Quest.

Before the switch to wind power, the Calgary C-Train's energy supply resulted in
around 20,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases and other air pollution emissions
being emitted every year, less than 1/10 of the pollution that would have resulted
if all C-Train passengers had driven in their own cars. Under the Ride the Wind
programme, these emissions have been reduced to practically zero. This makes
the C-train one of the most environmentally friendly forms of transportation. The
project also contributed considerably to solving traffic problems. There are a total
of 116 light rail vehicles in the system, and each day riders board the C-Train
189,000 times. If each commuter had travelled alone in his or her car instead of
on the C-Train, the daily mileage would have amounted to 1.2 million kilometres

http://www.unep.ch/etb/publications/...ate%20cars.pdf

page 48-49

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Which is? Go on, say it!

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2003468

You claimed I lied about the Calgary LRT.

You presented a classic contextomy and provided no source.

I found your source and showed that you had misrepresented the article.

115. Calgary’s wind-powered LRT an incredibly successful system: Nenshi | Green Energy Futures

Any school I ever attended would find that quote mining unacceptable.

[Kenomac]

Jack,

Please answer this question:

Do you actually believe that the entire city of Calgary municipal government facilities and services would continue to function on a calm, snowy day... operating entirely off a wind, solar energy grid? 100 percent green... no contribution from a gas or coal fired electrical generating plant.

This is what you're claiming, do you really believe this?

Where is the green energy stored for nighttime use or for when the bird killer turbines stop killing and the sun is blocked by clouds? In mammoth sized batteries hidden away under a secret rainbow?

Remember Jack, I know how solar works and the scams the greenies try to put over on us scientifically challenged knuckleheads. We personally bought into the inefficient solar scam 10 years ago to the tune of $78,000 for my home and business. I only need to walk down my stairs into the basement to read my solar production meter.

Tonight it reads a big fat zero.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2003468

You claimed I lied about the Calgary LRT.

I unreservedly apologise if you took that post to mean I was calling you personally a liar. Just because you have accepted and re-stated the oft publicised distortion/lie about the LRT being wind powered, does not make you a liar. Anymore than anyone who believes and repeats any untrue fact can be said to be lying.

You presented a classic contextomy and provided no source.

My apologies for omitting the source link. It's something I rarely do and I have been known to criticise others for doing exactly that.

But in what way was the quote out of context? It was directly to the point. Sure, the quoted text put the lie to the main claim of their press release, but in no way did it twist or distort the stated facts.

I found your source and showed that you had misrepresented the article.

115. Calgary’s wind-powered LRT an incredibly successful system: Nenshi | Green Energy Futures

OK, same press release, different source. And I dispute that I have misrepresented the article. I have pointed out the fallacy embedded in it, but that does not misrepresent it.

Fact: the article specifically says "wind-powered LRT"
Fact: the article states "100 per cent powered by renewable energy."

Fact: The LRT and city operations are connected to a grid which utilises about 70% fossil fuels.
Fact: You can't separate electrons on a grid into "renewable" and non-renewable" origin.
Fact: When there is zero input from wind farms, the LRT and city operations continue as normal.

Fact: Playing accounting games and claiming to only use the 30% of the grid power which comes from renewable sources is dishonest in the extreme.

Any school I ever attended would find that quote mining unacceptable.

Any school I ever attended would give a fail to anyone who couldn't appreciate the facts above and see the dichotomy between the first two and the next three. And would probably have expelled anyone who was dishonest enough to play those accounting games.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Some science for you.

Some quoted nonsense about economic crop production

This is what I'm talking about. This BS is selling bad news linking economic productivity with a peak at 13 deg Celsius. They could be quite right, but perhaps they should have taken the opportunity to mention that some of the highest yielding food crops are tropical species such as yams, sweet potatoes and sugar cane.

Just like no one cares about economic crop production in a yet to be realised greenhouse world, no one also cares that the warm climate high yielding crops can save our backsides in the same scenario. Of course if, or when, that day comes then I'm going to take a guess and suggest the ability of high yield crops to feed more people per unit of farmland may be much more important than maximising profits.


Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I appreciate your thoughtful and challenging responses Exile...

...The whole statin debate (which is still raging) is a complex one. As usual, there is "truth" on all sides. Without diving too deeply into the research (which I'm happy to do, but perhaps elsewhere), the broad sweeps appear to be one of general over-reach and extension of a drug's use. Statins are well indicated for a certain population (those with diagnosed heart disease, and strong genetic connections). The issue is that, like many other pharmaceuticals, the target population keeps expanding. There is a growing body of research that questions the efficacy of much of statin use.

The problem, if I can put it this way, is that drug research is almost exclusively conducted by drug companies themselves. Findings are presented to the various approving bodies, but these bodies have a decreasing ability to conduct independent confirmation studies. This is partly due to the evisceration of independent government research capacity. Drug companies spend 100s of millions of dollars each year "detailing" physicians on how to use their drugs. All this is most pronounced in the USA where healthcare is largely a private good, and billions of dollars are at stake.

I think the parallels are strong with the whole climate change debate. If all climate research was done by those with financial interests in maintaining the status quo, what do you think the results would be? Luckily (from my perspective) the research space in climatology is not dominated by the fossil fuel industry -- but they are trying...

Exactly!

There is no question that, for people who know they have coronary disease, statins have a significant beneficial impact. The government’s National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) guidelines say that as many as 40 million Americans should be taking statins to fight heart disease, especially patients with diabetes or a family history of heart disease.

It is the supposed overuse of statins, as a prohylaxis, to lower LDL-C that is generating much of the current cholesterol controversy, and there is increasing statistical evidence that its widespread use is simply not warranted.

The guidelines, developed by the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology, still identify at-risk patients who would benefit from statins, including those with:
1. Cardiovascular disease, including angina, previous heart attack or stroke or other related condition
2. Very high level of LDL (bad) cholesterol (above 190 mg/dL)
3. Diabetics, who are between the ages of 40 and 75
There’s no argument that these patients should use statins. The question concerns those who have no history of cardiovascular disease.