Discussions

"His efforts here in this thread is what he is doing."  
 
Thanks spaghetti monster. I do other things too, but the big issue is all that we could accomplish working together with good science based leadership. Change doesn't have to be a negative, but if we ignore the scope of the threat we face long enough, we will find ourselves facing insurmountable problems, and suffer accordingly. The best time to prepare for any adversity is always today, as soon as is known, maximum lead time.  
 
Retrofitting and replacing housing stock is certainly within our reach over time. But again, if we wait too long we won't be able to afford the costs, or have the skills or manpower. The average Canadian house stands for about 85 years, but they are built with a 20 year or less payback target. Also, if energy becomes significantly more expensive, the target will greatly change, but we will find ourselves locked into inefficiency. The writing is on the wall there, energy costs only go up in our world. We need to get prepared before it hurts. It's an achievable goal. And, much can be done to retrofit a house from the outside. You may not reach R60, but significant improvements are in reach.  
 
As for electric vehicles, I do agree with vegimite. Heating with batteries in our winter climate is exorbitant. Also the batteries perform less well in the cold. In the case of the UK, where average daily driving is half our figures, they estimated that the electric generation capacity of the national grid would have to be tripled to power the vehicle fleet. Electric hybrids could be better, but most of the savings could come from significantly lower curb weights. I don't believe the car culture will survive the end of oil. The energy expense is incredible, and hard to replace. Lithium ion battery production is orders of magnitude below what the world auto fleet would require, and embody a lot of energy in the manufacturing anz assumably recycling. They are also phosphate intensive, a diminishing resource, and use various toxics. I don't expect an electric future without a battery breakthrough. It could be that industry is supressing a better technology, but I think the Chinese would find anything better. We may have no better options on the periodic table.  
 
As for the marketplace never offering us better, that's exactly the point.  
 
http://www.allcarindex.com/auto-car-model/Italy-Pininfarina-Ethos-2/  
 
This car was built in 1991, rated at 145mpg.  
 
We could do far better with marketplace intervention.

There have been a number of claims made here that I would actually like to know the source. Could you provide sources for the articles you get your facts from?  
For example, I would love to know the source for the claim of average global temperatures has broken records in the last 9 of 10 years. I would love to check those numbers myself but it isn't helpful if they are just spouted without a source.  
 
Thanks

"Much of the heavy industry and manufacturing brought about during and post Second World War has disappeared as it was uneconomic to sustain those industries without hefty government subsidies. Subsidies in any form do not work, they just manipulate the economics in an unsustainable way long term."  
 
It's wandering off topic to a degree, but I will note again that the greatest period of prosperity mankind ever had came after hefty government intervention and economic management during and after WWII.   Including the highest corporate and personal income taxes ever.  Personal tax rates as high as 90% on highest earners.  That really dispels the claims.  
 
Also, it was my understanding that big business gutted north American industry by running to Asia, so they could ruin the middle class and make a quick buck.  And as soon as they did that, the greatest period of prosperity ended.  Counter to all the neocon wisdom.

Google is a fairly easy system to use.  
 
https://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/the-10-hottest-global-years-on-record  
 
This info, from 2018, shows 20 of the hottest years ever recorded on earth have been in the last 22.  
 
It is amazing at times how little people follow the news, but declare their beliefs with such conviction.  
 
All the facts and figures I cite are verifiable, this is where the science shows us we are at. And all signs are we are heading into changes beyond our control, beyond anything humans have ever seen.

Maybe you didn't understand what I was asking. you said 9 of the last 10 years broke records. I would like to see the information on that. You hopefully realize that the chart only showed 6 of the last 10.  
 
I would prefer to see the information that allows me to look at the average global temperature for every year too, not just those that broke records.

never mind I found the average global temperature for each year. Could you provide sources for the claims you made here though? some of those claims are pretty out there. For example, those 2 claims are really out there and I'd appreciate a source:  
Greenland saw it's hottest day ever this August, losing an estimated 11 cubic kilometers of ice in a single day:  
Europe saw it's highest temperatures ever this August, roughly 10,000 deaths attributed in France.  
I'd like references to all those claims though, not just those two.

20 of the last 22 years pretty much covers what you seek.  
 
I am far from volunteering to be your Google search service.  
 
Unless it serves to highlight how uninformed some of the climate change denial is.  
 
As a side note, the Canadian climate zone maps were updated a few years ago, most areas of the south jumped at least one climate zone, based on the average of the last 30 years weather data. Apparently near Morden- Winkler they are rivaling zone 5. That is nearing climate conditions needed to grow hardy bamboo. And this is just the start of change, and the further north you go, the more pronounced the change is.  
 
I have re-initiated this discussion with a couple of very significant and credible news articles, one from the US government, no less, painting a very alarming picture. After there has been much additional climate change information and baseline climate information shared. Maybe uou need to go back and read the posted articles.  
 
I have been asking for other suggestions, or if anyone has credible data to share that refutes what I outline, that would be fine too. I would like to be wrong on these issues, as the implications are stark.  
 
Instead, we have seen various examples of ignorance of basic science, some disrespectful address, and denial absent of any backing with facts.  
 
As said, assertions made unsupported by facts can be dismissed without evidence.  
 
Edited by GarryTait, 2019-10-27 16:25:42

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/07/19/greenland-lost-a-trillion-tons-of-ice-in-just-four-years/  
 
https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/grace-20070320.html  
 
https://sciencenordic.com/a/1427537  
 
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/greenland-lost-record-breaking-125-billion-tons-ice-single-day-180972808/  
 
Here is results of a quick Google search.  
 
Note that the science is tightening. Also that the rate of ice loss is exponentially accelerating. There is a direct reference to the single day ice loss this past summer. Another using best science (also widely reported), shows 9 trillion tons ice loss in the last century. And 1 trillion in 4 recent years. Also references to gravimetric data, which doesn't lie and is very precise. Reported by such sources as Forbes, the Washington post, all the radical lefty news organizations.  
 
If you need further publicity for what you don't know about the daily news and science, please let me know.  
 
And, please, if you have information to the contrary, bring it up for discussion.  
 
Edited by GarryTait, 2019-10-27 16:42:56

I have not agreed with you wholeheartedly but have given you credit on some points. In your opinion, have I fallen into the category of ignorant, disrespectful or in denial?

You need to apply yourself to some readings before asking for sources.  
 
I've been keeping tabs on this discussion from the get-go. It has become evident to me that Garry is very well-spoken and researched individual, who can identify what a credible source is... (he's not just googling what he wants to see).  
 
I cannot wrap my head around the incompetence, just because this topic is being talked about more prominently now does not mean the science has just been pulled out of thin air, this is decades and decades of research from all walks of credible scientists who dedicate their lives to this research. But hey if you wake up thinking 'hmmm how am I gonna contradict SCIENCE today' then that's none of my business.

I am not certain without going back over the discussion what positions you have taken.  
 
I look at the discussion forum open minded, as a privilege to be able to discuss ideas and exchange information.  
 
There is a lack of knowledge on the entire climate change issue. This isn't accidental I fear, it is a result of propaganda and supression of facts. In fact, some of the same spin doctors who worked for tobacco harm denial are now ending their careers with climate change denial.  
 
And, corporations are just a natural fit for denial, they do not look further ahead than 4 years. They are souless piles of money aiming for infinite growth on a finite pile of resources. The exact same game plan as cancer.  
 
So we have to use our heads and hearts to make a survivable world for future generations.  
 
I happen to have focused on the growing body of science and news, and have been relating that body of information for the consideration of others. I expect recoil and denial, I also wish it was otherwise. But I do believe in the value of conversation, otherwise I would just do for myself.  
 
So any respectful and thoughtful discussion is welcome. We all start with our views from different perspectives, and bring different beliefs and values. But scientific facts should be respected, and absorbed.

Unfortunately this isnt one of those let's split it down the middle discussions. When you have 99+ % scientific consensus, there is no great doubt. Absent of strong evidence to overturn the consensus, at least. And there is no credible evidence against the disaster that climate change is becoming.  
 
The consequences of being uninformed or unprepared in the face of disastrous challenges will be extreme.  
 
If a credit counselor said bankruptcy is imminent, and it's time to change behavior, that would be accepted. But somehow a threat to our very civilization, species, and the web of life of our planet should be open to corporate sponsored debate on the most tenuous grounds?  
 
I will keep to the preponderance of science. It is by far our most powerful tool, far surpassing anecdote, or personal bias.

I Conversation is getting a little bit off base and nitpicking political party intentions..I agree there’s change that can be made in many sectors and human activity related to reducing reusing recycling I am responsible building , use of plastics  
I am surprised that farming practises aren’t mentioned more as leading in the demise of the current climate crisis.  
I believe it’s has contributed just as much, if not more, to the carbon emissions, poor water quality, destruction of land, etc in the world than other purported issues.  
 
70% of farmed land in the world is to feed the animals which in return feed humans. 7 billion cattle are Terminated yearly in the world for human consumption.  
 
Hunan do not need beef, Pork, nor poultry, nor eggs nor fish in order to survive, Not one iota!! A typical breakfast sandwich has three animals on it. A bacon and egg or sausage and egg sandwich With cheese contains beef, poultry, and pork: three animals for one piddly human meal!!  
These industries and whoever is behind producing and supplying these foods are irresponsible and are in it for the money Will do anything including sacrifice human health and the health of our planet to pad their pockets !  
This has led not only to the decline of earths status, but also to the decline of human health with cardiac disease, diabetes, stroke, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and cancer the leading causes of death all of which are preventable!  
People are walking around in a zombie like state if they don’t believe that this is not a major contributor to the environmental status of our planet!  
 
People can survive 100% and be more healthy and live to be functioning 90 and 100 year olds If they would just drop these items from their daily consumption. This would be a trickle effect....there would be farmland available to grow produce grains legumes etc to feed humans, There would be no more inhumane torture and killing of animals, there would be no more emissions related to the whole procedure of raising animals as feed....And the earth and humans in the end would be 100% more healthy!!

He did not provide the sources I specifically asked for on the assertions he made:  
 
Greenland saw it's hottest day ever this August, losing an estimated 11 cubic kilometers of ice in a single day, AND  
 
Europe saw it's highest temperatures ever this August, roughly 10,000 deaths attributed in France  
 
Instead, he added information I did not ask for. Also, I'm not looking for data from Washington Post, news articles or google. I'd like to see the peer-reviewed paper that the data comes from. I like to see the peer-reviewed source, not a news source.  
 
I'm pretty confident France did not have 10,000 deaths due to a heatwave this summer, Nor do I believe 11 cubic km of ice melted in a single day. I'm simply asking for the sources to confirm what he is telling me is true.  
 
Edited by rum, 2019-10-27 22:33:23

I couldn't agree more. We don't need to totally eliminate animal products. If everyone would drop to 3 meals of meat a week, it would make a substansial difference already

Speaking of misinformation and propaganda, where did you get the statistics that 7 billion cattle are terminated yearly for human consumption?  
 
https://www.statista.com/statistics/263979/global-cattle-population-since-1990/

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/09/08/europe/france-heat-wave-deaths-intl-hnk-scli/index.html  
 
I was wrong on the death toll in France, I must have confused it with reference to the 15,000 who died in the 2003 heatwave. This article clains 1,500 this time.  
 
The fact that Europe saw it's hottest temperatures ever this July is verified in the same story.   
 
As for dissatisfaction with the reliability of widely publicized news, I am afraid that is beyond helping.  When reputable news organizations widely report such stories as Greenland ice loss, heatwaves, sea level rise, etc, including links to peer reviewed studies published in high quality scientific journals, and the stories are not discredited, we can certainly take them as reliable.

I am sorry but there is no part of this statement that is true and no credible scientist or nutritionist will back it up. Ask ducks unlimited or Manitoba habitat and heritage about the benefit of grazing prairie grass sustainably. You are promoting monoculture. Monoculture has been tried and proven to not work. You should have learnt that during geography lessons at high school. So again we need to go back to revamping our education system and teaching kids about the world around them, where things and food come from and how to take proper care of themselves and their bodies. Armed with this information kids can make informed decisions and be environmentally responsible and healthy.

I’m all for encouraging the growth of the current feeds in agriculture for human consumption instead of animal consumption. ie, the growth of many types of grains,legumes, bean crops, vegetables, fruits nuts to feed the world and not sure how this is monoculture?  
 
If agriculture means fattening up animals and slaughtering animals so humans can have a taste and eat them almost at every meal unnecessarily and mindlessly, then I don’t want any part of it. There’s no humane way to slaughter an animal. I don’t care if it’s fed organically and raised in a humane operation: all of these factory farms are overrun with filth and cows if not raised as cattle for consumption, they are dairy cows and are subjected to standing for their entire lives on a milking machines separated from their babies (who are slaughtered for veal). Also they live in very crowded conditions and all of it is an unnecessary.  
 
All the same crops currently grown in the world can still take place but feed the humans instead of the animals: we don’t need to consume be animals. Once humans start changing their demand than farmers well diversified farmers have always diversified with the demand of the population. At this current point... The big industries have a strong hold on people through media in the grocery stores at every restaurant fast food chain etc. if you really look at it you will see all of these food components incorporated in some way every single food...It’s so these industries can continue making money.  
 
 
If you may argue that parts of the world can’t sustain growth of certain crops well then monies should be placed into greenhouse type growing.  
 
Additionally, I agree with teaching children about how to take care of themselves properly and where the food on their plate is coming from and if that i:ncludes meat, dairy and egg consumption, Then children should have a complete understanding of how an animal is grown from birth to death and understanding of how animals are raised within a factory farming situation, So that they can make an informed decision on what to consume at the end of the day. In most cases, humans are eating these products well before they even know where they come from so they are grown wit a ‘norm’. Also, they’re given happy connotations about cows pigs chickens and believe that these animals are happy living on a farm thanks to the inaccurate portrayals by the very companies that sell.  
 
I believe strongly that teaching compassion and empathy for all living things should be part of education as well!  
 
Ps, many credible medical doctors and nutritionists hold the same beliefs that I do  
 
Edited by BROCLAEVE, 2019-10-28 09:28:39

7 billion is the number of all animals each year slaughtered around the world for human consumption, but isn’t one too many?

Not all farms are corporate factory farms you know. This is a common misconception. Many are still smaller privately owned family operations. As a fifth generation farmer my operation is a small mixed cattle and grain farm. I farm in this way because it is the right way to look after the land in a sustainable manner that benefits the environment and improves biodiversity , proven by numerous studies and the experience gained by farm families. My farm is NOT dirty and my livestock are treated well , raised without growth hormones.  
The claim that 70% of the worlds crop land feeds livestock is wholly untrue.  
Humans benefit greatly by consuming a varied and balanced diet that i:ncludes meat, eggs and dairy products plus fruit, nuts, vegetables and fish. Health Canada clearly advises that meat, milk and eggs contain essential vitamins and proteins and should form part of a balanced and measured diet. The simple act of humans learning to cook and consume meat allowed our brains to develop and achieve the advancements that we have.  
20% of my crop land grows feed barley . About 5% of this production is feed for my cattle and the rest is sold. I practice a four crop rotation with minimum tillage to improve biodiversity and build my soil.  
Many by products such as canola/ soybean meal and distillers grain are turned into high quality feeds with the addition of off grade grains. This uses product that would otherwise be wasted. Agriculture is not the big bad wolf that it is portrayed to be.  
We can all consume less, waste less , use less, recycle and live better for it but demonizing a centuries old industry that largely embraces the environment is not a smart way to go about things. As for poor production methods used in other countries that compete against us, I will not defend that!  
A little truth and honesty around here would go a long way towards rational and meaningful debate .

By the way, the best way that we can improve our diet and health is by cutting out processed and fast foods and preparing meals from scratch, scientific medical proven fact!

I'm ok with our evolutionary heritage of being omnivores.   Where I have difficulties with our present system is around humane slaughter, and industrial animal raising.  
 
I know we fall far short of what could be done to give animals a good death.  It also isn't right to raise animals in industrial barns where they are completely deprived of their abilities to engage in natural behaviors.  
 
On the other hand, pastoralism is the only agricultural system that has worked in balance with nature over thousands of years.   Animals on pasture provide huge ecological services, and can engage in all their natural behaviours, and all while protected from predators and significant disease.  They have a really good life, and maintain a space and quality of environment richer in biodiversity than most national parks.  It's hard to overstate how valuable pastureland is to biodiversity.  
 
I have some small fields.   They are holes ripped out of nature.  All the songbirds, jumping spiders, frogs and snakes that lived there are gone.  They don't get the option to stay at a Best Western.   It is a necessity of how we live, and the sheer number of people on the planet, but a field is very far from eco green, or somehow in tune with the natural world.  
 
This is what disturbs me about the more extreme veganism, generally a very urban phenomenon, as it comes I fear, too often from an isolation from nature.  I get the sense that many vegans would be far happier living on the proceeds of a chemical factory.  (ie, fake.fur vs real, leather vs plastic clothes and shoes)...  The net effect of that is to opt for living from an oil well.   Keeping in mind that modern farming is very petro intensive, said to consume 10 calories of FF energy to produce one of food.   
 
I do agree that we over consume meats generally.   I also see that most people have little respect for their food, and probably could never bring themselves to slaughter, which is troubling.  We should keep in mind that every food we eat has cost the lives of many creatures.   It has just recently been reported that biomass of all wildlife on earth is half what it was pre human.  The weight of our domestic birds is double that of all wild birds on earth.   The world's ocean fisheries are on track for commercial extinction by 2040.  
 
We should be more respectful of our food consumption and production, and be aiming to eat locally, and ethically.

Agree with most of this statement.  
Proper education and learning about all that we use and where it comes from is absolutely key. I often think that everyone should have to visit their local dump once in a while, it opens your eyes to what we waste, how it is disposed of and makes you want to do better.  
Also we could lessen our impact by fixing and repairing things where possible instead of casting them aside for the next new thing. People used to mend and make do because they could not afford to buy new. And vehicles do not need replacing every two years, total waste of resources.

Not sure why you feel attacked. I admire farmers and come from a family of farmers. In the past, I have worked at a dairy operation, swine operation, layer operation, and grain operation. The fact is that a high meat diet is not necessary to feed the world and that the land that feeds billions of animals (1 billion living cattle a year(not counting other animals)). If we are to move to feed 11 billion people we will need to lower meat consumption, using less of our land for growing meat and more for growing plant-based food (not referring to the grazing portion, rather the portion used to grow food for livestock). High meat consumption is unhealthy. A low meat consumption diet is probably the healthiest diet anyway. what I mean by low is 1 to 2 portions every 2 weeks + or - a portion or two. This is much more sustainable and also healthier overall. Now, this is not an attack on your farming operation. If you sell wheat and it is used to feed animals is not your decision. I'm not agaist grazing animals either. If we are to help restore deserts and slow desertification, promote healthy grasslands ect, grazing animals is an essential part of the equation. You may very well have good agricultural practices (I may disagree because of high chemical usage). My criticism is not on farmers, but rather the individual who chooses a high meat diet that is both unhealthy and unsustainable in the long run.

Yes farmers do feel under constant attack and scrutiny, even though we own our farmland and we own our livestock and crops. Maybe we know how best to raise these crops and livestock, and steward our land. To return to the thread topic it seems that agriculture is largely being blamed from many quarters for causing climate change, very unreasonable. Farmers are regularly being bullied and coerced by oil companies that think it is their given right to steal our land, an act largely sanctioned by government.  
Also unreasonable is the suggestion that farmers earn carbon credits for good stewardship which we are then expected to sell to polluters. Why would we protect the environment only to let some other idiot do as they please. Everyone needs to smarten up and do their little bit to reduce their waste, reduce their greed and reduce their impact.

...... there are a bunch of Youtubers who are attempting to plant 20 million trees by 2020.  
 
Good on you guys and gals!

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/understanding-extinction-humanity-has-destroyed-half-the-life-on-earth-1.5324721  
 
This is just more information endorsing the notion that mankind should care for the world we live in and we're doing a bad job of it.

I think in the future we will have to become more comfortable with changing environments to the scale that could be viewed as terraforming. eg) using nuclear energy to pump great lake sized water bodies in strategic places on continents like in the Sahara to cause rain shadows and other feedback loops that would change the landscape.  
 
You mentioned the planting of 20 million trees. It is interesting to look at what China has accomplished.  
https://youtu.be/lECxeRzJ2sY

Garrytait I am very impressed with your research, your wealth of knowledge and the conviction with which you present it! I am truly impressed. I certainly agree with the fact that we should base more of our decisions on how it will possibly affect future generations. I do think that you are overdoing it a bit with all the “facts” that you quote...those of us with an average IQ cannot process that amount of information on any topic. In addition, 63% of all statistics you read are not supported by adequate research nor presented without bias. Regardless of which side of a discussion you are on, you will be able to find plenty of statistics to support your view if you are passionate about it.  
May I give you (anybody) some suggestions on presenting yourself on a public forum?  
Your response to somebody’s suggestion to “Figure it out” was ‘Is that a respectful address on a public forum?’  
Then, only a few posts later, the sarcasm is quite obvious in your apology that you “burst (somebody’s) bubble.” Your entire arguments risks loosing credibility when you do that, especially when you have just asked others that post replies to your view that, all you want is “logical “ “credible” and “rational” discussion.  
Recognize also, that it is not necessarily wrong for other people to think differently, nor to be less passionate about something than you are, and therefore should probably be treated with more respect than you feel like giving them.  
To the topic of this discussion- we risk underselling the intelligence and problem-solving ability of future generations by putting timelines on our own existence. Remember that everything that is new technology or practice today took us over 6,000 years to figure out (if you believe in creation...a whole lot longer if you support the theory of evolution). Maybe future generations will figure it out - maybe not. For those that believe the Bible, you obviously know that it predicts the end of mankind as we know. Maybe climate change is the beginning of the end? Maybe civilization will implode rather than be terminated by greater power?  
A wise man once said that “He who speaks loudest or longest is rarely considered wisest.” (Me) So with that I better quit...Oh, and by the way, that 63% stat that I quoted earlier was just a number that I picked out of the air...no research or support from studies...but I’m pretty sure that, regardless of your response, you believed it because it was presented as fact.