Climate Realism

[Anonymous]

Rising numbers of children are being treated for "eco-anxiety", experts have said, as they warn parents against "terrifying" their youngsters with talk of climate catastrophe. "Their fear is of environmental doom – that we're all going to die."



Protests by groups such as Extinction Rebellion, the recent fires in the Amazon and apocalyptic warnings by the teenage activist Greta Thunberg have prompted a "tsunami" of young people seeking help.



A group of psychologists working with the University of Bath says it is receiving a growing volume of enquiries from teachers, doctors and therapists unable to cope.



The Climate Psychology Alliance (CPA) told The Daily Telegraph some children complaining of eco-anxiety have even been given psychiatric drugs.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/15/parents-told-not-terrify-children-climate-change-rising-numbers/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/0 ... g_share_tw">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/15/parents-told-not-terrify-children-climate-change-rising-numbers/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw



Climate  alarmism is child abuse.

when I was young it was uranium mining and nuclear arms we were terrified about.



when my 8 yr old son and his 8 yr old girl friend saw the movie, "The Day After" they both had suicide thoughts.



when my nephew was growing up, all the kids in the USA were dosed on Ritalin for ADHD.



the abusers of the planet are business people and governments causing most of the earth's ills, and something needs to be done about them.



The Bible has preached man-unkind's demise for at least 4,000 years now and here we all are...



Are you stressed about anything SeoulBro?

I remember being scared to death by teachers about nuclear  annihilation and acid rain.

And all the people who survive WW1 would have shit themselves when WW2 broke out.



fear... we all need to have some. It's healthy.

Brain washing kids to the point they need a shrink aint healthy.

It should be a criminal offense.

[caskur]

Rising numbers of children are being treated for "eco-anxiety", experts have said, as they warn parents against "terrifying" their youngsters with talk of climate catastrophe. "Their fear is of environmental doom – that we're all going to die."



Protests by groups such as Extinction Rebellion, the recent fires in the Amazon and apocalyptic warnings by the teenage activist Greta Thunberg have prompted a "tsunami" of young people seeking help.



A group of psychologists working with the University of Bath says it is receiving a growing volume of enquiries from teachers, doctors and therapists unable to cope.



The Climate Psychology Alliance (CPA) told The Daily Telegraph some children complaining of eco-anxiety have even been given psychiatric drugs.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/15/parents-told-not-terrify-children-climate-change-rising-numbers/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/0 ... g_share_tw">https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/09/15/parents-told-not-terrify-children-climate-change-rising-numbers/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw



Climate  alarmism is child abuse.

when I was young it was uranium mining and nuclear arms we were terrified about.



when my 8 yr old son and his 8 yr old girl friend saw the movie, "The Day After" they both had suicide thoughts.



when my nephew was growing up, all the kids in the USA were dosed on Ritalin for ADHD.



the abusers of the planet are business people and governments causing most of the earth's ills, and something needs to be done about them.



The Bible has preached man-unkind's demise for at least 4,000 years now and here we all are...



Are you stressed about anything SeoulBro?

I remember being scared to death by teachers about nuclear  annihilation and acid rain.

And all the people who survive WW1 would have shit themselves when WW2 broke out.



fear... we all need to have some. It's healthy.

Brain washing kids to the point they need a shrink aint healthy.

lol, like I believe that article SeulBro posted... I do not.



I am no longer a climate change denier.



I do not pity those kids forced to take meds... The parents and doctors prescribing meds to those children  should be flogged for putting poison in their children's bodies.

[Anonymous]

Don't tell kids this, they will get anxiety attacks.



80 million people could die from flu-like disease



A flu-like disease could spread around the world in 36 hours and could take the lives of 80 million people, a report suggests.



The report was compiled by the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board, a group of health experts led by Gro Harlem Brundtland, ex-Norwegian prime minister and director general of the World Health Organization, and Alhadj As Sy, secretary-general of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.



The document entitled A World At Risk, which was created to try to jump start world leaders into action, also suggested that a Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 infected a third of the world's population, killing 50 million people in the process.



And if a similar outbreak were to happen in today's world, filled with constantly travelling people, the effects could be worse, the report noted.



"The threat of a pandemic spreading around the globe is a real one," the GPMB stated in the document, as reported by the Daily Mail. "A quick-moving pathogen has the potential to kill tens of millions of people, disrupt economies and destabilize national security."



A World At Risk states the current efforts in outbreak preparation in the wake of such events as the Ebola crisis are "grossly insufficient".



The GPMB wrote that many of the recommendations of an earlier report were ignored by world leaders or "poorly implemented, or not implemented at all" and that "serious gaps persist."

[Anonymous]

Isn't today, climate demonstration day where students leave school and people walk off the job? I wish resource workers would walk off the job for sixty to ninety days. Than these hypocrites would not be able to get to any demonstration.

[Anonymous]

The oil and gas sector is moving towards much lower and eventually zero emissions in producing barrels of oil. MEG Energy is one example.



https://www.megenergy.com/corporate-responsibility/environment/air">https://www.megenergy.com/corporate-res ... onment/air">https://www.megenergy.com/corporate-responsibility/environment/air

[Anonymous]

Oil and gas giant sets big target of net zero oilsands emissions



Canadian Natural Resources wants to drastically reduce pollution through new technology



Canada's largest oil and gas producer is setting an ambitious target, to reduce the amount of C02 from its oilsands operations to effectively zero in terms of carbon emissions.



Instead of relying on planting trees or purchasing carbon offsets to reach the net-zero goal, a company executive said innovation will be the key.



"We're trying to get there just using technology and Canadian ingenuity. That makes a big difference," said Steve Laut, the company's executive vice-chairman, in an interview.



Laut admits the oilsands were one of the most carbon-intensive oil operations around the world about 10 years ago. However, since then, he said the industry has worked hard to reduce its impact on climate.



Since 2012, CNRL reports it has cut the amount of greenhouse gases per barrel of oil it produces, company-wide, by 29 per cent. It's also reduced its methane emissions by 78 per cent during that time.



"It's been a game changing performance" over the last decade, said Laut. "It's really exciting because this is not the end, this is the start. We've got a lot more to go."



Cenovus, another oilsands producer, has said it reduced its greenhouse gas intensity by one-third over the last decade.



For Canadian Natural Resources, one of the ways it has reduced emissions is through three different carbon capture and storage projects. The company captures up to 2.7 million tonnes of greenhouse gases per year.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cnrl-steve-laut-ghg-net-zero-1.5221740">https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cnrl-s ... -1.5221740">https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cnrl-steve-laut-ghg-net-zero-1.5221740

[Anonymous]

Oil and gas giant sets big target of net zero oilsands emissions



Canadian Natural Resources wants to drastically reduce pollution through new technology



Canada's largest oil and gas producer is setting an ambitious target, to reduce the amount of C02 from its oilsands operations to effectively zero in terms of carbon emissions.



Instead of relying on planting trees or purchasing carbon offsets to reach the net-zero goal, a company executive said innovation will be the key.



"We're trying to get there just using technology and Canadian ingenuity. That makes a big difference," said Steve Laut, the company's executive vice-chairman, in an interview.



Laut admits the oilsands were one of the most carbon-intensive oil operations around the world about 10 years ago. However, since then, he said the industry has worked hard to reduce its impact on climate.



Since 2012, CNRL reports it has cut the amount of greenhouse gases per barrel of oil it produces, company-wide, by 29 per cent. It's also reduced its methane emissions by 78 per cent during that time.



"It's been a game changing performance" over the last decade, said Laut. "It's really exciting because this is not the end, this is the start. We've got a lot more to go."



Cenovus, another oilsands producer, has said it reduced its greenhouse gas intensity by one-third over the last decade.



For Canadian Natural Resources, one of the ways it has reduced emissions is through three different carbon capture and storage projects. The company captures up to 2.7 million tonnes of greenhouse gases per year.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cnrl-steve-laut-ghg-net-zero-1.5221740">https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cnrl-s ... -1.5221740">https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cnrl-steve-laut-ghg-net-zero-1.5221740

The alarmists are not interested in science and technology. If they did, they would make what we have now carbon neutral through advanced technology. But, nope. They want solar panels from China.

[Anonymous]

Oil and gas giant sets big target of net zero oilsands emissions



Canadian Natural Resources wants to drastically reduce pollution through new technology



Canada's largest oil and gas producer is setting an ambitious target, to reduce the amount of C02 from its oilsands operations to effectively zero in terms of carbon emissions.



Instead of relying on planting trees or purchasing carbon offsets to reach the net-zero goal, a company executive said innovation will be the key.



"We're trying to get there just using technology and Canadian ingenuity. That makes a big difference," said Steve Laut, the company's executive vice-chairman, in an interview.



Laut admits the oilsands were one of the most carbon-intensive oil operations around the world about 10 years ago. However, since then, he said the industry has worked hard to reduce its impact on climate.



Since 2012, CNRL reports it has cut the amount of greenhouse gases per barrel of oil it produces, company-wide, by 29 per cent. It's also reduced its methane emissions by 78 per cent during that time.



"It's been a game changing performance" over the last decade, said Laut. "It's really exciting because this is not the end, this is the start. We've got a lot more to go."



Cenovus, another oilsands producer, has said it reduced its greenhouse gas intensity by one-third over the last decade.



For Canadian Natural Resources, one of the ways it has reduced emissions is through three different carbon capture and storage projects. The company captures up to 2.7 million tonnes of greenhouse gases per year.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cnrl-steve-laut-ghg-net-zero-1.5221740">https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cnrl-s ... -1.5221740">https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cnrl-steve-laut-ghg-net-zero-1.5221740

Eventually the environmental footprint of energy produced from the oilsands  will be lower than solar used to power e-cars on well to wheels comparison. However, libtards hate oil and gas because it makes people's lives better. I'm done arguing with those shills.

[Anonymous]

Oil and gas giant sets big target of net zero oilsands emissions



Canadian Natural Resources wants to drastically reduce pollution through new technology



Canada's largest oil and gas producer is setting an ambitious target, to reduce the amount of C02 from its oilsands operations to effectively zero in terms of carbon emissions.



Instead of relying on planting trees or purchasing carbon offsets to reach the net-zero goal, a company executive said innovation will be the key.



"We're trying to get there just using technology and Canadian ingenuity. That makes a big difference," said Steve Laut, the company's executive vice-chairman, in an interview.



Laut admits the oilsands were one of the most carbon-intensive oil operations around the world about 10 years ago. However, since then, he said the industry has worked hard to reduce its impact on climate.



Since 2012, CNRL reports it has cut the amount of greenhouse gases per barrel of oil it produces, company-wide, by 29 per cent. It's also reduced its methane emissions by 78 per cent during that time.



"It's been a game changing performance" over the last decade, said Laut. "It's really exciting because this is not the end, this is the start. We've got a lot more to go."



Cenovus, another oilsands producer, has said it reduced its greenhouse gas intensity by one-third over the last decade.



For Canadian Natural Resources, one of the ways it has reduced emissions is through three different carbon capture and storage projects. The company captures up to 2.7 million tonnes of greenhouse gases per year.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cnrl-steve-laut-ghg-net-zero-1.5221740">https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cnrl-s ... -1.5221740">https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/cnrl-steve-laut-ghg-net-zero-1.5221740

The alarmists are not interested in science and technology. If they did, they would make what we have now carbon neutral through advanced technology. But, nope. They want solar panels from China.

Jagmeet Singh said he would prefer we import oil rather than Eastern Canada using Western Canadian oil.

[Anonymous]

B.C. research team leads effort to turn greenhouse gas emissions into solid rock



An international effort funded by a B.C. institute is trying to develop a way to take carbon dioxide out of the air and turn it into rock at the bottom of the ocean. Kylie Stanton reports.



It has the potential to be transformative technology: a way to capture greenhouse gas emissions and store them forever inside solid rock.



The project is called "Solid Carbon," and it's being funded in part by the University of Victoria's Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS).



The idea, which is the focus of a number of teams all over the world, is to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and inject it into basalt rock below the ocean floor, where it will turn into rock.



It has been done before. Scientist in Iceland have been successful capturing the CO2, dissolving it in water, and pumping into basalt rock on land.



This project builds on that idea, instead utilizing the oceans — where 90 per cent of the earth's basalt resides.



"So, it wouldn't be something that would be exclusive to one location, one country," said Seitzinger.  "It would be a technology that could be used around the world."

https://globalnews.ca/news/5964021/bc-greenhouse-gas-rocks/">https://globalnews.ca/news/5964021/bc-g ... gas-rocks/">https://globalnews.ca/news/5964021/bc-greenhouse-gas-rocks/



Canada is a world leader in carbon capture technology which is the only way to take C02 right out of the atmosphere. But, our politicians are not interested in scientific solutions. Make the cost of travel and heating our homes more expensive.

[Anonymous]

One major problem with the Libs' Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act is that it focuses solely on emissions in Canada. It gives Canadian companies, whether in Alberta or elsewhere, no credit for exporting products or technologies that help other countries reduce their emissions.



Natural gas exports to developing countries, for instance, help them reduce their dependence on coal. Kenney argues, sensibly, that rather than thwarting our energy industry, Ottawa should actually be helping Alberta sell more energy overseas thereby reducing global emissions.

[Anonymous]

Nuclear is a sensible idea for electricity.



The key To our climate

Nuke power offers hope



Sunday's agreement between three Canadian premiers to co-operate in developing small modular reactors (SMRS), indicates the growing recognition that nuclear power is a vital player in reducing industrial greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change.



Ontario Premier Doug Ford, Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe and New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs are also in line with the thinking of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government, which is exploring, through Natural Resources Canada, the development of SMRS for domestic and international sales.



We already know nuclear power can dramatically lower greenhouse gas emissions in a very short period of time.



The use of nuclear energy, in combination with natural gas, is the reason the previous Ontario Liberal governments of Dalton Mcguinty and Kathleen



Wynne were able to eliminate the province's reliance on coal to produce 25% of its electricity in the remarkably short span of 11 years -- from 20032014.



That was one of the largest and most dramatic reductions of emissions anywhere in the world.



If countries like China and India could replace their use of coal-fired electricity in the same way, the problem of human-induced climate change would largely be solved.



It was possible in Ontario because nuclear power — which provides over 60% of the province's electricity — does not emit greenhouse gases or conventional pollution.



When it replaces coal, the dirtiest fossil fuel, to produce electricity, the environmental benefits are huge.



The Wynne/mcguinty governments boasted it was their development of expensive and unreliable wind and solar power which led to the elimination of coal-fired electricity.



But it was, in fact, nuclear power and natural gas that did the job, the latter of which is the cleanest fossil fuel, burning at half the carbon intensity of coal.



Natural gas was needed in any event to back up intermittent wind and solar power, because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine.



The problem with nuclear power, aside from nuclear waste and public fears of radiation — in reality, the mining and burning of coal has killed far more people globally than all of the world's nuclear power plant accidents combined — is that conventional nuclear plants are expensive and take a long time to build.



In theory, SMRS which are still in the development stage, will be less expensive, quicker to assemble and portable.



They would be ideal for replacing coal-fired electricity in Saskatchewan, which today gets almost half of its electricity from coal, and New Brunswick, which gets 15.5% of its electricity from coal. (The Canadian average is under 9%.)



They would also be ideally suited to provide power for heavy industry and in remote communities.



Practically speaking, nuclear power and natural gas are the two conventional fuels best positioned to replace the use of coal to produce electricity, the greatest environmental challenge we face. (Not the oil sands and not burning oil.)



As energy journalist Robert Bryce wrote in his 2010 book, Power Hungry — The Myths Of 'Green' Energy And The Real Fuels of the Future: "If you are anti-carbon and anti-nuclear, you are pro-blackout."



Indeed, many of the world's leading environmentalists, including journalist George Monbiot; James Hansen (the father of modern global warming theory); James Lovelock (co-creator of the Gaia theory that the Earth is a living organism) and Michael Shellenberger (founder of Environmental Progress), believe that nuclear power is key to solving the problem of human-induced climate change.

[Thiel]

I am neutral on GMO. But, it's ridiculous how far the anti-GMO crop extremists will go.



EU's refusal to permit GMO crops led to millions of tonnes of additional CO2, scientists reveal



Europe's refusal to permit its farmers to cultivate genetically engineered (GE) crops led to the avoidable emission of millions of tonnes of climate-damaging carbon dioxide, a new scientific analysis reveals.



The opportunity cost of the EU's refusal to allow cultivation of GE varieties of key crops currently totals 33 million tonnes of CO2 per year, the experts say.



This is equivalent to 7.5 percent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the entire European agricultural sector, or roughly what might be emitted each year by 10-20 coal-fired power stations.



Given that farmers in North and South America adopted GE crops from the late 1990s onward, this analysis implies that over subsequent decades the additional carbon emitted due to the EU's opposition to genetic engineering will likely be in the hundreds of millions of tonnes.

https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2021/02/eus-refusal-to-permit-gmo-crops-led-to-millions-of-tonnes-of-additional-co2-scientists-reveal/?fbclid=IwAR1ELclrj3SnmxTM6BE2QM_YHqLFMxjPDPt2svR8FPYxzksI2pgyx1pcQs4">https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/ ... pgyx1pcQs4">https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2021/02/eus-refusal-to-permit-gmo-crops-led-to-millions-of-tonnes-of-additional-co2-scientists-reveal/?fbclid=IwAR1ELclrj3SnmxTM6BE2QM_YHqLFMxjPDPt2svR8FPYxzksI2pgyx1pcQs4

[Anonymous]

GMO's, much like climate change, has pushed people into luanacy.

[Anonymous]

I am neutral on GMO. But, it's ridiculous how far the anti-GMO crop extremists will go.



EU's refusal to permit GMO crops led to millions of tonnes of additional CO2, scientists reveal



Europe's refusal to permit its farmers to cultivate genetically engineered (GE) crops led to the avoidable emission of millions of tonnes of climate-damaging carbon dioxide, a new scientific analysis reveals.



The opportunity cost of the EU's refusal to allow cultivation of GE varieties of key crops currently totals 33 million tonnes of CO2 per year, the experts say.



This is equivalent to 7.5 percent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the entire European agricultural sector, or roughly what might be emitted each year by 10-20 coal-fired power stations.



Given that farmers in North and South America adopted GE crops from the late 1990s onward, this analysis implies that over subsequent decades the additional carbon emitted due to the EU's opposition to genetic engineering will likely be in the hundreds of millions of tonnes.

https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2021/02/eus-refusal-to-permit-gmo-crops-led-to-millions-of-tonnes-of-additional-co2-scientists-reveal/?fbclid=IwAR1ELclrj3SnmxTM6BE2QM_YHqLFMxjPDPt2svR8FPYxzksI2pgyx1pcQs4">https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/ ... pgyx1pcQs4">https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2021/02/eus-refusal-to-permit-gmo-crops-led-to-millions-of-tonnes-of-additional-co2-scientists-reveal/?fbclid=IwAR1ELclrj3SnmxTM6BE2QM_YHqLFMxjPDPt2svR8FPYxzksI2pgyx1pcQs4

We've had links posted here abput GMO's..



I remember one in particular, is quite beneficial.....golden rice.