250 News - Your News, Your Views, Now

October 27, 2017 7:37 pm

Climate Change Exhibit at Two Rivers Gallery

Tuesday, December 27, 2016 @ 5:50 AM
From left: UNBC student Carleen Paltzat, UNBC Associate Geography Professor Dr. Zoë Meletis, UNBC Assistant Environmental Planning Professor Dr. Mark Groulx, Two Rivers Curator and Artistic Director George Harris, and Two Rivers Managing Director Carolyn Holmes hold up some of the messages left on the Think Change wall at the exhibit - photo courtesy UNBC

From left: UNBC student Carleen Paltzat, UNBC Associate Geography
Professor Dr. Zoë Meletis, UNBC Assistant Environmental Planning
Professor Dr. Mark Groulx, Two Rivers Curator and Artistic Director
George Harris, and Two Rivers Managing Director Carolyn Holmes hold up
some of the messages left on the Think Change wall at the exhibit – photo courtesy UNBC

Prince George, B.C. – An exhibition called Change is offering a different take on climate change.

Located at Two Rivers Gallery, it’s the result of a collaboration between Two Rivers, UNBC and the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions and runs through Jan. 8.

The exhibit aims to foster discussions around climate change through artwork selected from Two Rivers’ permanent collection.

“I think it looks great and I’m really excited about the level of community participation,” says UNBC associate geography prof. Dr. Zoe Meletis. “I don’t know if you’ve seen it, but there’s a wall where people can make contributions about ideas and it’s full.”

She says the exhibit will include a free public lecture which aims to look at climate change through a different lens.

“I think people can get a little bit of climate change fatigue, especially since it’s all about what we’re doing wrong and what we should do instead,” says Meletis.

“So, there’s a lot of guilt, a lot of blame. There’s usually some kind of cost we’re going to have to bear and so instead we thought let’s do something different. Let’s look at art and science together, not in opposition.”

The lecture is called Art and Science for a Change and it will take place on Jan. 6 at 3:30 p.m.

It will feature local poet and teacher Al Rempel who will be reading some of his poems and PICS executive director Dr. Sybil Seitzinger who will talk about climate change and sustainability.



I think we approach this from the wrong direction. Governments make out that by taxing us more they can have a positive effect on man-made activities that’re supposed to be changing the climate.

But if people are already short of money relative to what it now costs to live, and the only way they can try to get more money to live AND PAY MORE TAX is to do more of what they’re already doing, how, then, is this going to positively effect the climate? Why not try taxing us less, so we can more easily BUY what we’ve ALREADY made?

Well it looks like these people have swallowed the dogma hook line and sinker or they are to scared to question. If they question there is a risk of being outcasts and losing their comfortable seats in the institution.

I am not sure they understand the term “climate change”. I hope they realize climate has always changed and not since man, well, became man.

“Good question to ask of the ‘millennials’: If you work all your life to come; pay all the taxes due; pay all the carbon offset levies devised by the UN/EU; and live a reduced quality of life because you can’t afford to fly/drive, heat your house or pay for basic fuel products, what effect will that have on the temperature of the planet/your country by the time you come to retire? And will it have been worth it”?

    Your first paragraph is bang on seamutt, you could include politicians in that paragraph as well.

    Speaking of swallowing dogma and making ridiculous assumptions. Yours must taste amazing to you, since you keep regurgitating and chewing on them over and over and over.

      Hahaha you have never refuted any of the information I post. Why is that? Right my facts are correct that is why warmers never debate.


      Uhhhh, because you have never posted any facts to refute, just dogmatic beliefs. There is no point in me trying to prove that any of your beliefs are false. I could post links and information until I was blue in the face and not one bit of it would ever convince you that your beliefs could be false.

      I mean look at you. Everybody that doesn’t see it your way hasn’t done any research. Anyone who says that they have looked at it and draws a different conclusion than you hasn’t done it right. Anybody who doesn’t bow to your dogmatic belief is too scared to question.

      You make ridiculous unfounded statements that people in educational institutions are afraid to question the status quo for fear of losing their jobs. You provide zero proof that any such “shutting down” of opposing opinion actually exists.

      You make a ridiculous assertion that the people involved in this exhibition do not understand the meaning of the words “climate change” because their views do not coincide with your own, therefore, making you the only “authority” to know what climate change is. Your dog-with-a-bone repetition that climate change has always happened (even though no one has ever denied that it hasn’t) is somehow proof that we humans have no effect on the process.

      Frankly, it is borderline OCD and there is no way to refute a disorder. The only cure for that is treatment, not debate.

      In fact, the only muzzling of scientific information that took place was on the Conservative side when they refused to allow government scientists to release their findings from environmental and climate studies.

      Why is that, Seamutt? Why would your Con pals in the federal government try to shut down science and scientific debate if, in fact, there was no evidence to support anthropogenic warming? Could it be because the Cons knew full well that the science wasn’t supporting their denial of human-caused climate effects? Because it certainly looks that way to me.

      Hmmm, so since the Liberal government “un-muzzled” the scientists, what have they told us that had been suppressed by the Conservatives?

      Just this:

      “Flato and Bourque evidently alarmed Trudeau and the premiers with these apocalyptic images. Using these images, “science” “tells us” that we, as Canadians, face the following “threats”:

      •children playing in the Trocadero Fountain in Paris, France;
      •subsidence in a long-depreciated and abandoned building from the Klondike gold rush;
      •routine culvert washouts in northern highways;
      •drying mud (vertisols) in the Altai Mountains of Russia
      •erosion of its shoreline by the St Lawrence River in an area of isostatic uplift
      •heavy weather delaying traffic in Atlantic Canadian towns.”

      ht tps://climateaudit.org/2015/12/07/what-science-is-telling-us-about-climate-damages-to-canada/

“The exhibit aims to foster discussions around climate change through artwork”

I wonder if the artwork will include a picture of the mountains and the rings from melting glaciers? Then perhaps a discussion could be held on what caused the glaciers to melt long before “fossil fuels” arrived on the scene. Maybe there was too much CO2 in the dinosaurs breath?

One of the most interesting comments from this video is that fact that the global warming er climate change alarmists are very well funded, while the deniers receive almost nothing.

If the alarmists are funded in order to present their argument, should not the deniers also be funded in order to present their side of the argument.

Not only are the deniers not funded, they are vilified for their views.

Kind of hard to have an open and honest debate on the issue when one side receives funding while the other side doesn’t, and when one side gives it’s opinion while the other side is expected to keep it’s mouth shut!

From Australia:

Climate Scientists Laugh at Global Warming Hysteria

Respected Australian scientists laugh at Julia Gillard, David Suzuki and other climate change drama queens.

Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University is a Marine Geologist.

Professor Peter Ridd of James Cook University is a Marine Physics specialist.

Professor Garth Paltridge is a former Chief Scientist at the CSIRO and is an Atmospheric Physicist.

ht tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C35pasCr6KI&app=desktop

If there is some funding available for alarmists? I would like to know where I can go and fill out a form to get dollars! I am not a dedicated frantic alarmist, but I do find the scientific evidence supporting mankind’s contribution to global warming somewhat alarming. How are alarmists funded?

    You probably need to get some letters behind your name first. All research in this field is funded by the public purse, didn’t you know that? Students may work for almost free but the university/college department heads and large government departments do not.

      I don’t have a dog in this fight but to say “all research in this field is funded by the public purse” is interesting. Do you mean the massive amount of research that goes against climate change and is funded from big oil and coal is public funded? Is this because of the massive amount of government grants they receive each year?


      You are wasting your time trying to convince these people with anything resembling facts. Look at these characters. They actually believe they are being persecuted for their non-belief in anthropogenic warming. Now they are actually trying to claim that the denial side receives no funding. It is a waste of time and energy trying to debate with these people. It is like trying to debate with a Scientologist on the truth of their religion.

      Have to laugh, massive amounts of research against climate change? You really think Suncor has a room full of climate scientists debunking climate models that are never accurate, and not just not accurate but not even close to accurate? I don’t even hesitate to think the amount “big oil” donates to our universities and colleges far surpasses anything given to a couple scientists debunking “climate science”

      How much “government funding” was given to just the Two Rivers Gallery in the form of grants and donations for just this one exhibit? You guys crack me up

“The researchers’ study also found that 70% of Canadians perceive significant changes in weather where they live; 60% believe that weather in Canada has been getting more extreme; and 87% believe these changes are somewhat or very likely the consequence of a warming planet.”

Ummm… I would advise the deniers of this one certainty; global warming does not care if you believe in it or not!!! Please stop embarrassing yourselves.

    They have no shame . Even their babbling about the BC carbon tax is either disinformation, or just made up lies . All one needs to do is read where the money goes . The myth of hurting the poor is erroneous . Just about everything that come creeping it’s way to this site is bogus on this subject . For the facts about it all one needs to do is read fin.gov.bc.ca .

      This is because they get their fake information from fake news sites that they think are real .

      It is claimed that deniers are vilified for expressing their views (see a comment above) but alarmists can say the same thing! On this site the alarmists are vilified and ridiculed by comments from deniers! So it is a stalemate. If everybody would just be civilized and engage in an intelligent and respectful exchange of arguments none of the negativity would happen. Perhaps one day the tone will change, but probably not.

      Fake news? Interesting that you would bring that up.

      “There is an excellent new post up at notrickszone.com on the global cooling scare of the 1970’s and the efforts to erase it from the record by the climate alarmists at realclimate.com. For some the scandal at Wikipedia over William Connolley deliberately posting false articles and altering factual ones on climate is old news. This is for those who missed the story. William Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. “Fake news” is an old story, used extensively by radical climate alarmists and environmentalists. Indeed, Greenpeace seems to be based on the concept of fake news.”

      ht tps://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/25/global-cooling-and-wikipedia-fake-news/

    Not everyone is a lemming headed to the climate change cliff.

    Let’s see your facts, oh right unicorns ate your proof.

    Uhmm, I would advise BH to actually check out just what the “deniers” deny. They don’t deny changes in weather, they don’t deny that climate changes and they don’t deny that lots of folks believe in the global warming…er make that climate change scam as the study found. What’s more, they base their viewpoints on the scientific facts, not the propaganda put out by activists and politicians.

Pieter Bruegel the elder springs to mind . Hunters in the snow ?

    Poor Pieter . Artist ( painter ) , teacher , chronicler of the last little ice age . I thought you’d love the guy . How would you like a little ice age , deniers ? Or , is it the quantifying thingy ?

Empty exhibit. LOL

Consider the following when you think its important to reduce C02.

Photosynthesis: Plants/Plankton turning Sunlight/CO2 & H2O into Food/Oxygen – the Foundation of Life on Earth. Neither animal nor blade of grass would exist, absent CO2. It extends growing seasons & lets plants move higher in altitude & Latitudes; just as it shrinks deserts, plants using H2O more efficiently. Rising temperatures also extend growing seasons, help babies of nearly every species, increase net rainfall & save lives. As CO2 levels rise, photosynthesis flourishes & plants take in more CO2, sparking more plant growth, more photosynthesis & CO2 uptake; a win-win for plant & animal life. The Earth is greener, more fertile & life sustaining than it was 30 years ago.

The carbon tax is just a money grab and the politicians know it. They can’t think of anything else to tax.

Ever notice how those that question climate change are immediately attacked by those that don’t question it?

    I just read this and had to add it as it’s quite accurate:

    The problem is not people being uneducated; the problem is that they are just educated enough to believe what they’ve been taught, and not educated enough to question what they’ve been taught!

      @Hart Guy

      That definition certainly applies to you and your ilk. Glad you are finally willing to admit it.

      @ Hahaha,

      I’m so disappointed that you aren’t educated enough to figure out that my post was directed at you and your ilk, haha!

    Obviously the alarmists or deniers are NOT disputing the fact that temperatures have been rising globally (melting glaciers, rising ocean levels…etc) but what is being disputed how much of the global warming is caused by the activity of mankind! The deniers claim that mankind’s contribution is trivial, the alarmists claim that it is very significant and must be reduced. The increasing CO2 issue is being put front and center, but it is the question of the man made emissions that should be the main focus!

      Problem is even with all that fancy talk in Paris the manmade amount is not going to be reduced – ever. China’s increase in the next year alone will top Canada’s total emissions annually. Any changes we as a country do is trivial, even going cold turkey for us is trivial in the big picture.

      And I am not saying we shouldn’t try to cap it (which we are doing by the way) but there should be pressure to make other countries cap it if we believe in it so much as a country. Giving 4 billion dollars for others to cap theirs is short of criminal when not doing it at home except charging a fee.

      We complain about some flaring at wellsites in the north of BC and Alberta and yet there is a 70 meter wide crater called the gate to hell spewing co2 into the atmosphere from burnt gas since 1971. Look up coal seam fires, the list goes on.

Oh poor AGW deniers feeling prosecuted? Imagine how members of the flat earth society feel. Can’t imagine why…

ht tps://www.tfes.org/

    Once again, a straw man argument combined with an ad hominem, which is a de facto admission that the “AGW deniers” are right.

    Thank you for your support, BH.

    Ironically the flat earth society museum is located on Fogo island NFL . The AGW denier group have enough backing to have their own museum . Maybe on a high point on the island . I guess it will take a hundred hurricanes the likes of Sandy for some to get it . Always follow the money . The insurance industry worldwide get it . The re-insurance industry is hedging and the pentagon recognizes climate change as the largest threat . The whole finger pointing exercise is a distraction fueled by Big Fossil . It’s here . We are not helping . It ain’t going away . It’s going to continue . It’s going to get worse . It’s already hitting the fan . We have to deal with it .

      And your response is to double up on the ad hominems, confirming that you don’t believe what you preach.

      Thanks again for your support.

      “This op-ed from IBD points out what we have been saying for years, that even though there is no trend in hurricane frequency of intensity, alarmists like Mashable’s Andrew Freedman are trying to get the definition of a hurricane redefined, so that the trend will become a positive one.

      The alarmists need to redefine hurricanes especially now, since the data show that hurricane and tropical storm frequency is “flat to slightly down,” and science — yes, that “settled” field that somehow continues to discover new things — has failed to show a link between hurricanes and global warming. They still need to hide the decline, except this time the decline that must be buried is in hurricanes, not the temperature record.”

      ht tps://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/18/climate-alarmists-try-to-redefine-what-a-hurricane-is-so-well-have-more-of-them/

The exhibit aims to foster discussions around climate change. Really? I wonder, would they be open to discussing the science of the matter? Somehow I doubt it.

“I think people can get a little bit of climate change fatigue, especially since it’s all about what we’re doing wrong and what we should do instead,” says Meletis.

Meletis, I agree you have got it all wrong. Hey I got an idea how about a debate, hey how about showing some real science, oh wait.

This debate reminds of the rural mailbox issue and look what happened.

    You going to come and steal my mail in the middle of the night old man?

Comments for this article are closed.