Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
MtlAnglo





Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 3


PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Long time reader, first time poster.

And I got to say, you guys come off sounding extremely uninformed on some points (the science), and correct on others.
Being someone who believes in climate change, and having just studied it at length for school, you guys are making some extremely incorrect statements, mixed with accurate criticism.

First, the official science on climate change, at least as aggregated by the IPCC includes WIDE ranges of uncertainty for almost every prediction it makes. When the impact of the main green house gases are calculated (Carbon, Nitrous Oxide, Methane, and Clorofluocarbons), wide bands of uncertainty for their impact on radiative forcing is included. While I will say that it is quite dry reading, try to read Working Group 1's reports and still convince me that climate change is a convenient conspiracy theory being made up.

Second, you guys are completely correct to bash idiots like Elizabeth May, Gilles Duceppe, NDPers, etc... who tell us the sky is falling. Scientific evidence as it now exists only claims that climate change will likely be quite damaging in the long run. It will not have uniform effects and will help some countries (Canada is actually well placed) and damage others, unfortunately mostly many of the world's poorest countries. No credible evidence exists that the world is about to end. Further, official analysis, even the IPCC at times, have failed to take the prospect of Adaptation into account, and how that may affect the many industries and living standards of populations, for example in North America. Excellent work has been done to this effect. Non-alarmists who are still concerned about the problem, including my teacher at McGill, will make the following point, that the problem of climate change is characterized by uncertainty on issues including
- climate sensitivity to greenhouse gas forcing (GHGs)
- tolerance of physical, biological, and human systems to climate change
- regional and local changes and impacts
- adaptability and vulnerability to impacts of climate change
- GHG emission trajectory (future emissions)
- economic damages from climate change
- mitigation (abatement) costs (cost of avoidance)
- future technology: availability, scalability, side effects
Taking all this into account, it is still incorrect to simply dismiss the problem out of hand and express disbelief that anyone believes it anymore.

Third, all those who bash Kyoto as a useless document are correct. Its a piece of crap that Canada and the US were right to pull out of. It is inefficient, arbitrary, and will likely achieve little, as will all new policies (including the Conservative's new one) that focus on ends (some arbitrary reduction target) rather than the means to get there. Will we force people to stop having kids (no), and/or crush the economy and impoverish people (no), and so our only choice is to move to less energy-intensive forms of GDP (moving from manufacturing to services, except canada still digs resources out of the ground at a continuous rate, which is quite energy intensive), or find new energy sources, or refine existing ones, so that our energy use is less carbon-intensive. Only problem is that clean coal does not actually exist and is just an idea, there are only so many rivers to dam for hydro, and the current electricity grids in Canada and the US can only accept a limited amount of wind and solar energy due to their intermittent nature and our inability to properly store their energy. Oh and ethanol is a massive crock of shit, which produces more greenhouse gasses in its life-cycle of production than it saves us. Don't buy the party line on this one, its nothing more than glorified agricultural/rural income support. So we continue to rely on coal and oil, and if oil runs out at some point, we're going to have to fall back on coal, which is even more polluting. Look up the Kaya Identity, its a useful framework for considering the climate change problem. So being skeptical about Kyoto, and Steve's policy from a year or so back is perfectly reasonable; targets are nice, but we have no way of actually hitting them. To curb climate change will take centuries, not a decade. The process is caused by long-term accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere, not a single year's emissions (to those versed in economics, this is the important difference between stocks and flows). Carbon for example, once in the atmosphere last for decades if not over a century. I can only assume that those who support Kyoto do so because they are incapable or unqualified to properly analyze its shortcomings (i could write another long post on this if necessary, but not now).

But, on the other hand,
To assume that because some scientists descent against the IPCC that climate change is made up is dumb. Likewise, to quote newspaper articles in your argument also comes off as completely unsophisticated. Try quoting actual scientific articles, that are peer reviewed, people might actually take you seriously; its what divides proper arguments from the ridiculous conspiracy theories that increasingly populate the internet. My teacher at McGill tore the IPCC a new one on a daily basis pointing out the bevy of incorrect assumptions they make. Doesn't mean climate change isn't real because the IPCC makes mistakes, just that they make mistakes, and good scientists have every reason not to agree with some of the the IPCC's conclusions (they make dozens of different ones on many different points), which still does NOT mean climate change is made up.

I notice that here time and time again that dissenting opinions are raised as proof that climate change is not occurring. But I ask you, why do you always focus on the dissenting opinions? The top scientific journals, namely Science and Nature, in every issue usually include some new research by the world's top scientists about new findings related to the many facets of climate change. Why do people here only focus on the dissenting opinions? Tons of evidence supporting climate change appear too, and together with dissenting articles make up the complete scientific literature on climate change. By only focusing on dissenting opinions, you come off looking as bad as stupid alarmist environmentalists who only focus on the most fatalistic articles on the topic.

All this is to say, that climate change, as the current scientific/economic literature treats it is an incredibly complex issue, that includes the actual science, the economics of the issue, the long term technology challenge of stabilization, the potential for adaptation, the costs of mitigation (it might not be worth it, only because climate change may not be as bad as some alarmists (cough. E. May cough) say), the nature of the technology challenge, what exists now and what must be innovated, and finally the different policies that are possible and the horrible ones that currently exist.

So yes, as Tories we are right to denounce alarmists that are making a farce of climate change with ridiculous exaggerations. But at the same time, I only hope that we can move beyond dismissing incredibly complex issues where hundreds of academic articles have been written, based on a few dissenting opinions and newspaper articles.

Climate change is very complex, and as an idea or reality still characterized heavily by uncertainty. To criticize it simply based on extremist claims is lazy, and looks poorly upon us as a political movement.

Oh, and happy holidays guys and girls!
nathaliejcaron





Joined: 28 Nov 2008
Posts: 305
Reputation: 20.4Reputation: 20.4
votes: 2
Location: Ottawa West -- Nepean

PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks MtlAnglo, for your very informed point.

I believe that climate change is real, but I also believe climate change is an inherent fact of planet Earth. There is no denying that changes will occur in terms of jet stream trends, which will impact weather patterns across the world.

Just like there were ice ages, and warm periods over the thousands of years the planet has been habitable to life, what we are experiencing today is nothing more than a blip on the radar tho, in my opinion.

I think the reason many are crying out is that we are witnessing the effects of these changes in weather patterns and they threaten our livelihood. But there is simply nothing we can do about it realistically, at least in my opinion.

Like you have said, it will take centuries to change GHG levels, and even if we did, there is no guarantee that changes in weather patterns would not occur.

We simply have to accept that, while humans have done (and continue to do) "harm" to the planet by acting like viruses and eating away at it, we are but ants who are pretty helpless in the face of "mother nature".
eveable





Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 206
Reputation: 99.4Reputation: 99.4

PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is true that the climate on this planet is changing, has changed before and will continue to change. I don't know how many people know that the planet is on it's third atmosphere.
The idea that humans can change the climate by taxing C02 is too absurd for words. The biggest problem is the fact that C02 does not increase temperature. That is a scientific fact and one that is ignored by the IPCC.

The IPCC is a political organization whose mandate is to prove global warming. The summaries are not written by scientists and are not approved by scientists. Therefore their summaries are just statements written by politicians.

I am sure that humans have changed the planet's temperature by cutting forests and through agriculture. Cities have a huge urban warming effect. However taxing C02 emissions will not change this. Destroying all the cities and allowing farmland to revert to forest will but I don't think we can or want to do that. I just read a scientific papert saying that the last ice age was caused by a human die off resulting in cropland reverting to forest.

I really do not think we want to cause another ice age. What people seen to forget is that warming is good. It causes better crop yeilds, more prosperity, less death, less sickness. Cold is bad.

Are people just frightened of change?? In that case, you had better move to a planet not revolving around a sun.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MtlAnglo wrote:
Oh, and happy holidays guys and girls!

Same to you, MtlAnglo... and thanks for posting!!

-Mac
MtlAnglo





Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 3


PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The biggest problem is the fact that C02 does not increase temperature. That is a scientific fact and one that is ignored by the IPCC.


No, Greenhouse gases, which accumulate in the atmosphere block outgoing heat rays, preventing them from returning to space, and thus they bounce back and heat the earth. This happens anyways in the absence of human activity due to various natural carbon cycles. Were there no carbon accumulation, the earth would be too cold to be inhabitable. So there were already sufficient greenhouse gases in the atmosphere prior to human activity to warm the earth up to a point where it was inhabitable by humans. The argument is that by sending up so much additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, from burning coal, agriculture, etc.. the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases is getting to be too high, and this will IN THE LONG RUN cause more warming than would otherwise occur. Think in terms of centuries, a single down-turn decade is not a big deal, climate change, as it is now understood by the scientific community, will have its effects over the long run. It's why scenarios from the IPCC (which have their fair share of flaws), are based on cutting emissions in the near future (2030-2050) through to at least 2100-2150. Cutting emissions on an annual basis for the planet usually doesn't start for a fair while.

Quote:
The IPCC is a political organization whose mandate is to prove global warming. The summaries are not written by scientists and are not approved by scientists. Therefore their summaries are just statements written by politicians.


Sure the summaries may not be written by scientists (though I can't confirm that), but the reports by Working Group 1 and 2, are based on hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific articles from top scientific magazines. So while the IPCC does not do its own research, and just aggregates the work of others, it is based on science. The summaries are written for policy makers, but the actual reports in whole are worked on by scientists. Working group III is worked on by economists and policy wonks, and for that reason it is the most controversial, but this is not a science problem.

Quote:
I am sure that humans have changed the planet's temperature by cutting forests and through agriculture. Cities have a huge urban warming effect. However taxing C02 emissions will not change this.


The idea behind taxing CO2 emissions is not that it will magically stop carbon emissions. You can do it to make alternate energy forms more competitive (as the per joule price of carbon energy increases, stuff like solar, hydro, nuclear, etc.. become more competitive, as they the price gap between them and carbon narrows [they are currently more expensive]). In this sense carbon taxes can be seen as incentives to move away from oil and coal. Only problem is that alternate technologies cannot pick up oil and coal's slack, as I mentioned in my last post. Carbon taxes can also be a way to raise funds for the massive R&D effort that will be required to develop new carbon-free forms of energy. Carbon taxes would only be a means to end, which is moving us away from our current energy sources. Already emitted carbon from the last century+ will still be in the atmosphere, and as I mentioned that stuff has a lifetime of decades to centuries. So a carbon tax is no quick, magical fix. But it is better than the international trade scheme we now have under Kyoto (fraking worthless that one is!)

Quote:
Destroying all the cities and allowing farmland to revert to forest will but I don't think we can or want to do that.


You're absolutely correct, and people who call for this are idiots. Please, go in front of a city and tell people this. That they expect any politician who is democratically elected (or even not) to suddenly announce to their citizens that we're reverting to the rural lifestyle, no choice, and that this would succeed is laughable. It's why we need to find new energy sources. Ditto for assholes who have decided the solution is to stop China and India from developing. Its like please, you're probably a rich university teacher, so why don't you go convince the Chinese to stop their economic growth, and tell them that "yeah, I know you want your living standards to improve, but you know.... we f.ed up this last century in the West, and because of this, we'll sacrifice nothing, but you poorer people will sacrifice everything, mmmkay?" Its absolutely ridiculous.

Quote:
I really do not think we want to cause another ice age. What people seen to forget is that warming is good. It causes better crop yields, more prosperity, less death, less sickness. Cold is bad.


This is only partially true. While global warming in theory could/should benefit countries such as ours, who are quite cold, whose agriculture could use higher temperatures, and who are developed, and thus have strong infrastructure, it will hurt crop yields, prosperity, and health of poorer countries such as Bangladesh as well as many African states. There global warming will mean less water in continent, and thus collapsed agriculture and health. A temperature increase will also affect and strengthen many disease vectors in Africa. Finally, rising ocean levels could mean countries such as Bangladesh will be flooded massively, especially in coastal regions (duh!?), and this is a country that unlike us simply does not have the infrastructure to deal with such challenges effectively. So no, global warming will help some, but will hit the world's most disadvantaged on average in a very negative way.

That's it, see ya guys
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What I can't stand are the projections these so-called scientists make. I saw Peter manbrige talking about the Vancouver area and how the water level has risen 5 milimetres in the last 100 years, BUT scientists are forecasting that in the next 50 years the water will rise 36 inches. :roll:

Show me some facts to back up projections and stick your climate change models up your *ss. I work with models every day that have lots of concrete measurable variables included in them and they are only accurate 65% of the time. So you are going to tell me that these"scientists" can predict the weather based on 30-40 years of measurable climate data and centuries worth of core samples from glaciers. There are many examples of warming periods and cooling periods in the last 1000 years. Why is everyone convinced that this latest one(which ended in 1998) was caused by man?

P.S. I read that 2008 has been the coldest year in 100 years according to the Toronto Star. The next sentence said that climate scientists are predicting global warming will take off with a vengeance in 2015(just after the scientists making the predictions qualify for their pentions no doubt).
eveable





Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 206
Reputation: 99.4Reputation: 99.4

PostPosted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now we can see where your education has let you down. If there were no greenhouse gases ( which are water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane) the earth would be uninhabitable. I am spelling these gases out for you so to not mislead you. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been 20 times as high as it is now. In fact our atmosphere is, at present, is carbon dioxide deprived. You may or may not know that carbon dioxide is the life gas which all animals exhale and all plant life inhales. The more carbon dioxide, the more plant life. Which is why this planet was once a virtual Eden.
You also do not know that this is the third atmosphere of this planet. The earth did not have an oxygen, carbon dioxide atmosphere until plant life began.

As to your other items. No IPCC summary has been peer reviewed by scientists. The first one was reviewed by 70 scientists and 67 refused to sign off on it. Does that give you an idea of how highly the IPCC is thought of?

Next is the flooding scare. Why don't you try this? Fill a glass up with water and put an ice cube in it. See if the water overflows the glass when the ice cube melts. OPPS, it does not. That is because, if you can remember your basic physics, because ice, or water in solid form, occupies more space solid than liquid.
Sea levels have been falling for 5 years.

Please don't pretend you went to school.
eveable





Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 206
Reputation: 99.4Reputation: 99.4

PostPosted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The reason for the prediction that global warming will take off with a vengence in 2015 is because the predicted solar max was 2015. However since solar cycle 24 refuses to start, 2015 will not be the maximum. In fact this solar cycle will be weaker than solar cycle 23. The next one, solar cycle 25 will be weaker still. So do not expect anything but more cooling untill around 2030 or later. At that time we and the global warming nitwits will be dead and somebody else will get to start this all over again.

I really wonder if this happened in the 30's?

The major point is that the planet is cooling. The Medieval Warm period was not as warm as the Roman Warm period. This warming, the Modern Warm period was not as warm as the Medieval warm period. Each little ice age is colder than the one before. Bottom line, the planet has been on a cooling trend for 50 billion years. And all the taxes in the galaxy will not alter the climate one bit. Nor will it stop the continents from drifting. nor will it stop the earth from revolving around the Sun.
eveable





Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 206
Reputation: 99.4Reputation: 99.4

PostPosted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 2:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

First nationwide white Christmas since 1971.

Now we are back to 1970's temperatures, our last cooling period and years more to come.

That does it, I am moving to some where warm without nitwits.
Hasdrubal





Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Posts: 1112
Reputation: 66
votes: 5
Location: Nova Scotia

PostPosted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 7:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Double digits to hit the east not once but possibly twice this week. So here's what I believe, the more liberal provinces are getting all the mild temperatures this year thereby fueling fears of global warming, westerners tending to be more conservative suffering in the cold thereby hardering skeptism about global warming. Are the Liberals secretive controlling the weather in order to divide & conquer the country with their secret weather machines? :lol:
MtlAnglo





Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Posts: 3


PostPosted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 9:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey eveable, thanks for continuing this discussion with me. I'll be back after christmas to continue it, no time today and tomorrow though!

Have a good one

Oh and I did go to school, I just finished my degree at McGill thanks!
Capitalist Pig





Joined: 05 Dec 2008
Posts: 113
Reputation: 3.2Reputation: 3.2Reputation: 3.2
votes: 3

PostPosted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In my opinion, global warming or it's Orwellian changed name "climate change", is the biggest form of psychological warfare against human beings. It's pretty apparent that people don't want to swallow the communist pill, but environmentalism is a much easier pill to swallow. You don't want to hate trees, polar bears and other valuable natural assets.

What I find so funny about Global Warming is that people like Al Gore say there is a consensus on the science, yet I've heard a ton of theories on what exactly is global warming. I've heard that sun rays bouncing off the ocean and getting trapped in the CO2 filled atmosphere. I've heard that CO2 absorbs the Earth's long wave radiation. I've heard that the sun rays heat up the ocean, this causes heat (which rises), but can't escape to the upper atmosphere to cool.

How can there be a consensus on science when there are different theories on what is happening that involve different science. The "long wave radiation" theory is about the easiest to disprove. Only requires one word, ionosphere.

What scares me so much about this is how Orwellian it is. It's scary. There's people out there working to get the government to list carbon dioxide as a pollutant. It's nice to know that my breathing is criminal. Ecuador has given nature the same "inalienable rights" as human beings.

Quote:
The argument is that by sending up so much additional greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, from burning coal, agriculture, etc.. the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases is getting to be too high, and this will IN THE LONG RUN cause more warming than would otherwise occur. Think in terms of centuries, a single down-turn decade is not a big deal, climate change, as it is now understood by the scientific community, will have its effects over the long run.

Hasn't this been disproved? If not it requires just a little foresight.



A lot of people use this graph to "prove" global warming, even though all they're doing is correlating. And even they're doing a biased job at it.

Conventional wisdom of the global warming dogma would state that there shouldn't be a crash in temperatures, right? Those peaks are "hot" and full of CO2 so they should get hotter, not crash.

Global warming believers always say as CO2 goes up, temperature goes up. It's a nice way to correlate, but they lack the aptitude to correlate the other way. As temperature goes up, CO2 goes up. As temperature goes down, CO2 goes down.

If we go back to the graph, you'll see that the temp goes down and CO2 goes down. What exactly caused that? Well, if it is from the global warming theory, we can speculate that aliens came along and vacuumed the CO2 or magic pixies waved their magic wand and made it all disappear. Global warming "deniers" could say that the Earth's position in the solar system relative to the sun changes in cycles (which has proven), which ultimately effects the temperature of the Earth, hence the amount of CO2.

I remember reading an article at CTV like a year ago about "global warming". In the last few paragraphs, buried right at the bottom, the scientist is worried. He's worried because as the permafrost is melting, CO2 is being let out of the ground. He was saying that more CO2 is coming out of the permafrost than the Fossil Fuel industry is producing.

It makes me shake my head that science is being perverted this way. No one wants to look at all the evidence and do real work. All we have is biased people picking and choosing what "evidence" they'll look at, while ignoring other evidence. Hell, I could prove anything if I could ignore what I wanted to.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Capitalist Pig wrote:
In my opinion, global warming or it's Orwellian changed name "climate change", is the biggest form of psychological warfare against human beings. It's pretty apparent that people don't want to swallow the communist pill, but environmentalism is a much easier pill to swallow. You don't want to hate trees, polar bears and other valuable natural assets.

Exactly... I couldn't have said it better myself...

Push the buttons on most of the enviro-crusaders and they'll acknowledge one of their goals is massive reduction of human population. Since North America is fairly sparsely populated by comparison to other nations, I wonder how China and India feel about that proposition?

-Mac
eveable





Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 206
Reputation: 99.4Reputation: 99.4

PostPosted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is a link to the Global Warming Petition Project.

http://www.petitionproject.org....._HTML.html
eveable





Joined: 03 Jul 2008
Posts: 206
Reputation: 99.4Reputation: 99.4

PostPosted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A commercial by Greenpeace.


Link
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


The Global Warming Debate Should be Over

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB