biotk

I don't have the time or ability to create one myself right now, but I will say this - the Northern Ontario riding I mentioned would be 25% bigger than the provinces of Manitoba, Saskachewan, and Alberta. While it would be smaller than the NWT and Nunavut, it would be almost twice the size of the Yukon and with a population more than 16 times that of the Yukon. And would consist of a population for which there is absolutely nothing in common except for being angry that that have been stuffed together.

So are we going to have a riding that combines the current Kenora, Thunder Bay-Superior North, Thunder Bay-Rainy River, Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing, Timmins-James Bay, Nipissing-Timiskaming, Sault Ste Marie? Because that is 7 member ridings, and already both Kenora and Timmins-James Bay are ridiculously large. If such a proposal went up for a referendum, I can't picture it getting more than 5% among the local constituents. I personally view this as a non-starter anywhere outside of the largest cities.

Not true the letter speaks to both development and deployment. Nowhere does it say that it referring specifically to 4th gen. Nowhere does it say that it is only talking about deployment after future development. As Hansen made clear during an interview at the time of the letter: "The best candidate to avoid that is nuclear power. It's ready now. We need to take advantage of it." A policy to do nothing is better then a terrible policy to march off in the wrong direction. We have already seen that Sweden and France achieved far, far more in a much shorter period of time despite no policy than any nation has done since with policies directed by anti-science ideologues. There are plenty of other things that can be done instead of wrong-headed energy policies. They could use a fraction of the money to tackle malaria, HIV/AIDS, education and health care in the third world. All of which would help bring down reproductive rates and result in long term positive effects of emissions. They could use a fraction of the money to educate their own populations against the constant drum of misinformation spread by organizations that profit from creating baseless fear leaving the population in a better position to deal with problems in the future. They could invest a fraction of the money in R+D. If a company goes to a government and tells them that they must approve a certain policy that benefits the company in question, but is bad public policy while being more expensive for achieving poorer results. I expect the government to say no - and do what it is the public interest. I expect the same thing when environmental groups are demanding bad public policy. If the government is not willing to accept their wrath and implement good, science and evidence-based policies, then I expect them to at least have the decency to not waste time and money on bad, fear-mongering and pseudoscience-based policies - and in the process rewarding the very groups who are responsible for the baseless fear and misinformation within their populations.

Nonsense. Hansen does advocate for nuclear in its current form. Of course, he does strongly advocate for R+D into fourth generation nuclear plants to bring them online as fast as possible. But he also advocates for third generation nuclear plants - making it clear in his book that as those plants are ready to be built right now they would lead the way in getting us off coal. In that same book he talks about meeting with Merkel's minister of the environment in which he advised against their position of phasing out/taking off line their existing nuclear plants and he has published on the lives saved and emissions not created by the current generation of nuclear plants. Yes, I would have us do nothing about emissions reductions until we are serious about actually doing something. At the current moment we are just wasting time and money painting a fantasy that it can be done with windmills, solar etc. As long as we live at a time when 300 plus environmental groups will attack Hansen for talking about reality instead of fantasies, and when those same ideological, anti-science groups hold unearned influence over politicians (as outlined again in Hansen's book): "I was bombarded with messages from environmentalists and antinuclear people. Mostly it was friendly advice—after all, they agreed with my climate concerns—but they invariably directed me to one or more of a handful of nuclear experts. Some of the experts were associated with organizations such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, the World Wildlife Fund, or the Union of Concerned Scientists—and there was Amory Lovins of Rocky Mountain Institute. Then I learned that the same small number of organizations and experts, who had been repeating the same message for decades, had an influence way out of proportion to their numbers. I found that members of Congress and their staffers, none of them nuclear scientists, were getting most of their advice on nuclear power from the same organizations. The organizations trot out the same few “experts,” who speak with technical detail that snows the listener and who conclude that the United States, in effect, should terminate peaceful use of nuclear energy. That’s what began to make me a bit angry. Do these people have the right to, in effect, make a decision that may determine the fate of my grandchildren? The antinuke advocates are so certain of their righteousness that they would eliminate the availability of an alternative to fossil fuels." ...as long as we live in such a time when the anti-science mobs of unreason control our allowed responses to climate change, I say do nothing except try to educate people, and counter the steady steams of lies spread by these groups. Of course if people and environmental groups want to put up windmills and solar panels, all the power to them. But the public reponse should not be beholden to the delusions of ideological anti-science groups.

Emissions reductions was not the goal. Being protected from oil price shocks was. I take climate change very seriously. Seriously enough that unlike the rest of the greens/environmentalists I know I was willing to drop my ideological positions in favour of science-based ones. That is not according to me. That is the numbers. I can, and will, post the numbers. But it shouldn't be necessary for me to post them for you, because people who claim to be concerned about climate change and the solutions to it should already know the examples where reductions in emissions were most successful. They don't because it was not achieved using the preferred solutions of the section of the environmental movement that is ideological and anti-science at its core. But history matters. Or at least it should. It reminds me of a recent article I read about food. An article by a real expert, who actually knows what she is talking about. So of course she is ignored by the same group of activists. She makes clear that they are not wrong to want to change the food system. But because what they "know" is wrong and based on a set of fantasies their proposed solutions are wrong - ahistorical, classist and dangerous. You can call it what you want. I don't care about words. I care about science. I care about results. I care about the fact that we have essentially accomplished nothing in the past 25 years, despite prior evidence from two countries showing what could be done. And I care about the environmental movement, which I spent most of my life in, continuing to spread baseless lies about nuclear, and continuing to consider the best current technology we have for reducing emissions to be a non-starter. And that it is doing so while telling climate change deniers to put science ahead of ideology and to listen to scientists like James Hansen while completely refusing to put science ahead of their own ideological based position and ignoring the same scientists like James Hansen when he says: "There is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power." and: "Continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity's ability to avoid dangerous climate change." It does. The current environmental movement is as much a threat as climate change deniers (and that is me being kind, because in reality I believe that most policy makers essentially ignore climate change deniers, and that the reason we are not successful in emissions reductions is because of the lack of quality in the solutions brought forth by environmentalists). So in 24 years Germany has managed to achieve: 90% of what France achieved in 9 years (from 1979 - 1988) and 64% of what Sweden achieved in 14 years. That essentially works out to 1/3rd the emissions reductions per year as France and Sweden achieved. Keep in mind that in this case we are comparing the best green example with two countries for which ghg emissions reductions were not the goal, but a happy side effect. German emissions Swedish emissions (24.1 MT in 1976, 14.0 MT in 1990) French emissions (529 MT in 1979, 372 in 1988). Letter from James Hansen and other climate scientists. If the world built nuclear plants at the rate Sweden did there would be no need for fossil fuels in 25 years. If the people who claim to care about climate change the most can't put aside their nonsensical beliefs then how can they expect those who don't care to do so?

I think that this is a decent summary. The developed world will not destroy it's economy to stop climate change, and environmentalists will continue to ensure that the only solutions that governments can embark on will destroy their economy. That, of course, doesn't need to be the case. Sweden lowered their carbon emissions by 42% in 14 years between 1976 and 1990 without any concern for climate change, and in the 25 years since have really not lowered emissions much at all despite actually trying to. The same goes for France - lowered their carbon emissions by 30% in 9 years between 1979 and 1988 despite it not being their goal, and again have done far less well in that department in the almost 3 decades since despite lowered emissions actually being the goal (and emissions will likely start to rise there soon because of their new "green" friendly President). Of course Germany is the country that greens love and they set an ambitious target of lowering their emissions by 40% between 1990 and 2020. As Sweden lowered theirs by more then 40% in less than half the time, it shouldn't have been that hard, but Germany will not come close. That desired drop of 500 million tonnes of CO2 in 30 years worked out to about 17 MT a year. In the first 10 years they averaged a drop of 21 MT, and they should have picked up the pace after that. After all the year 2000 was the year the Green Party (as part of the governing coalition) achieved their one major political accomplishment. Since that time Germany has averaged reducing CO2 by only 9 MT a year and Germany may reach their 40% CO2 reduction target in 41 years (instead on 30 years) - meaning that they are spending a whole lot more money to achieve results 1/3rd as fast as Sweden and France did without trying.

Sure, but there is a difference between someone speaking about party/government policies they don't like, and someone who chose to run for a party which has outlined their position. In the past I was asked to run for the NDP nomination in my riding, and twice I was asked to be the Green Party candidate in elections. Each time it surprised me, as I didn't have a membership in either party, but I was known in the community, I am a scientist, and I am left-wing environmentalist. So they felt I would be a good fit. I disagreed and turned all three down, in part, because of disagreements I have with their platforms. I was (and am) appalled by some of the anti-science positions they have taken (predominantly on nuclear and GMOs). If you are dissatisfied with one or more of their positions, and those specific positions are important to you, then I think that you shouldn't run.

There have been continuously since the Romans introduced them. They disappeared, for the most part, a couple hundred years ago due to a disease epidemic followed up with free trade policies that left local wine less able to compete. It had zero to do with climate change.

Sure. But they already knew going in that the cabinet was going to be 50:50. And they have already known that for decades other factors like geography were involved in the cabinet selection process.

Yes the PCs had lost the election by the time the ad came along. I had said that they had started to slide. However, the ad was what shifted them from likely official opposition to unrecoverable destruction. Regardless it was not the deeply unpopular Mulroney who sunk the PCs. As for the famous quote about an election not being the time to discuss serious issues. It is a great line that is talked about all the time, but may have been completely taken out of context: "Did prime minister Kim Campbell once quip that “an election is no time to discuss serious issues”? Not really. This is one of the most famous Canadian political quotations of all time, but according to Campbell’s memoirs, Time and Chance, it’s cited completely out of context. During the 1993 federal election, Campbell’s Conservative government was accused by the NDP of having a “secret agenda” to unilaterally reform various social programs, including unemployment insurance, without first engaging in customary consultations with the provinces. Campbell responded by reaffirming that she was absolutely committed to holding such discussions — after her government was re-elected. “I was then asked [by a reporter],” writes Campbell, “if I didn’t think that it was possible to have that dialogue during the election campaign, and I replied ‘I think that’s the worst possible time to have that kind of dialogue.’” “When [the reporter] asked why, I explained, ‘Because it takes longer than forty-seven days to tackle an issue that’s that serious.’” She later added, “This is not the time, I don’t think, to get involved in a debate on very serious issues.” In other words, Campbell’s comment about not wanting to discuss “serious issues” during an election was quite focused and specific. She did not want, as prime minister, to discuss social program reform with the provincial governments during the election she was currently running in, though out of context her phrasing made it sound like she was making a broader statement about serious issues and elections in general." http://www.thecanadaguide.com/canadian-urban-legends

Mulroney was deeply unpopular at the time, but Campbell was popular - more popular than Chretien. The PCs under Campbell were tied with the Liberals in the polls for the first 3 weeks of the campaign before starting to slide. The infamously stupid ad attacking Chretien for having a facial deformity finished the PCs off, and tanked Campbell's approval rating.

Why? Trudeau made this clear before the election. If a candidate didn't like it they could have dropped out and allowed someone who agreed with the Party's values to run instead.

It is from Environment Canada.

That is not true. The GPC has run 5 campaigns with a full-slate of candidates. 2 of those elections were pre-May, 3 post-May. In 2008 they received the most votes, followed by 2006 (pre-May), 2015, 2004 and 2011. With the exception of 2008, the Greens have shown over the last 5 elections that they are essentially a 600K vote party. In terms of vote share the last two elections they have received 3.91% and 3.45%. In the two elections prior to May they received 4.32% and 4.48% despite being essentially invisible during the campaign, and with a leader that no one could name.

I think that this misrepresents the document. The document was not peer-reviewed and it was not put together by a group of people chosen by a major scientific organization, journal or university etc because they were leaders in their relevant fields. This group of scholars came together because they were like-minded people who already agreed on the outcome. It is no different than if a group of Austrian School economics devotees came together to write a document about how the Australian School is the best way to solve our problems. There is a strong consensus on climate change, but that does not mean that there is a strong consensus on the actions to take. The article here talks about what the author labels as the three distinct groups of intellectuals who are advocating for action on climate change: the ecological activists, the smart growth reformers, and the ecomodernists. The current manifesto and the document you have referred to are all created by people who are clearly and strongly in the first group. That doesn't mean that they are necessarily wrong or misguided (on a personal level I think they are completely wrong-headed, guided by ideology, emotions and feel-good platitudes instead of evidence, and will cause damage if they manage to influence policy makers to any significant degree; but I am biased and strongly in the ecomodernist camp myself), but there is certainly no scientific consensus behind their desired actions - and the positions opposing nuclear and embracing inefficient agriculture that most ecological activists (including the ones behind both this manifesto and the document in question) leave some scientists (like myself) frustrated that these groups care only about pushing an ideological agenda and are using fear of climate change to do so without actually caring about the science, evidence-based solutions, or the best outcomes.