hitops

I agree with that principle. Unfortunately we do not know if reducing CO2 has any social welfare benefit, while it definitely has a large social cost. It certainly is better, when the alternative is putting your head into a buzzsaw as 'the solution'. Sure you cut your head off, but at least you 'did something'.

Not when the uncertainty is so large we do not even know the direction of the effect, much less the magnitude. It is analogous to saying that I can still make decisions about a purchase even though I do not know what the item is, how it might help me, how much it costs, what it is for, or where to buy it. Yes, technically I could still make a decision on that. Unlikely to be a good one.

The burden of proof is on the one asserting the affirmative, in this case saying that something harmful will happen. I can no better prove a negative than I can prove that unicorns do not exist. Are you under the impression that the concern over CO2 is in any way related to humans breathing it? Please say no. What right does the natural environment have to change the atmospheric makeup? It has done so many times before. During the most comparable of those times such as the roman and medieval, things were actually better for humans rather than worse. That is pretty good evidence that we are not doomed from it. Regarding proposed long term effects, there is simply have no evidence to support them. Not only do we not know the degree of effect, we don't even know if it is positive or negative. Many problems with this analogy, the most important of which are: - Your drug was not around a thousand of years ago, demonstrating no negative effect on humanity. CO2 increases were. - Your drug can be tested in trials, it's claims are falsifiable. The claims regarding increased CO2 are not. - Nothing gets worse by not using your drug. There is no cost. There is an enormous cost to reducing CO2 in any meaningful way. A better analogy from the medical world would be cutting off your arm today to prevent the possibility of a cancer growing there one day. One cannot prove a negative. Not sure what oil companies have to do with anything. Can you prove that when you walk outside, a piano will not fall on you? No? Well obviously you should not leave your house. I'm not sure why you are obsessed with fossil fuels. They have no moral quality, they are simply a means to energy production. They happen to be the only viable means we have today to sustain anything close to what we consider a decent standard of living, in particular for the poorest areas of the world.

I would not like that. Unlike CO2, that would be potentially harmful to me. If I increased the oxygen concentration enough if your home enough, you would die. Ergo O2 is bad? There is no evidence that increasing CO2 will do anything significantly bad to us. Even if does warm the planet. Regardless of the fact that the models favoured by the IPCC overestimate warming, there is no way to know if the warming will even be a net positive or net negative. What am I being asked to do, by the IPCC and posters such as Waldo, is trust predictions made for future decades, based on models that cannot even reliably predict temperatures today when data points from decades past are inputted. Why would I do that? I'm a physician, my whole professional life is about making rational decisions.

What are you even asking here? If little is going to change, little adaptation is needed. There is nothing to prove. I cannot prove how to not respond to a non-problem. Regarding any typical adaptation for things like changing water levels, cities already do that. Over long periods of time, such as what we are talking about with warming, obviously that adaptation would be easier. http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/images/pics8/No-Warming-18-years-7-months-July-2015.png If you multiplied it by 10, it would still be unnoticeable relative to the world economy. I do not need to clarify straw mans that you attribute to me. I only need to clarify my own statements. If IPCC reports are not released until acceptance by political bodies, that is an obvious source of bias. Science is not supposed to depend on politicians. Why you believe this dependence is advantageous, is known only to you. Ad hominem is not an argument. More ad hominem. Nothing addressing the fact that Spencer's model does a better job than the 90 conventional models at predicting reality. It is almost comical to insist that an inferior model is actually a better one, since the superior model can be run on a spreadsheet. It does not matter if it can be run on an abacus. It is still better by the only test that ultimately matters - reality. It does not matter that my washing machine as 19 settings and yours has only 3, if yours does a better job.

I would suggest that was bad choice.

False. The paper I linked shows both the IPPC models and temperature projections, and how they differ from observations. This is what you asked for. But....since you didn't read it (your own words), I can understand why you would not recognize that. Fallacy of ad hominem. Each of Abraham's 9 objections, some of which you rephrase in the above, are dealt with here: http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/sceptic-climate-scientist-spencer-hits-back-at-critics.html But it come down to one main problem. Spencer's model better predicts observed, real-world results than those favoured and endorsed by the IPCC. None of the abundance of emotion, the quantity of words nor the derision in tone offered by yourself in the above, changes this reality. The test of failing is not whether Abraham or anyone else says it does. It is whether it works, measured against observed reality. And it does, better than the alternatives. That does not mean it is perfect, or that nobody will ever do better. It does mean it is the best we have for now. Terrestrial life includes flora, it thrives on CO2. CO2 has been around for all of human history and many years before it. The world's 'chemistry' has been altered many times before without the help of humans, and will likely be altered many more times in the future.

Or even if not, at least enough noise gets to be made by various parties that the end result is somewhat reflective of a compromise position generally representing the range and proportion of Canadian opinion.

Reflections: The one thing that cheers me about the otherwise unprecedented tsunami of hand-wringing nonsense, is that we will definitely find out what happens. There is no possibility of seriously lowering CO2 anytime soon, thank goodness. We will definitely find out if Bruce Willis needs to save us. See, since nothing serious is going to happen, if we actually impoverished ourselves and restricted third-work development, weather would continue on normally, and the climate change proponents would say 'see look it worked', and we would never know. It's like when Bush said he kept the US safe after 9/11....we have no clue if it would have been safe anyway. But since we definitely will not significantly alter the effects of CO2 at this point, we can look at how it keeps going up, everything keeps on basically just fine, and then be satisfied. Of course in the meantime, no matter what, we will have to endure references to global warming every single time a significant weather or geological event happens. You know.....the types of natural events that have always happened, and will always continue to happen. Whether it is raining outside, or not raining outside, it is bad....and of course....it is due to climate change. Furthermore, Glenn would not have been eaten by zombies if not for climate change. I wonder, then, in 50 years or so when we look back, will all the hand-wringers come out and say 'so sorry, we were wrong'? Of course not, they will be either dead or retired with their nest egg and university pension. Those that are not, will just slink back into the woodwork and hope we don't notice. Of course there will be a series of narratives built up to say 'well it would have happened if it wasn't for (insert new constructed 'totally unanticipated' event that means they were still right even though nothing they said came true, here). Because it is non-falsifiable, and no research, theory, nor reality itself will change that.

I bet you're right. I would argue there is no justification for young kids living there when there are alternatives.

Indeed Because that is what the paper shows. None of that addresses my statement. Rather than repeat it, I'll restate it by quoting Spencer: "On this point, how is it that Abraham et al. nitpick a 1D model that CAN explain the observations, but the authors do not fault the IPCC 3D models which CANNOT explain the observations The rest of the 'take-down' of the 'take-down' to use your words (sounds like a Jean Claude Van-Damme Movie no?): http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/sceptic-climate-scientist-spencer-hits-back-at-critics.html If you and I both build washing machines, but yours does a better job, it matters little that mine has 19 settings and your has 3. Ya but you missed his point. He laughs at Spencer, ergo, Spencer's model, though more accurate, should be disregarded. It's the scientific method.

Surprised to learn the place doesn't even have central a/c, just a bunch of window units.

'and the fact that you think that means that you are a.......' - not an argument Actually is the perfect example of climate change attribution. Something has been happening forever? = due to various factors. Same thing continuing to happen today = due to climate change. There is no better demonstration of how the story works. Could not describe the expert consensus on climate change any better.

Probably the one he specifically and unambiguously made. This. Dear person, We need engineers. I am sorry that math was beyond your attention span and infringing on your social schedule. I do not owe you money just because you decided to spend 7 years getting a double major in political science and gender studies. You are a grown up. That's the condition where you get make decision and then live with them. Sincerely, Somebody who made thoughtful vocational decisions based on what other people need in the real world, and put in the effort to match.

I didn't say the IPCC did extinction events. The scenarios they do, speaking of CO2 levels, have occurred in human history without the necessary connections to warming that the IPCC implies will occur. But regardless, if it does, they do not offer clear evidence that it will much matter. Sounds like you needed to vent here. You wandered across a few different areas. I'm not sure if there a specific point you want addressed. Well 'climate change' has no real specific meaning, so I'm not sure how I'm supposed to explain how we adapt physically to an idea. It is exactly analogous as if I said to you "badness is happening, what do you propose to stop the badness?" On warming, there is no trend for significant warning for nearly 20 years, so again I don't recommend adapting to something not clearly happening. But even if it is happening, it is not clear what the effect might be, or that we need any drastic measures to deal with it. http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2011/06/06/economics-adaptation-climate-change A negligible amount compared to trying to stop CO2 rise. And even that assumes nothing else will change. But a lot will change. Millions more will continue to develop and leave poverty just as they have for the last 20-30 years, continuing to increase global economic output and wealth. Those increases in global wealth will wipe out that cost of adaption many, many times over. But that will not happen if we insist on doing anything serious about reducing CO2 emissions. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13143-014-0011-z A distinction without a difference. It is the same as saying that doctors are all volunteers, because look medical conferences and professional bodies don't pay them salaries. You know better. So to be clear, you see the existence and direct reliance of the IPCC upon the political process as something making it more likely to be objective?

I'm still wondering if anyone can tell me, using the example given at the beginning of this thread about the couple earning $200,000, whether this changes anything if that $200,000 is paid as $100,000 each, totally in dividends?

They might, but we have no idea. And even assuming they do, we do not know whether they will be positive or negative. Am I supposed answer a question about sand eaters and gill people? Happening already you say....must have missed that paper.... An odd statement considering you neither know my economic views, nor the law of physics surrounding CO2 absorption. You should know better than this. Obviously everything bad that happens today is because of climate change. Sure all those things have always happened, but before that was for other reasons. Today, it is because of climate change. Yep, we should definitely impose enormous costs of everyone because somebody tinkered with their computer simulation until it said something 'may' happen. Airtight.

The narrative is always 'their country was destroyed', and 'colonialism and occupation did it'. These two giant glaring examples, the number 3 and 4 economies in the world today, are simply omitted from the story line. You must be kidding. ISIS is arguably the leading fairy-tale believing organization in the world today, of any note. Right, all that violence over the last several thousand years in that area, is due to climate change. This is the ultimate example of how non-falsifiable the climate change narrative is. Literally anything counts. Too bad their is no evidence it is doing that. There is plenty of evidence however, that raising the cost living substantially, which is what is proposed to fight climate change, does in fact do that.

I think we can know to much more accurate degree, the effects of de-indutrialization (or increased industrial costs), or lack of development of developing countries due to fossil fuel restrictions, than we can know the effects of climate change. We have many examples of the former and exactly the type suffering it creates, and none of the latter. Plus we can reliably estimate the cost of the former and the effect of that on the cost of living, whereas the actual dollar cost of the latter is really just speculation. It is quite easy to go from 'gas costs x today' to 'gas will cost y if proposal a is enacted tomorrow'. It is a total guessing game to know how living standards would change as a result of climate change. There are tons of example of nations going backwards (such as during communist times) and how scarcity, high costs and black markets change life. What will warming or more/less raining do? We don't even know what the changes will be, much less what the consequences are.

Quite right, the CPC was a largely a perception issue with things like Duffy not even cracking $100K, which was paid back, and issues like the Bev Oda $10 orange juice, etc. The Liberals were outright thieves in the most literal sense with tens or perhaps hundreds of millions of our money. I'm not going to be irrational and blame the PM elect for that, though. He is a wiener, but deserves a chance and should not pay for past party mistakes.

Well played, ha. But it is a relative statement, how is it hyperbolic?

Trudeau has only been there a week. The Liberal scandals of the past were straight up unequivocal theft of many millions of taxpayer dollars to help themselves and their friends. But Trudeau? Hard to say we can blame him for previous Liberal misdeeds.

It is unfortunate that this kind of hyperbole colors the debate. The planet is warming, very slowly and very little. It is not at all clear that this matters. It is not clear that any country will be wiped off the map. We have no idea if the changes are even net negative or positive. Some areas of the world's climate may change, there is no reason to assume some will not change for the better. The problem is that every conceivable change in any environment, is chalked up to climate change, whether or not there is a clear connection. We have always had hurricanes, we have always had el nino, we have always had flooding and droughts and changes in arable land. We are obviously going to notice a lot more of things today today, as our ability to notice things has never been greater. This is not an extinction event. We basically have no idea how severe it is, but changes far more drastic than even the worst case scenario posited by the IPCC, have occurred in human history and were not anything remotely close to extinction events. At one time a thousand or so years ago, it was warm enough that there were vineyards and wineries in Britain. For right now, the costs of trying to stop global warming are enormous. Firstly, Canada's impact is almost nothing, and we could de-industrialize our whole country without making a fraction of a dent in the 'problem'. Secondly, the costs of just dealing with changes in climate are orders of magnitude lower than trying to stop it. Attempts to stop 'climate change' are probably going to create far more suffering, death and poverty than any amount of climate change could, even by the worst predictions of the IPCC. Lastly, the IPCC's own best models, when you plug in data from 50 years ago and look at today, they badly overestimate temperatures. Why would I trust them to be any better in predicting something I cannot measure in the future? If you think scientists are non-emotional, morally perfect robots who do not respond to the same human incentives that everyone else does, I would call you naive. The IPCC is full of scientists who's own financial and professional livelihoods are directly dependent on, and inseparable from, the predictions being as bad as absolutely possible. We have no problem believing doctors might prescribe or treat based on their own financial interests. For some reason climate scientists are exempt from this basic understanding of human nature.

The house has evidently needed major repairs dating back several decades. It should just be fixed. Trudeau may not get to spend much time in it during his upcoming term. I'm not sure he will care much, it does not sound like it is the greatest place anyway. Perhaps a slight loss of convenience in getting to work. It is really not a political issue at all, it just has to get done.

I'd like that to be true, but it is simply not. He was not at war when he had little influence and power. As soon as he was powerful enough, he was at war for the duration of his life, and so were his immediate followers (including with each other after his death). It does not surprise me that many groups follow that example today. This is quite in contrast to Christianity, where the faith was basically marginalized and docile for hundreds of years until it became institutionalized into the state power structure of Rome, at which point it became politically expedient to be one, and thus the usual corruption story etc. Mohammed told his followed that most people in hell are women because they did not obey their husbands. He advocated warfare against all unbelievers. He proposed any non-believer in Muslim lands either convert or pay a tax. The essence of his message was that Muslims are superior, and naturally justified in ruling and oppressing non-Muslims. Jesus could not be a more starkly contrasting figure (I'm assuming we are calling Jesus the 'founder' of Christianity). Confucius as another example who's messaging does not lead adherents today to violence, generally. Mohammed is a unique figure and the fact that 95%+ of religiously-motivated deaths today are at the hands of his followers is consistent with the religious text and his life, not despite it.