Tories new attack ads on carbon tax

[jdobbin]

There's actually evidence that suggests pollution is offsetting the damage that CO2 is causing.

Citation from a reputable source? So the solution is to pollute more to stop CO2?

[Riverwind]

There's actually evidence that suggests pollution is offsetting the damage that CO2 is causing.

Actually there is not. 'Global dimming' due to pollutants is used to explain away the cooling in the 70s, however, the alarmists can only get away with that because we don't have any real data on the amount of pollutants in the atmosphere so the alarmists are free to pick whatever numbers they need to make their models work. However, that excuse does not explain the recent flat trend in temperatures since we have data to show that such an explanation is not plausible. More significantly, recent research has found that some pollutants such as black carbon (a.k.a. soot) actually cause warming and rapid snow/ice melt. This research suggests as much as 1/2 of the recent warming could be due to black carbon, however, the alarmist rent seekers ignore this research because it would undermine their claims that radical cuts to CO2 production are required. Ironically, assigning 1/2 of the warming to black carbon should be good news since black carbon is a problem that we can address with the technology we have today. Edited June 9, 2008 by Riverwind

[gc1765]

This research suggests as much as 1/2 of the recent warming could be due to black carbon...

Isn't black carbon produced by combustion of fossil fuels? So reducing combustion of fossil fuels would also reduce black carbon.

[gc1765]

I think pollution is a real problem.

How do you propose we solve such a problem?

[Riverwind]

Isn't black carbon produced by combustion of fossil fuels? So reducing combustion of fossil fuels would also reduce black carbon.

It is produced by combustion of any carbon based energy source. So replacing fossil fuels with any bio-fuel would create the same problem. More importantly, there is technology that allows us to virtually eliminate black carbon pollution even if we use fossil fuels. Edited June 10, 2008 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

No, there actually is evidence that suggests pollution is offsetting the damage that our CO2 emissions are causing.

Atmospheric Brown Clouds (ABCs) containing sub micron size particles, i.e, aerosols....intercept sunlight by absorbing as well as reflecting it, both of which, lead to a large surface dimming. The dimming effect is enhanced further because aerosols nucleate more cloud drops which makes the clouds reflect more solar radiation. The surface cooling from this dimming effect has masked the warming due to GHGs.

The surface cooling effect of ABCs may have masked as much 50% of the global warming. This presents a dilemma since efforts to curb air pollution may unmask the ABC cooling effect and enhance the surface warming.

Link

Global dimming is a new scientific theory that will warm every gas guzzling, toxin dumping, and smog-eating heart in America; in short, some climatologists now believe that pollution is saving our lives.

In the first week of September, NOVA aired an investigative program entitled "The Dimming of the Sun." In it, scientists discussed their findings that only a few days of suspended air travel in the aftermath of September 11th resulted in a marked temperature change in the atmosphere, indicating that the effects of American atmospheric pollution have been vastly underestimated to date.

Link

The suspension of air travel in the days following 9/11 certainly challenged the claim that human activities are too miniscule to have large scale effects on the climate. All that's needed is a similar suspension to test this claim. I would imagine such an experiment might cost a few billion dollars but probably next to nothing compared to throwing trillions away on CO2 reduction schemes. Perhaps the oil companies could dedicate a day or so's profit and charter all the planes for a few days and just park them.

OTOH, confirmation that we are impacting Earth's climate might make us think for a few moments before we cash in our biosphere.

Certainty could prove even more paralyzing than uncertainty. Col. Jessep's famous, "you can't handle the truth" comes to mind.

Edited June 10, 2008 by eyeball

[Riverwind]

No, there actually is evidence that suggests pollution is offsetting the damage that our CO2 emissions are causing.

Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego atmospheric scientist V. Ramanathan and University of Iowa chemical engineer Greg Carmichael, said that soot and other forms of black carbon could have as much as 60 percent of the current global warming effect of carbon dioxide, more than that of any greenhouse gas besides CO2.

Ramanathan and Carmichael said the conservative estimates are based on widely used computer model simulations that do not take into account the amplification of black carbon's warming effect when mixed with other aerosols such as sulfates. The models also do not adequately represent the full range of altitudes at which the warming effect occurs. The most recent observations, in contrast, have found significant black carbon warming effects at altitudes in the range of 2 kilometers (6,500 feet), levels at which black carbon particles absorb not only sunlight but also solar energy reflected by clouds at lower altitudes.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80323210225.htm

It is a more recent study by the same author. Sounds like he can't make up his mind.

The suspension of air travel in the days following 9/11 certainly challenged the claim that human activities are too miniscule to have large scale effects on the climate.

Actually, no one disputes that humans can affect the local weather patterns nor do people dispute that CO2 has some warming effect. The claim that is being disputed is that warming due to CO2 is likely to be a disaster.

Here is some food for thought (pun intended): http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/...-co2-the-cause/

[Bryan]

CO2 is an imaginary problem that is likely to be discredited in the next 10 years.

It's already been thoroughly discredited.

Since day 1 it has been all bluster with no substance.

You can say you don't like what the CPC's have done, and certainly some of their policies are open to serious debate, but it's ludicrous to suggest that they haven't done anything. They are by far the most effective Government I've ever seen at any level at systematically going through their policy platform and bringing forth the corresponding legislation one after another.

[Riverwind]

It's already been thoroughly discredited.

I wish that was the case, unfortunately, too many people simply believe what they are told by the media and the media coverage of the issue has been rediculously one-sided.

[Alta4ever]

Citation?

Government Hansard, years 1993 through 2008

[Shakeyhands]

Government Hansard, years 1993 through 2008

witty.....

[jdobbin]

Government Hansard, years 1993 through 2008

Just more bogus claims by the right wing.

Try giving more credible citations next time.

Edited June 10, 2008 by jdobbin

[Argus]

And no amount of evidence could ever make you change your mind.

Unlike yourself, I have no ideological commitment to one side or another in this particular debate. If I read or hear evidence which clearly shows that CO2 emissions are causing harm, and a real plan which will have significant effect I would support it. However, the evidence I've seen to date is rife with suppositions and seems to rely on computer models whose accuracy has been called into question. As to our being able to affect CO2 emissions, even if that is a problem, I have not seen how we could do that. Kyoto and its successors are extraordinarily expensive plans which, even if successful, would accomplish virtually nothing of substance.

[eyeball]

Whatever else one can say about the integrity of GW or economic policies the levels of skepticism or certainty towards the science and theories underlying them is an interesting topic.

I'm not an economist or a climatologist, the most I could say about either is that the subects they study are huge and complex. As a voter however I am responsible for choosing a policy based on what these sciences find and report. What are the vast majority of laymen to do when faced with the question of who or what to believe? Add up and compare the number of believing and disbelieving scientists?

Why does the level of certainty or consensus that's required of scientists regarding climate policies appear to be far in excess of the level of certainty or consensus required of economists and their policies? As I understand it the level of consensus that AGW is real and that immediate action on our part is required is still in excess of 90%. Is there a comparable amount of consensus towards our economic policies and the theories they are based on? How much doubt must exist amongst economists before our economic policies are questioned or changed...10...20...51%?

In lieu of some sort of universal standard, ideological committment is pretty much the only thing driving people's decisions. This cannot be a good thing.

Edited June 10, 2008 by eyeball

[gc1765]

It is produced by combustion of any carbon based energy source. So replacing fossil fuels with any bio-fuel would create the same problem. More importantly, there is technology that allows us to virtually eliminate black carbon pollution even if we use fossil fuels.

I never suggested that we replace fossil fuels with bio-fuels. I am suggesting that we should reduce our overall energy use.

[myata]

I'm fine with Harper's (or anybody else's, for that sake) personal beliefs. It's really a private matter, and no amount of objective evidence can change that. This is not the forum to discuss diverse scientific theories (if only for impossibility of any kind of qualification check), but simply from following mainstream media (Arctic ice melt, glaciers retreat, CO levels in the atmosphere, acidity of ocean water, global temperature trend, yada, etc) there's pretty good picture that something is going to happen. On the other hand, there's very good consensus among the scientists, environmentalists, and even many politicians, that something needs to be done, and quick.

The problem I find with this particular party, and the government is that it says as we want it to hear, but acts according to their private ideological beliefs. It's very sad that the official opposition will let them get away with pretty much anything, waiting for second coming (of leadership aptitudes, for Dion).

[madmax]

I never suggested that we replace fossil fuels with bio-fuels. I am suggesting that we should reduce our overall energy use.

No, You are suggesting a TAX will save the earth from certain doom.

What a load of bullocks.

[madmax]

On the other hand, there's very good consensus among the scientists, environmentalists, and even many politicians, that something needs to be done, and quick.

How quick? When are we toast?

The problem I find with this particular party, and the government is that it says as we want it to hear, but acts according to their private ideological beliefs. It's very sad that the official opposition will let them get away with pretty much anything, waiting for second coming (of leadership aptitudes, for Dion).

Very insightful. I think that is an accurate assessment to date of both parties.

Edited June 10, 2008 by madmax

[Riverwind]

What are the vast majority of laymen to do when faced with the question of who or what to believe? Add up and compare the number of believing and disbelieving scientists?

One of the problems that laymen have is they don't really understand what the scientific peer review process is and what it means for the science that comes out of the process. A few points to consider:

1) Peer review really means review by rivals, buddies or entrenched leaders in the field. Each case leads to biases that mean that bad papers which happen to agree with the reviewer's preconceptions get an easy ride and good papers that challenge these preconceptions get carefully examine and can be rejected arbitrarily. This is true is all scientific fields - not just climate science.

2) The funding and professional status of a scientist depends on the number of peer reviewed papers that get published. For this reason, all scientists have an incentive to avoid taking controversial positions that would likely delay/prevent publications of papers. Obviously, scientists sometimes have ideas that challenge the status quo and they are willing to fight for them - however, these kinds of situations are the exception in a system where a scientist is judged by the quantity of publications.

3) The scientists that participate in the IPCC process are allowed to promote their own work in the documents they author. This means they will omit or minimize any work by rivals that come to different conclusions. More importantly, the authors of the IPCC reports are told what the answers are supposed to be (i.e. CO2 is a disaster and massive government intervention is required) and the authors are expected to collect the science that supports the predetermined conclusions. This means the IPCC reports cannot be treated as unbiased judge of the state of science. They are better described as the case made by the prosecuting attorney.

4) There is a huge difference between the standard of proof required by scientific researchers and the standard of proof required by engineers. Important concepts in science are introduced with relatively short papers in scientific journals. The data used to support the conclusions stated in the paper are often not made available because others are expected to refute the claims by collecting their own data and doing their own analysis. Engineers support their claims with reports that can be 1000s of pages long and provide all the information that would allow a external auditor to check the engineer's work. Engineers have to be so verbose because they can be sued for making mistakes. Scientists face no sort of accountability and will often make claims that simply cannot be supported by the data and can get away with it because the onus of disproving their claims is placed on others. This lack of accountability for mistakes means that we need to be very cautious about adopting policies based solely on the opinion of scientists.

Edited June 10, 2008 by Riverwind

[Wild Bill]

Interesting! The last 5 posters illustrate perfectly the difference between the scientific and the layman approach to such issues. It centres around the value one places on "consensus" as a tool to deal with such problems.

To a layman with everyday problems consensus can be a useful tool. Odds are that most people have had similar problems and a consensus of opinion likely will deliver workable solutions.

Not so with scientific issues. While a consensus of opinion might inspire a certain confidence in a theory or belief, true scientists understand that the universe works on its own terms and a new fact could be discovered that blows a widely held theory out of the water! Scientific issues require a certain amount of scientific education to make one capable of forming a worthwhile opinion. Without such, any consensus falls apart, since relatively few of those casting an opinion understand the issue well enough to cast an informed vote.

With GW we seem to be looking at a "consensus" actually made up of a few thousand scientists, with strong arguments about how many are actually in an associated scientific field and not something unrelated and millions of laymen, who seem caught up in the drama of "saving the planet!" From the perspective of a political movement this is impressive. From a scientific perspective it is at best silly and at worse rather frightening.

Meanwhile there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of other scientists who DON't agree with GW who either are afraid for their jobs and thus keep quiet or who simply are not in a public enough position to be heard!

Whatever we choose to believe, perhaps it would be worthwhile if we at least understood the difference that makes consensus inappropriate in a scientific setting before we committed vast sums of money and resources at a problem. As a country we are NOT infinitely rich and we could perhaps better use some of that money for medical or social assistance budgets.

[jdobbin]

Meanwhile there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of other scientists who DON't agree with GW who either are afraid for their jobs and thus keep quiet or who simply are not in a public enough position to be heard!

I find that claim to be bogus. Is that a layman's view that there are hundreds of thousands of fearful scientists who totally disagree with global warming?

Edited June 10, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

The National Post column says the Tory attack is like "swiftboating."

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/p...peter-puck.aspx

It’s all pretty juvenile and nasty, much like Question Period these days. The Tories seem not to have absorbed the aversion Canadians have for this sort of thing. In the 2004 U.S. election the Republicans successfully turned John Kerry’s superb war record against him, amassing so much rancidly misleading airtime that a man with three Purple Hearts for service in Vietnam somehow lost to a guy who managed to sucessfully avoid ever leaving the U.S.

[gc1765]

1) Peer review really means review by rivals, buddies or entrenched leaders in the field. Each case leads to biases that mean that bad papers which happen to agree with the reviewer's preconceptions get an easy ride and good papers that challenge these preconceptions get carefully examine and can be rejected arbitrarily. This is true is all scientific fields - not just climate science.

You can usually choose or suggest who reviews your papers.

2) The funding and professional status of a scientist depends on the number of peer reviewed papers that get published. For this reason, all scientists have an incentive to avoid taking controversial positions that would likely delay/prevent publications of papers. Obviously, scientists sometimes have ideas that challenge the status quo and they are willing to fight for them - however, these kinds of situations are the exception in a system where a scientist is judged by the quantity of publications.

Scientists are also judged by the quality of papers. Papers that go against the status quo are usually more significant, and thus end up in better journals like Science or Nature.

[Wild Bill]

I find that claim to be bogus. Is that a layman's view that there are hundreds of thousands of fearful scientists who totally disagree with global warming?

Not at all! I do not consider myself a layman in such matters. I'm neither an expert nor accredited but I have worked and studied in scientific fields all my life and feel that I'm at least more qualified than the average social baseline. After all, the majority of citizens could not explain how a light bulb works, which is a simple device more than a hundred years old. Explaining a telegraph sounding unit would be out of the question. I'm willing to bet at least 3 beer that of any 10 people that YOU chose at random from off the street to explain how a florescent lamp works you'd be damn lucky to get a majority who could do it. I'll even let you chose the brand!

As for the "fearful scientists", I direct you to an excellent series that ran in the National Post called "The Deniers". You can read all the many articles at their website. You might also read up on the Nobel Prize Winner Kary Mullis.

Or do you define layman as anyone who happens to disagree with you? If so then by your definition I guess I'm guilty. However, surely you'll understand if I don't support your views if they happen to imply taxing me more excessively. I'd like to "save the planet" as much as anyone else but I need considerably more than David Suzuki and Al Gore to convince me.

[myata]

Very insightful. I think that is an accurate assessment to date of both parties.

Not true, if one cares to give it an honest thought. Kyoto was ratified somewhere in 2000 (we had a thread on that, correct me if I'm wrong). Before that, Liberals had two major problems on their hands: 1) unity (1995 referendum); and 2) restoring the economy, after previous, close to disastrous Mulroney's rule. Given these two, certain reluctance to add major new unbalancing factor (such as a federal program to impose serious environmental constraints on the economy) can be understood. They can get some slack from me, for their actual real results of what the country still being together, and the economy is puffing along.

Not 100% slack though (in the Chretien's later years there was a good opportunity to put forward a serious environmental program; with wide support in the public, and economy on a good stable footing; however by that time Chretien was busy with internal opposition). In any case, maybe in part for that reason, Liberals were defeated, so they paid the price. I'm more interested in what didn't happen under this current government, than the previous one. And what isn't happening is Harper's living up to his committment to abide by Kyoto, and put forward a serious GHG reduction program. That's exactly it: he can say that he thinks, and see how it'd fly with the public; or he can admit that public wants to see some real movement on this issue, and work honestly and in good faith (and cooperation with the opposition) to make things happen.

True to their roots, Conservatives are doing neither. They'll never dare to openly state their private beliefs (and disbeliefs). And they simply won't do anything that goes against their social conservative doctrines; and the worst thing is that nobody's there to call their shameful game.