Tories new attack ads on carbon tax

[noahbody]

That doesn't mean that it isn't still revenue neutral. In the first year the government could take in $1.1 billion, and give out $1.1 billion in other tax cuts. In year two the government might take in $1 billion, and take in $1 billion less through other taxes. Either way, you end up with the same amount of money in your pocket.

That assumes companies will only raise their prices enough to cover the increased tax they pay. And they will lower prices as their taxation lowers. Dream on.

[Riverwind]

I really tire of this. The point is the number of scientists with RELEVANT degrees who are not paid for their opinions who are strong AGW critics is VERY small.

What is tiring is you think that websites such as 'desmog blog' and 'exxon secrets' actually contain anything other that lies, half truths and propaganda. It is ridiculous that you seem to think that any association with 'oil money' automatically taints everything that someone has to say but you imply all of the money given to alarmists is free of all strings. In fact, there is more money to be made promoting climate alarmism than climate realism. If you really believe that money taints research then you should be extremely sceptical of climate alarmism.

There has been a lot more money put into global warming than the cause of ulcers. Every argument put up by anti-AGW types has been shot down by good research. Is there a 0 percent chance that AGW is wrong ? Well ...no..but its getting closer by the day.

Good research? You got to be kidding. Most of the latest research consists of finding new and interesting ways to manipulate any real data that happens to contradict the climate models. I noticed that realclimatepropaganda has yet another paper where the the alarmists have gone back and "adjusted" inconvenient measurements for ocean heat content. Another recent paper proposed that wind speed measured by tracking weather balloons is a better measure of temperature than the actual thermometers attached to the balloons! These kinds of tactics should raise warning flags for any objective person who is understands the scientific method.

Now I recognize that sometimes measurements are bad and adjusting the data can sometimes be justified, however, in the last 10 years there has been an endless stream of data adjustments that always end up providing a better fit to the climate models. Unfortunately, each time this happens this reduces the amount of confidence we can have in the models because adjusted data is no longer independent of the models and cannot be used as evidence of their correctness.

This was the EXACT argument that the tobacco companies used for years (and would have used for another century if they could). They had the same small minority of scientists just like you do.

And they had a point in the 50s. However, each smoker that died from lung cancer became an independent experiment result and once enough people died the statistical link between tobacco and cancer became too strong to ignore despite the fact that it is virtually impossible to prove a causal link. However, we only have one planet and a single experiment which means it is impossible to build a case for CO2 from statistical analysis. The only way to demonstrate that the theory is correct is to make predictions with the theory and demonstrate that the predictions were correct. The trouble is when the predictions are wrong the climate scientists go back and manipulate the data and claim that they were right all a long. Such tactics may serve propaganda purposes but tell us nothing about whether the theory is correct or not.

I tend to post on global warming topics only because most anti-AGW stuff I read insults my intelligence. I really don't see much of a downside for Canada due to AGW (in terms of the economy anyway). We really do not have that much land that will flood, there is huge wealth in the arctic, more land will be open for farming.

Gee that's funny. I don't stand to lose much if radical carbon policies were introduced and would definitely come out ahead financially with Dion's tax. I post on this topic because I was shocked to discover the how bad the AGW science is.

[gc1765]

That assumes companies will only raise their prices enough to cover the increased tax they pay. And they will lower prices as their taxation lowers. Dream on.

Are you saying there is no competition in Canada?

[noahbody]

Are you saying there is no competition in Canada?

I guess you could look at the auto industry and ask yourself why Canadian and US prices aren't the same.

[gc1765]

I guess you could look at the auto industry and ask yourself why Canadian and US prices aren't the same.

Or you could ask yourself why companies don't keep raising prices as it is? Why charge $10,000 for a car when you can charge $50,000?

[peter_puck]

What is tiring is you think that websites such as 'desmog blog' and 'exxon secrets' actually contain anything other that lies, half truths and propaganda.

I am going to have to look at those sites....but while I am here...

You and fellow posters speak of half truths and lies, but half truth and lies is all I get out of you and the whole anti-AGW movement.

I get "hey there is no consensus, look at the senate list of 400 prominent scientists". It turns out almost none are "prominent", a good hunk don't even have Phd's at all. Many of those who do don't have them in science.

I get "hey, there are plenty of peer-reviewed anti-AGW papers and as proof I get a link that contains A) Pro AGW papers, Papers that are submitted to journals that no one recognizes in the scientific community and C) papers written by people lacking the proper background.

I get post calling Dr Ball Canada's greatest climate scientists. They I find out why you don't like to quote from him anymore.

I go to anti-AGW websites and I find information to confuse the uneducated. I find people trumpeting meaningless correlations. I find long debunked studies been shown to an audience that does not know they have been debunked.

Almost the entire anti-AGW movement is based on lies and half-truths.

It is ridiculous that you seem to think that any association with 'oil money' automatically taints everything that someone has to say but you imply all of the money given to alarmists is free of all strings.

Oil money does not automatically taint everything. But it seems rather disturbing how many global warming skeptics can be tied to oil companies. It is even more disturbing that they go to great lengths to hide their ties to big oil Furthermore this money seems to be spent on publicity rather than science.

In fact, there is more money to be made promoting climate alarmism than climate realism. If you really believe that money taints research then you should be extremely sceptical of climate alarmism.

If I found out that the bicycle industry was behind a study, I would be more suspicious of it. You have to realise, however, that most of the core AGW theories were developed long before it became an issue. Most of the basic science supporting this came about long before it became a political issue.

Good research? You got to be kidding. Most of the latest research consists of finding new and interesting ways to manipulate any real data that happens to contradict the climate models. I noticed that realclimatepropaganda has yet another paper where the the alarmists have gone back and "adjusted" inconvenient measurements for ocean heat content. Another recent paper proposed that wind speed measured by tracking weather balloons is a better measure of temperature than the actual thermometers attached to the balloons! These kinds of tactics should raise warning flags for any objective person who is understands the scientific method.

It continues to amaze me how you can figure all this stuff out yet it fools all those guys with Phds can't. Do you ever consider that maybe you are falling victim to the "lies and half truths".

And they had a point in the 50s. However, each smoker that died from lung cancer became an independent experiment result and once enough people died the statistical link between tobacco and cancer became too strong to ignore despite the fact that it is virtually impossible to prove a causal link.

They had a point in the 50's ? The "junk science guy" was working for them in the in the 80's, and the climate scientist you listed said it much later than that. Do you really think you should be trusting such people ? I really think I would have a better chance getting an honest answer out of a politician than an anti-AGW "scientist"

[Riverwind]

Almost the entire anti-AGW movement is based on lies and half-truths.

Ok. I realize that I have not been very clear on this point in my posts, however, I do agree that a lot of anti-AGW sites do pedal a lot of crap. I have waded through most of it and done my best to seperate the junk from the substance by looking at the arguments and counter arguments. That is why I have said over and over again that humans are causing the CO2 in the atmosphere to increase and that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause the planet the warm. For me the unsettled issues are:

1) How much warming if CO2 is doubled?

2) What are the probable consequences of that warming?

3) Can we practically do anything about the amount of CO2 emitted?

We really don't have the answers to those questions at this time but that has not stopped legions of activists are out there trying to bully politicians into believing that we do have answers to them.

If I found out that the bicycle industry was behind a study, I would be more suspicious of it. You have to realise, however, that most of the core AGW theories were developed long before it became an issue. Most of the basic science supporting this came about long before it became a political issue.

Scientists depend on governments for funding so need problems that get the government's attention. Claiming that CO2 will cause another 0.5 degC increase in temperatures over the next 100 years and that we won't notice the difference will not get anybody funding. Claiming that a catastrophe is looming that requires major government intervention to stop will open the funding flood gates. To make matters worse, access to government funding depends on the opinion of one's peers so scientists have very little incentive to deviate far from the 'consensus' once it is established.

In other words, the mechanisms we use to fund scientific research introduce a bias into the science that is far more insidious than any industry funding. Now this does not automatically mean that the output of the research is wrong but this bias must be taken into account.

It continues to amaze me how you can figure all this stuff out yet it fools all those guys with Phds can't. Do you ever consider that maybe you are falling victim to the "lies and half truths".

What you are missing is that there are guys with Phds that are critizing this stuff. I realize that you seem to think that you can safely ignore plausible well thought out arguments by qualified people if it is not published in one of a selected set of 'reputable' journals. Personally, I think arguments should be evaluated on their merits.

BTW - Most of the people who's arguments I consider worth looking at claim to be AGW 'believers' (e.g. Peilke Sr.) but feel that the role of CO2 has been grossly exagerrated. I only look at Milloy's site because he has put together a good collection of raw data and provides some good overviews of the basic science.

Edited June 22, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

That doesn't mean that it isn't still revenue neutral. In the first year the government could take in $1.1 billion, and give out $1.1 billion in other tax cuts. In year two the government might take in $1 billion, and take in $1 billion less through other taxes. Either way, you end up with the same amount of money in your pocket.

Let's say a significant number of Canadians take their tax break and use it to get a loan to pay the capital cost of CO2 free energy sources (e.g. geothermal, solar, hybrid car, etc). This would be a big problem for the government because it would no longer collect taxes from these people. The government would need to make up the lost revenue by increasing other taxes or cutting services. In either case, the people with the loans end up futher behind because they have still have to make payments on the loans while they pay the higher taxes or reduced services.

Do you have a citation for the cost of implementing a carbon tax vs. implementing the GST?

Businesses add up all of the GST they pay, subtract it from the GST the collect and send they difference to the government. Small business don't even have to do that and can opt for the simple method of submitting 3-4% of the gross sales. Businesses that export products are not penalized because they don't collect GST on goods that they export. A carbon tax could be simply implemented as something that increases the cost of business inputs, however, it is unlikely that politicians would be able to resist demands by businesses that export products and would introduce a series of credits that compensate businesss for the effect of the carbon tax. The fact that Dion's initial plans include a mess of subsidises for designated groups is simply a sign of things to come if his plan sees the light of day. Edited June 22, 2008 by Riverwind

[Wild Bill]

Are you saying there is no competition in Canada?

Not in some areas. Oil companies, banks and insurance companies have limited or no competition. It's called an oligopoly, describing a market with only a few players.

When you have only a few players in a market it's easy to keep prices up. Everybody understands that a price war hurts everyone, including themselves. If you have a LOT of players then chances are excellent that someone will either be stupid and/or unable to resist and will slash his prices hoping to increase his sales volume.

In an oligopoly situation there is no need for a written or provable price fixing agreement that could be grounds for legal charges. It's a "gentleman's agreement" that would be impossible to prove in court.

We have only a handful of oil companies. Don't be confused by all the corner gas stations. 99.9% of them are controlled by the parent oil companies and have no power to raise or lower their prices. Those that buck the system don't get their product for resale.

Banks and insurance companies get government protection, in the name of patriotism for protecting them from foreign competition, usually American. Every Ontarioan knows that there's really not much difference in auto insurance premiums.

As Gilda Radner used to say: "It's always SOMETHING!"

[gc1765]

1) How much warming if CO2 is doubled?

Excluding all other factors, a doubling of CO2 should result in a 5-6 degree warming (depending on latitude) link

2) What are the probable consequences of that warming?

This is probably the hardest one to answer for certain, but I doubt the benefits would outweigh the negatives.

3) Can we practically do anything about the amount of CO2 emitted?

I like your idea about adaptation, but I think the people who should pay for that adaptation are the ones who are actually causing the problem, which is why a support a tax on carbon.

[noahbody]

Or you could ask yourself why companies don't keep raising prices as it is? Why charge $10,000 for a car when you can charge $50,000?

Depends if the customer will pay or not. Since Canadians are conditioned to paying more, why wouldn't car companies charge more.

[Riverwind]

Excluding all other factors, a doubling of CO2 should result in a 5-6 degree warming (depending on latitude) link

Even the IPCC does not agree with those numbers. The range given by the IPCC is 1.5-4.5 degC but those numbers come from unverified climate models. Calculations based on the physics of the CO2 put it in the 1 degC range (see). The difference between the two is the result of positive feedbacks which show up in the models but the alarmists have had a tough time finding real experimental evidence that those net positive feedbacks actually occur in reality. The recent temperature trends are consistent with a CO2 effect of less than 1.5 degC/doubling.

Here is a good summary of the issues when it comes to calculating the CO2 sensitivity: http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/What_Watt.html

Alarmists will, of course, reject the argument that CO2 sensitivity is low and argue that their climate models use the physical equations to properly estimate feedbacks, however, these climate models are built on 30+ approximations and parametrizations which have a wide range for realistic values. Aerosols are the most pliable since we have no real data prior to 1980 and the approach used by some climate modellers calculates the amount of aerosols required to produce a CO2 sensitivity within the expected range.

The bottom line is the models are approximations and do not really solve the physics equations that they claim to solve. However, it is possible that these approximations are good enough but we cannot know that unless the model predicutions are verified against reality. Unfortunately, that is a moving target since the new versions of the models are produced every few years and past data is constantly adjusted to better fit with the models.

This is probably the hardest one to answer for certain, but I doubt the benefits would outweigh the negatives.

We can't justify trillion dollar changes to society based on someone's attempt at science fiction. We do know that historically that humanity has done better during previous warm spells than cold spells. We don't know if the previous warm periods were warmer than today but the best evidence suggests that they were similar and most likely warmer in the northern latitudes.

I like your idea about adaptation, but I think the people who should pay for that adaptation are the ones who are actually causing the problem, which is why a support a tax on carbon.

What you are missing is that *everyone* causes the problem. We are all linked and depend on others for our own survival. You may be able to bike to work and do all sorts of things to reduce your carbon footprint but you would starve if the truckers did not bring food to a store within biking distance. If you get sick you expect to have access to the latest health-care technology but that technology requires an immense network of CO2 emitting industries to provide everything from band-aids to drugs. So your argument that the polluter should pay is facile - there are too many essential items that require CO2 production which means everyone will be faced with large price increases in essential goods the producers of these goods are forced to pay. Edited June 22, 2008 by Riverwind

[gc1765]

What you are missing is that *everyone* causes the problem. We are all linked and depend on others for our own survival. You may be able to bike to work and do all sorts of things to reduce your carbon footprint but you would starve if the truckers did not bring food to a store within biking distance. If you get sick you expect to have access to the latest health-care technology but that technology requires an immense network of CO2 emitting industries to provide everything from band-aids to drugs. So your argument that the polluter should pay is facile - there are too many essential items that require CO2 production which means everyone will be faced with large price increases in essential goods the producers of these goods are forced to pay.

Sure, everyone contributes, but not everyone contributes equally. Some people drive 2 hours everyday in their SUVs, while others walk, ride their bike, take public transit or carpool. Why should someone who walks to work pay the same amount as someone who drive an SUV?

[Riverwind]

Sure, everyone contributes, but not everyone contributes equally. Some people drive 2 hours everyday in their SUVs, while others walk, ride their bike, take public transit or carpool. Why should someone who walks to work pay the same amount as someone who drive an SUV?

Because all those people living two hours away from their work reduce the demand for housing in the city center. This, in turn, reduces the amount of rent/mortgage payments that you have to pay in order to live close to your work. Furthermore, you likely depend on a large pool of minimum wage service workers that are able to get to their workplaces near you. Higher housing prices due to increased commuting costs will make it more difficult to recruit such workers and will likely require price increases to pay higher wages. Edited June 22, 2008 by Riverwind

[gc1765]

Because all those people living two hours away from their work reduce the demand for housing in the city center. This, in turn, reduces the amount of rent/mortgage payments that you have to pay in order to live close to your work. Furthermore, you likely depend on a large pool of minimum wage service workers that are able to get to their workplaces near you. Higher housing prices due to increased commuting costs will make it more difficult to recruit such workers and will likely require price increases to pay higher wages.

People who drive more already spend more money on gas if they live two hours away. Should the government start subsidizing the cost of their gasoline or their cars? Should the government subsidize the cost of a house for someone who lives outside of the city? If you don't think the government should subsidize these things, then why should they subsidize the impact of the carbon dioxide & pollution that they emit? If you think that living outside of the city is something that should be subsidized then why not just subsidize their housing instead of their gasoline (not taxing gasoline but spending money on adapting to global warming is in effect a subsidy)?

Ideally, it would be nice to have a public transportation system which allows people who live far away to use it and still get to work in a reasonable time. Depending on where a person lives, it is already possible to do so (which doesn't mean everyone actually does). But of course I realize that, depending on where you live, this is not currently realistic for some. There is also the option of buying a more fuel efficient car or carpooling for some people. Not everyone takes advantage of those either.

[Riverwind]

Should the government start subsidizing the cost of their gasoline or their cars?

My point is you benefit personally from the CO2 emitted by others and that taxing that CO2 output will cost you money in a myriad of complex ways even if your footprint is small. Many of these same effects will occur as a result of oil price increases but there is not much the government can do about that.

Ideally, it would be nice to have a public transportation system which allows people who live far away to use it and still get to work in a reasonable time.

Most Canadian cities don't have the population density required to support trains and subways and cars will always be preferable to buses because buses still get caught in traffic.

Depending on where a person lives, it is already possible to do so (which doesn't mean everyone actually does). But of course I realize that, depending on where you live, this is not currently realistic for some. There is also the option of buying a more fuel efficient car or carpooling for some people. Not everyone takes advantage of those either.

I not convinced that taxing people more will change their behavoir because people put a high price on convenience. I saw a recent study that sugguest that gas price rises are causing the number of car miles travelled to go down but actual fuel use/mile has gone up. The authors speculated that people are sacrificing the optional trips outside of rush hour and still spending time in traffic.

[eyeball]

Oil companies, banks and insurance companies have limited or no competition. It's called an oligopoly, describing a market with only a few players.

Which is the main reason we should nationalize them. At the very least we should be collectively bargaining, using our governments clout, to negotiate lower prices and rates. I wonder how the oligopolists would like dealing with a player that's even bigger than them for a change? Unfortunately they're using our government's clout so...we're kind of screwed. We've become screwed to the extent its really not even our government anymore.

Edited June 23, 2008 by eyeball

[peter_puck]

Here is a good summary of the issues when it comes to calculating the CO2 sensitivity: http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/What_Watt.html

I am really trying to get away from this debate, but this link made me cringe. Is there a less credible guy in the whole AGW world than this guy ?

This is the guy who did not disclose he was a paid advocate for the tobacco industry WHILE he was appearing as a expert of junk science on Fox and discussing the junk science of second hand smoking. Not only that, he allowed the tobacco companies to edit his website (the one you quoted). He also discussed his upcoming articles with them.

The only way this was ever discovered was that the connection was in that hoard of legal documents that came out as part of the tobacco settlement.

Exxon gives large amounts of money to foundations that happen to be run out of this guys basement.

You really need to find better sources of information.

[Riverwind]

I am really trying to get away from this debate, but this link made me cringe. Is there a less credible guy in the whole AGW world than this guy ?

I said it was a "good summary of the issues". In other words, if you want to understand why some scientists dispute the claims of the AGW scientist that page is a good starting point. If you want to find out what he left out you will have to look elsewhere. You won't find any explanation of why the IPCC could be wrong on alarmist site.

It appears that you have a problem dealing with biased information. I assume that everyone is biased and take that into account and discount things that I know are false. I don't assume something is true unless I have found other information that corroborates it. If a skeptic says paper x supports their view I will try to look at the paper and check (I did check some of the papers on that list I posted earlier but obviously a long list is not going to be perfect). Some skeptics misrepresent stuff constantly and I don't spend a lot of time reading their stuff anymore. Others seem to know what they are talking about (Milloy is actually fairly reliable compared to some). This attitude is also why I don't take the claims of the IPCC at face value. It is a UN institution with a mandate to show that CO2 is a problem so one would expect it to ignore all dissenting research and focus on making the case against CO2 as strong as possible. That means I know I need to look elsewhere for the things that the IPCC left out just like I know I need to look elsewhere for the pro-AGW arguments that skeptics leave out.

You seem to want to divide the world into people you can blindly trust (i.e. AGW alarmists) and those you ignore (everyone else). The world is more complex and even the most biased sources can provide useful information if you view the information with the appropriate level of skepticism.

Edited June 23, 2008 by Riverwind

[myata]

I am really trying to get away from this debate, but this link made me cringe. Is there a less credible guy in the whole AGW world than this guy ?

I doubt this can be can be even called a debate, because there can be no rational end to it. For every published peer reviewed research, every rational argument, there will be a link somewhere by somebody that'll have their opinion (never substantiated or reviewed by anybody) to the contrary.

However the state of affairs on this issue clearly demonstrate two worrying trends:

#1 inability of consumer democracies to undertake strong, meaningful and timely action at a time of need. It's always safer to do nothing and hope the thing will go away.

#2 inability to undertake meangful and coordinated action on the global scale.

#1 may be another symptom of old age deterioration of our civilization. It's not the resources, knowledge and technology that's putting a stop to the action. It's our fear of change, and lack of will to act.

[Riverwind]

For every published peer reviewed research, every rational argument, there will be a link somewhere by somebody that'll have their opinion (never substantiated or reviewed by anybody) to the contrary.

I missed the rational arguments that you presented in support of the AGW alarmist position. The only thing you have done is repeat over and over again that the consensus opinion cannot possibly be wrong. Calls for blind faith in authorities cannot be called a rational argument - especially when said authorities have already been caught promoting junk science like the hockey stick because it happens to support the "cause".

#1 inability of consumer democracies to undertake strong, meaningful and timely action at a time of need. It's always safer to do nothing and hope the thing will go away.

Democracies can act when there is an actual threat. What you can't seem to understand is people implicitly understand that the science is far from certain and that catastrophe is probably not around the corner. Things will change if/when the scientific establishment can demonstrate that their computer models have the ability to make accurate predictions. So far they have been wrong more than they have been right.

#2 inability to undertake meangful and coordinated action on the global scale.

Your problem is you assume that "meaningful action" must take a form that you approve. There are plenty of economists who feel that adaptation is the most cost effective way to deal with the problem and that mitigation is a waste of resources. Edited June 23, 2008 by Riverwind

[SamStranger]

OK, pretty much everybody must be already well versed on Harpers' approach to any policy challenge:

#1 throw dirt at anybody with a fresh idea or an alternative solution;

#2 pump out unrealistic ads about own would be achievements (usually to be realized in a few generations' timeframe)

#3 do nothing (of substance) here and now.

Here's a fine example. Tory are already well on record pumping hot air at Quebec-Ontario joint emissions trade programme. Here (Carbon tax story - CTV) they are back in their familiar territory of throwing dirt (who cares about factual correctness, right?) at Dion.

All that with absolute zero, nada, nul to show for any strategy, policy, solution of their own. Anything that could result in an actual reduction of carbon emissions.

That must be the new way of leadership. Big on (loudmouth) talk, nowhere to be found / no comments on the result. The cheap and the tawdry.

Well...if we are going to attack Stephen Harper's "approach to any policy challenge", then let's look at the facts.

Fact: Liberals champion them selves as Environmentalists, and the ideal party to curb Global Warming.

Fact: Under the Liberals Green House Gas Emissions rose by nearly 33%

Fact: Stephane Dion has been "celebrated as a hero", or so he says

Fact: The Left-Wing Liberals have no policy to lower Green House Gas Emissions...what they do have is a NEW TAX. The Left has always been about raising taxes, or introducing new taxes. If Dion really cared about the high taxation of Canada then why doesn't he lower income taxes without bringing in a new tax. The truth is he doesn't care about Canadians. He is a "Peterson" style Tax-and-Spend doctrine follower. All the Liberals know is how to tax us. Here a tax. There a tax. My God, as John Lennon said they would even try to "tax our feet".

Liberals...is there anything they won't tax?

Edited June 23, 2008 by SamStranger

[Riverwind]

You really need to find better sources of information.

Why don't you take a better look at the people that you rely on for information. One of the leading climate scientists behind the AGW scare is Jim Hanson of NASA. Here are some comments he published recently:

CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5798

It is not clear to me why a person who makes such statements should be considered to be able to objectively evaluate the scientific evidence.

Mr. Hansen has received numerous grants from political activists interested in promoting the cause:

Including $750K from Soros: http://www.topix.com/news/global-warming/2...rge-soros-money

And $250K from the company that John Kerry's wife controls: http://www.heinzawards.net/recipients.asp?...p;recipientID=9

It is a mystery why you would take anything he says at face value.

Edited June 23, 2008 by Riverwind

[myata]

I missed the rational arguments that you presented in support of the AGW alarmist position.

OK, I emphasize. Still, your missing it is your problem, and not in any way a valid argument in a debate.

Things will change if/when the scientific establishment can demonstrate that their computer models have the ability to make accurate predictions.

....

So far they have been wrong more than they have been right.

I.e. to start making the change, we have to see the result of it first? Haven't we already discussed this pearl of logic? Even in the new and improved form, ie. the only way to prove that we had to act in 2000 would be to observe catastrophic results in 2050? Results which would be obvious even to people with implicit understanding with naked eye (unless of course, they choose to look the other way; which, in people with implicit understanding of science isn't uncommon at all, as this thread clearly demonstrates).

....

Of course, you understand that just your saying it, does not yet make it true, in any way. We already addressed that topic here (i.e the appropriate chanels of making, and establishing merits, of expert opionions).

Your problem is you assume that "meaningful action" must take a form that you approve. There are plenty of economists who feel that adaptation is the most cost effective way to deal with the problem and that mitigation is a waste of resources.

Another leap of logic. How exactly would adaptation "deal with the problem"? If by "the problem" we mean accelerating uncontrollable climate change due to raising greenhouse gas emissions? Will adaptation by itself stabilize the climate? Slow down glacier melt?

Or, do you mean, let's do nothing and see what happens? Yes, we've already been there too. If we accept the opinion of experts, nothing good will happen. That's why they advised us to act in the first place. If we strike it on our own, it'll not an educated choice, but a belief, like "nothing bad could happen to me because it can't". People can do bizzare irrational things because of their beliefs and nothing, science or otherwise, would convince them otherwise. See here's scientific proof that nothing new will also happen in this "debate".

[Riverwind]

--

Edited June 23, 2008 by Riverwind