Tories new attack ads on carbon tax

[Riverwind]

You surely understand the meaning of "reputable"? I can put out a "hypothesis" that for every statement, no matter how outrageous, there's a site somewhere on the Net that will claim it to be true.

Why am not surprised that you think you can reject any source that does not tell you what you want to hear as not reputable? This is exactly what I mean by blindness. I doubt you read any of the arguments presented once you established that they did not conform to the holy writ according to the IPCC. The definition of ignorance is contempt prior to investigation.

I have spent the time looking at the back and forth between McKitrick and Mcintyre and the alarmists and can follow most of the math although it is quite advanced. From a scientific perspective they are right and the supporters of IPCC are completely wrong. It is worth noting that Steve Mcintyre is now being quietly invited by universities to give seminars on the techniques used to estimate past climate. The fact that the IPCC supporters continue to dismiss their criticisms should be a huge warning flag because it is a sign that these people are partisans that are more interested in protecting their turf.

Your problem is that you confer way too much credibility on so-called experts. I would agree that one should start with the assumption that the consensus amount experts is correct and only reject their claims if compelling counter evidence exists. In the case of climate science there is compelling evidence that they are not only wrong but that they are infected with a pernicious form of confirmation bias which makes them blind to evidence that casts doubt on their claims.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

I think this link explains it best what we see in most forums in regards to climate science.

There are many pro-IPCC bloggers that are reasonably thoughtful and have opinions worth looking it. Josh Halpern (a.k.a Eli Rabbit) is not one of them. He is nothing more than a mud slinger who thinks that insulting people consistutes an argument. Edited June 13, 2008 by Riverwind

[myata]

Why am not surprised that you think you can reject any source that does not tell you what you want to hear as not reputable? This is exactly what I mean by blindness. I doubt you read any of the arguments presented once you established that they did not conform to the holy writ according to the IPCC. The definition of ignorance is contempt prior to investigation.

When I have to choose between the source which is the National Academy of Science, international UN panel of Scientists, EU climate change panel, etc , on one side, and some obscure never heard before web site, I know who I'm going to trust. You're free to do otherwise; but in the absense of meaningful scientific argumentation, which belongs in a proper scientific forum rather than internet newsboard, your decision is about as rational as exercising woodoo medicine, or anti-gravitational perpetuum mobile.

I have spent the time looking at the back and forth between McKitrick and Mcintyre and the alarmists and can follow most of the math although it is quite advanced. From a scientific perspective they are right and the supporters of IPCC are completely

Sure, ever thought of publish your findings in a reputable peer-reviewed publication on climate sciense? Have it discussed it with equally qualified peers rather than in the forum where everybody can say anything with no consequence whatsoever? Every outrageous statement can be thrown about and discussed till world's end because there's no criteria, standard to tell the true from false. It can be true just because I want it to, and nobody will ever convince me otherwise.

Your problem is that you confer way too much credibility on so-called experts. I would agree that one should start with the assumption that the consensus amount experts is correct and only reject their claims if compelling counter evidence exists.

And how would you know that that evidence is "compelling" without becoming an expert yourself?

Reading internet posts for a few months virtually anybody can start producing pseudo-scientific gibberish that may sound every bit authentic and compellilng to the uninitiated. That won't make any more meaningful. The only way to establish the truth (to the extent possible at this current level of knowledge) is to have it argued, reviewed and accepted by qualified peers.

[Bryan]

When I have to choose between the source which is the National Academy of Science, international UN panel of Scientists, EU climate change panel, etc , on one side, and some obscure never heard before web site, I know who I'm going to trust.

The National Academy of Science still claims that cholesterol causes heart disease, so you'll excise me if I'm unimpressed.

If you think Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick are "just some obscure guys", that explains a lot about why you are so confused about what Climate Science does and does not show. The people you list are well aware of who they are, and they are afraid because they have been continually exposing their misinformation. The hockey stick graph, which was Gore's big deal in the movie, has been completely discredited. Mann's computer model was rigged so that it gave you the same graph no matter what data you input. Even the IPCC removed it from their latest revision of the report.

The thing passed peer review, it was published in every journal, used in all the movies and news stories, and was accepted by an overwhelming consensus of climate scientists, and it was wrong. The thing is, it was so ridiculously wrong, that it shouldn't have even been accepted by a high school science teacher. The first thing anyone who is not stupid should have said when they looked at it was; "hey, why is the little ice age missing?". "And why is the medieval warm period not on there?", "wait, it doesn't even account for the dirty thirties, what the hell?". Seriously, the thing was bogus right from the get go.

Again, you need to understand that some of the most vocal opponents of the AGW theory are actual climatologists, some of whom who are members of the IPCC panel. Some of them were lead authors of the report.

[MontyBurns]

... the source which is the National Academy of Science, international UN panel of Scientists, EU climate change panel, etc , on one side...

I dont trust any of these organizations. All these organizations have a very heavy leftist bias.

[eyeball]

In the case of climate science there is compelling evidence that they are not only wrong but that they are infected with a pernicious form of confirmation bias which makes them blind to evidence that casts doubt on their claims.

In the case of economists there is compelling evidence that they are not only wrong but that they are infected with a pernicious form of confirmation bias which makes them blind to evidence that casts doubt on their claims. You can say the same thing about political scientists. As a layman I am concerned that our policy makers are too, maybe even willfully so. At the very least, this knowledge that science can be willfuly ignorant indicates that science needs to be added to the growing number of untrustworthy institutions requiring a process of public oversight.

Edited June 13, 2008 by eyeball

[myata]

I dont trust any of these organizations. All these organizations have a very heavy leftist bias.

Couldn't be said any better; as from Baron Muncheusen: "I think ergo you are". Indeed this is internet discussion forum and everybody is entitled to believe, say and prove anything they like.

[Riverwind]

Sure, ever thought of publish your findings in a reputable peer-reviewed publication on climate sciense? Have it discussed it with equally qualified peers rather than in the forum where everybody can say anything with no consequence whatsoever?

McKitrick and McIntyre claims have been published in peer review literature, however, the many in the climate science community live in denial and refuse to acknowledge that they are right.

And how would you know that that evidence is "compelling" without becoming an expert yourself?

Anyone with a background in the sciences can understand the issues involved - they are not that complicated. However, if you want to understand you have to read both sides of the argument with an open mind. Someone who spends all of their time reading material written by sceptics is not going to be well informed. The same is true of people who only read alarmist material. However, someone who takes the time to read the skeptical and alarmist arguments will eventually be able to distinguish between the gibberish and substance. In some cases the skeptical arguments are pretty flimsy (i.e. that the warming is entirely natural). In other cases they are quite strong (i.e. that the medieval warming period was as warm as today). When you look at the entire picture it is clear that the IPCC is making claims of certainty that are not supported by the scientific evidence and that a CO2 induced disaster is not an inevitable outcome. Edited June 13, 2008 by Riverwind

[myata]

Anyone with a background in the sciences can understand the issues involved - they are not that complicated.

And how would you know that your discussion partner here has that, background in science? From mumbo-jumbo talk?

Anyways, as already said, there's little point in discussing scientific theories in the forum that isn't qualified for it. It'll be no different than any hockey talk, or Britney Spears talk or etc talk and will never lead to any outcome. You can't prove anything to anybody here for real, because proving involves understanding the subject, and the rules, methods, etc, that takes years of training, active work, yada, so it's plain and simple idle talk. You found a glitch, or a big glaring hole in the models of global warming - go ahead and publish it in the Science/Nature; they'll be more than happy to have such a jewel - provided, of course, it makes any sense; and if with all it innovation and ingenuity it can't be published in the Nature/Science, would somebody be wrong in assuming the possibilty (not necesserily 100% certainty - miracles do happen), no only very strongly possibility that it's just another case of somebody on the Net writing whatever is close to their heart?

[Riverwind]

You can't prove anything to anybody here for real, because proving involves understanding the subject, and the rules, methods, etc, that takes years of training, active work, yada, so it's plain and simple idle talk.

This is a political forum where we talk about politics and policy. Many people are demanding that politicians adopt policies that assume that the scientists are doing their job properly. The McKitrick paper talked about the flaws in the IPCC process that led to the hockey stick fiasco and proposed a new process that would avoid a repeat and would allow policy makers to have more confidence in the scientific recommendations produced from such bodies.

Why don't you consider for a moment that I could be correct that the scientific establishment has a bad case of tunnel vision. Please explain how this tunnel vision can identified and corrected in a timely manner? You have to remember that science is self-correcting but that can take decades and usually requires that the old guard die off before taboo subjects can be rethought. We can't afford to wait for decades to find out that the scientific establishment has been fooling itself since the cost of economic policies demanded today is huge. So please tell me - how does society protect itself from a group of well meaning but misguided individuals who happen to be in a position of power because they are considered to be the 'authorities' when it comes to a topic that affects everyone?

Oh - BTW - there are many skeptical papers that are published in peer reviewed journals so you cannot argue that the skeptics views are not worth considering because their views don't get published. The issue is these papers are ignored by the entrenched interests who are afraid of admiting that the science is a lot less settled than they would like to claim.

Edited June 13, 2008 by Riverwind

[myata]

This is a political forum where we talk about politics and policy. Many people are demanding that politicians adopt policies that assume that the scientists are doing their job properly. The McKitrick paper talked about the flaws in the IPCC process that led to the hockey stick fiasco and proposed a new process that would avoid a repeat and would allow policy makers to have more confidence in the scientific recommendations produced from such bodies.

This particualar "political" discussion started with discrediting scientific model accepted by a majority of experts in field based on reports about a few dissenters. Because a layman has no knowledge to understand whether the dissenters have a valid case, or not, they can either rely on the opionion of majority of experts in the field, or make their own wild assumptions, based on their liking. There's no shortage of such "discussions" going on (forever) about general relativity, wormholes, aliens, fairies and other beings supernatural, etc, and you're entirely free to open yet another; it won't matter one bit to the actual science of climate modeling, but if it makes you feel better, sure.

Oh - BTW - there are many skeptical papers that are published in peer reviewed journals so you cannot argue that the skeptics views are not worth considering because their views don't get published.

Maybe, we have yet to see a reference to such. Just throwing around some names won't suffice.

In any case, the conclusion about climate change isn't based on one model that could be discredited. There's a combination of evidence: glacier melt; shrinking of arctic ice; level of CO in the atmosphere; acidity of the ocean water; climate patterns; etc, etc - that combined, cause majority of experts in the field to accept the main conclusion - that significant change of climate is coming and it's caused by human activity. Of course, in this big world one will always find a few who'll state otherwise; till they find a solid logical argument to overturn all the evidence obtained so far; till that argument is confirmed and accepted by the majority of scientific community; they'll remain just a few oddballs in the field, and your using them to ignore the advice of majority speaks not for free mindedness, but reckless ignorance.

[Riverwind]

Because a layman has no knowledge to understand whether the dissenters have a valid case, or not, they can either rely on the opionion of majority of experts in the field, or make their own wild assumptions, based on their liking.

The only reason you are using this line of argument is because the conclusions of the 'experts' happen to be to your liking. I doubt you would accept the opinion of experts if they said things you disagree with. If you are, in fact, serious when you say that you would blindly accept the word of the 'experts' no matter what then I am curious why you think we should bother with democracy since most voters do not have the expertise required to understand economic or taxation policies. For example, the consensus among economists is that trade barriers and subsidies should be eliminated and that consumption taxes such as the GST are better than income taxes. Are you willing to defer to the 'consensus' opinion on those topics?

Maybe, we have yet to see a reference to such. Just throwing around some names won't suffice.

Almost all peer reviewed papers are behind pay walls and are fairly technical. Blogs and other secondary sources of information are the only type of information that you could possibily hope to understand yet you dismiss those as 'unrealiable'. Here are a couple blogs that describe peer reviewed research in laymans terms (run by a real bonifide climate scientists who have authored many peer reviewed papers):

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spence...bal-warming.htm

http://climatesci.org/

Now you can blindly insist that the experts cannot possibly be wrong or you can use your grey matter and try to understand the counter arguments.

In any case, here is a list of peer reviewed articals that cast doubt on the claims of climate alarmists:

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/...cal-of-man.html

In any case, the conclusion about climate change isn't based on one model that could be discredited. There's a combination of evidence ...

The problem with that line of argument is it requires a leap of faith to get from 'there is evidence humans are affecting the climate' to 'the predictions of catastrophe by computer models are plausible'. Nothing in the these various lines of evidence you quoted supports the latter even though it does support the former (a point which I do not dispute).

When reading anything by alarmists it is important to watch for the bogus 'bait and switch' argument where the alarmist will present some facts which are indisputablely true and then claim that since those facts are true then a number of other assertions must also be true. It is important to watch for the logical traps and ask for evidence that directly supports the assertions.

Edited June 14, 2008 by Riverwind

[peter_puck]

Why don't you consider for a moment that I could be correct that the scientific establishment has a bad case of tunnel vision. Please explain how this tunnel vision can identified and corrected in a timely manner? You have to remember that science is self-correcting but that can take decades and usually requires that the old guard die off before taboo subjects can be rethought.

On the other hand, who are we (and/or politicians) to determine that the scientific community has "tunnel vision" ? Would it not be better to have the major scientific organizations determine if there is "tunnel vision". Of course it would, but we know how that went.

Since they lose in every scientific forum, the anti-AGW types are now appealing to lawyers (politicians to settle the dispute).

[myata]

The only reason you are using this line of argument is because the conclusions of the 'experts' happen to be to your liking.

Well, to make this conclusion (reliably; scientifically) you're still missing one thing: an example where I would deny evidence supported by leading expert bodies in a field science because it goes against my liking; which in itself presumes that you can find me involved in blog/board discussions around matters of science. We'll wait for it, patiently.

BTW, care to clarify the meaning of those 'quotemarks': if the National Academy of Science / International panel of scientists on climate change won't merit the term, who/what does? Awaiting revelation.

As for the rest, this line of argument demonstrates very well a position of ignorant consumer: I'll take this part of science that gives me more pleasure in life and ignore that which warns of dire consequences. Of course, it's not the first time people are doing this, always to their detriment and loss. The only thing unique about the present situation is that loss and detriment will be on the global scale.

Anyways, I pretty much exausted the logical part of argumentation without going into details of the subject for which this board isn't an appropriate venue, or else discussing your personal beliefs. Everybody is free to believe what they like; they can even call it "science" if they like; it'll only become real science however if/when presented; reviewed; confirmed; and accepted by the community of qualified peers. Sorry to break it to you but there's no shortcut.

[Riverwind]

On the other hand, who are we (and/or politicians) to determine that the scientific community has "tunnel vision"?

How insightful. So you are saying that the only people who can determine if the experts have tunnel vision are the experts themselves? We are in big trouble if you were right. Fortunately you are wrong. There are plently of people with the expertise that can independently evaluate the evidence.

Since they lose in every scientific forum..

The problem with this entire issue is the science has been hijacked by large number of people who see it as a vehicle to promote their self interest. These groups are varied but include scientists looking for research funds, environment organizations looking for donations to businesses looking for government handouts. These groups have managed to launch a propoganda campaign designed to create the illusion that the science is settled and to bully people into supporting their proposed 'solutions' for the the alleged problem. This propoganda campaign has many similarilities to campaign by the Bush government to justify the invasion of Iraq. In that case, American politicians trusted the 'experts' who told them that Saddam had WMDs and people who dared to suggest that the experts might be wrong were villified.

Today we are painfully aware that of the consequences and dangers of letting people with tunnel vision set public policies.

Edited June 14, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

BTW, care to clarify the meaning of those 'quotemarks': if the National Academy of Science / International panel of scientists on climate change won't merit the term, who/what does? Awaiting revelation.

Where is the evidence that these boards/panels are free of political considerations? These kinds of organizations are mostly political.

As for the rest, this line of argument demonstrates very well a position of ignorant consumer: I'll take this part of science that gives me more pleasure in life and ignore that which warns of dire consequences. Of course, it's not the first time people are doing this, always to their detriment and loss. The only thing unique about the present situation is that loss and detriment will be on the global scale.

This kind argument is the one that most disgusts me. Personally, I have long rejected the consumer culture and live a relatively low carbon life style. I personally would not likely be affected by many of the measures required to limit CO2. I argue against climate alarmists because I feel that misguided policies have the potential inflict suffering and early deaths on 100s of millions of people who don't have the resources to pay for the higher energy costs. So don't waste your time arguing that people who oppose climate alarmism are looking for the easy way out. Edited June 14, 2008 by Riverwind

[noahbody]

Well, to make this conclusion (reliably; scientifically) you're still missing one thing: an example where I would deny evidence supported by leading expert bodies in a field science because it goes against my liking; which in itself presumes that you can find me involved in blog/board discussions around matters of science. We'll wait for it, patiently.

Here's one example:

(noahbody @ Dec 21 2007, 11:51 AM)

Firstly, not all police organisations are behind the gun registry

Your response:

I see, being creative again. The two largest police associations are, so I guess that'll have to close the issue for now, i.e. until you can come up with some information which would have at least some substance.

[myata]

Where is the evidence that these boards/panels are free of political considerations? These kinds of organizations are mostly political.

Right, conspiracy theories? Nothing wrong with it, but... why choose one particular field of science for your mistrust and misbelief? Why not show some consistency and mistrust all science? At least we'll see some principle.. not some random irrational idea that is impossible to substantiate by anything other than "I happen to belive this guy because I like him more than the National Academy of Science".

To N.-B. just in case you assume that I didn't respond because there was some meaning in your post, there's none! Keep digging (and don't count on encouragement for anything you happen to dig out. My time is finite, and only meaningful posts will be accepted).

[Riverwind]

Right, conspiracy theories?

Good grief. These kinds of organizations are always political - I don't care what they happen to be going on about. That does not make it a conspirasy - it is simply a fact of human organizations.

Nothing wrong with it, but... why choose one particular field of science for your mistrust and misbelief?

Because I have a brain and an open mind. I am willing to look at the counter arguments and do not automatically trust experts because they are experts. I did the same with the 9/11 truthies when I first heard of them. However, in that case it was pretty obvious that their so called science was nonsense not worth considering. But the difference between me and you is I at least took the time to investigate instead of blindly accepting what the experts told me. Edited June 14, 2008 by Riverwind

[noahbody]

To N.-B. just in case you assume that I didn't respond because there was some meaning in your post, there's none! Keep digging (and don't count on encouragement for anything you happen to dig out. My time is finite, and only meaningful posts will be accepted).

I provided you with evidence that you do ignore expert opinion that is against your liking. You choose to ignore it because it's against your liking. You can lead a horse to water.

[Wild Bill]

I provided you with evidence that you do ignore expert opinion that is against your liking. You choose to ignore it because it's against your liking. You can lead a horse to water.

Or, as Spider Robinson so eloquently put it: "You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think!"

[myata]

Because I have a brain and an open mind. I am willing to look at the counter arguments and do not automatically trust experts because they are experts.

Sure, you can call it "open mind"; although not being an expert in the field, you won't be able to make out a real scientific argument from a pile of pseudo science bs; and being an expert, you probably won't be wasting your time on the internet discussion forum, where anybody can present their opinion on any matter no matter how much knowledge, education or experience they may (or not) have.

You don't like the conclusion of leading experts on the subject, and not prepared to challenge it in the qualified forum, it's sure within your right; but the reverse side of this position is that now you can't prove anything to anybody; simply because they'll do just the same what you did; i.e not believe you. Right? You don't believe them, they won't believe you. You'll have a discussion a la kindergarten's "my guy against your guy", and that can go on forever. Ad infinitum, or at least till participants grow up. If that's what you're up to, your way is shining and clear and you'll hear no further objections from me.

[Riverwind]

Sure, you can call it "open mind"; although not being an expert in the field, you won't be able to make out a real scientific argument from a pile of pseudo science bs;

As I said before - there are qualified experts that disagree with the consensus position and are challenging the science in the usual venues. I have provided you with links which you have probably not even looked at because you seem to be afraid of confronting the possibility that the 'consensus position' is wrong. You may not wish to read them but others will be.

At the end of the day this is really a political issue. Politicians have to decide what measures are appropriate given the state of scientific knowledge. You criticized the conservatives because they don't seem to doing enough to lower carbon emissions. But I am confused. Why are you qualified to have an opinion on what is 'enough'? Where are the scientific studies that prove that policies adopted by the government of Canada will have any effect on the global climate? Where are the scientific studies that show conclusively that the costs of eliminating CO2 will actually be less than the costs of adapting to climate change? More importantly, why do you think that scientists that specialize in climate studies are even qualified to make such a determination? Cost benefit analyses are not their speciality - that is the domain of economists and there is no consensus among economists on this point. So why do you give any weight to the economic recommendations of scientific bodies who have no qualifications in economics?

Edited June 15, 2008 by Riverwind

[myata]

You may not wish to read them but others will be.

I (and anybody) could read them and contribute to the debate as long as they are qualified to understand the meaning of argument and make a meaningful argument themselves. Overwise the argument becomes a pile of useless meaningless trash, and these "scientific" discussions are abound on the Net.

You criticized the conservatives because they don't seem to doing enough to lower carbon emissions. But I am confused. Why are you qualified to have an opinion on what is 'enough'?

Because zero (policies to reduce CO emissions) means zero. No change. And qualified experts recommended significant reductions from the 1990 level.

Where are the scientific studies that prove that policies adopted by the government of Canada will have any effect on the global climate?

What policy? I didn't notice that there's any policy that's been adopted. Only hot air talk.

Where are the scientific studies that show conclusively that the costs of eliminating CO2 will actually be less than the costs of adapting to climate change? More importantly, why do you think that scientists that specialize in climate studies are even qualified to make such a determination? Cost benefit analyses are not their speciality - that is the domain of economists and there is no consensus among economists on this point. So why do you give any weight to the economic recommendations of scientific bodies who have no qualifications in economics?

Scientists made expert recommendations as to what needs to be done to minimize, slow down, if not completely revert the effect of human caused climate change. Forecasting the exact sequence of development of that change if nothing is done, is a different, and probably much more complicated matter. I'm not sure if such studies are done, and if there's even a dominant opinion as to which way the nature will go in that case. You're quite correct, at this point, a layman has the choice of listening to the experts and attempting to minimize the cause that's leading the change; or take the leap of faith and pray that the consequences won't be disastrous. The cost of modifying our behaviour now, though high, isn't prohibitive; while the exact effect of leaving things is unknown, the only certaintly, as agreed by the dominant expert opinion in the field is that it'll be huge. The choice is between doing possible now, or praying for best in the years to come.

[Riverwind]

The cost of modifying our behaviour now, though high, isn't prohibitive;

I guess this sums up your reasons for refusing to consider the possibility that the consensus is wrong. If the alarmists are right then we are screwed because there is next to ZERO chance of reducing CO2 in any meaningful way over the next 50 or so years. The energy needs are too high and there are no alternatives that can be deployed on the scale required. Nukes might be able to do it but there is a limit on how fast new plants can be built. Here are some numbers:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/promethe...back_in_th.html

The Center for Global Development estimates that there are 25,339 power plants around the world that emit carbon dioxide. If the world starts replacing or converting these plants to carbon free energy production at the rate of one plant per day, then it will take 69 years to make all of these power plants carbon neutral, and an 80% conversion would take 56 years. If you'd like assume that most emissions come from the largest plants, you can cut those numbers in half or even by 2/3 and the point remains. At a conversion rate of one plant per week -- using only the top 1/3 emitters -- it would take 145 years to convert 80% of these 1/3 (162 years to convert the entire 1/3).

Of course those numbers assume our power needs stay the same. Unfortunately, we need to rapidly add capacity to deal with a growing population and to handle conversion from gas powered vehicles.

IOW. You criticize Harper for a do nothing plan, however, his plan will accomplish no less than any other plan that has a chance of seeing the light of day. You also need to remember that CO2 limits will be the first thing that goes if the economy takes a dive for any reason.

Fortunately, the IPCC science is so bad that that there is a good chance that it is completely wrong which means we will be spared a catatrophe.

Edited June 15, 2008 by Riverwind