Tories new attack ads on carbon tax

Argus · June 15, 2008

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 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:

Yes, for me this is the second half of the argument as to why I don't take the CO2 reductionist plans seriously. It's all very well and good to say CO2 is a danger (though I don't accept this to be the case) but what can you realistically do about it? The plans shown so far at enormous cost will affect, at best, minimal changes to CO2 emissions.

And examine Ontario for a perfect illustration. Ontario has a government which fully supports the global warming scenarios and is adamant about doing something about it. But, of course, it's thus far done nothing. A plan was announced some 5 years ago to close our coal fired power plants by Dalton McGuinty. None have thus far been closed. Nor is there any realistic timetable for when they will be. They have to be replaced by something, likely nuclear, but the government has yet to figure out what - much less fund new power plants, develop plans, and build the things. The Liberals are very good at making lots of mouth noises, though, about their commitment to fighting global warming. It will likely take at least ten more years before those plants are closed, at huge cost - and in the meantime China and India will bring hundreds of new coal fired generating plants on line. China is bringing them on-line at a rate of two a week!

That won't stop whoever follows McGuinty, of course, from proudly proclaiming the great victory against global warming - presuming people still believe in that by then.

Edited June 15, 2008 by Argus

noahbody · June 15, 2008

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.

Just because you're not able to understand doesn't mean others are not able. The first question you need to ask yourself is "are we experiencing unprecedented warming?" as we were initially told. The answer is no. Then maybe ask yourself why the 'experts' didn't correct Gore's misleading claim regarding the relationship between a rise in CO2 and warming?

The science you really need to understand is human behavior. The IPCC's mandate and existence is based on supporting the role of human induced global warming. Are they likely to put themselves out of work? Are those who've dedicated their careers to researching man-made global warming going to be reluctant to acknowledge the position that their life work has been a waste of time? Yes. No one likes to look stupid or feel embarrassed especially when the entire world is watching.

GostHacked · June 15, 2008

Possibly. But not very likely given the inconsistency between the actual data and the various alarmist predictions made by IPCC. I see a lot of similarities between the CO2 hysteria and the Saddam-has-WMD hysteria in 2002-2003. In both cases politicians looked only at information that supported their preconceptions, assumed the information was reliable and then used that flawed/biased information to bully other politicians into accepting unreliable information as fact. The billions pissed away hunting for Saddam's WMD will be insignificant compared to the trillions pissed away trying to 'stop' CO2 emissions.

Yes, indeed, same type of fear scenario to get people to vote a certain way.

CO2. Carbon Dioxide. Humans breath in O2, and breath out CO2. Solve the problem by killing off half the human race. Carbon dioxide is good for plants. Plants convert this into oxygen so we can live. More people, less trees means a bad thing.

If we are talking about behaviour modification, then this is basicly an attack on excesiveness. Living above our means. I gave up owning vehicles about 7 years ago. I just could not stand the constant cost of the vehicle. Gas, oil, tires, parts, labour ect ect ect ...... Just not worth the cost. Since I stopped owning (and I do not lease or have a vehicle) cars, I have saved a bucket load of money. My sister is always throwing money into her car. And she cannot afford a new one because of the cost of the current one. Another thing is she is always broke. I have a nice pad zone of cash now.

Global warming will happen, but i doubt it will be the way those scientitst tell us. Simply put, we do not have enough data on what temperatures were during a specific time period.

INCONCLUSIVE is where we are at for this issue.

madmax · June 16, 2008

Well, I have been hearing some feedback on those adds. And I haven't seen one of these adds myself. Guess I tune in at the wrong time.

Regardless, these adds are not being warmly received, nor having much of an impact.

Perhaps these require a slow burn.

stevoh · June 16, 2008

CO2 induced warming is *NOT* an ecological problem. It is a only a human economic problem. Virtually all of the species on this planet are adapted to much higher levels of CO2

Really? What is the current CO2 concentration? Just over 380 ppm.

When was the last time the atmosphere had this much CO2?

Ice core data tells us that there wasn't that much CO2 in the atmosphere for at least the last 750 000 years. If you look to other means of measuring carbon dioxide (geochemical, etc) estimates are that the last time we had this much CO2 in the atmosphere is about 40 million years ago.

The ice core data is the most reliable. So, if we assume the other means are unreliable, then the most recent possible time we were adapted to this much CO2 was 800 000 years ago. When humans looked like this:

However, if we put some weight on the other measurements of CO2, then the last time the atmosphere had this high of a concentration was 40 million years ago. This was before humans had even evolved.

The statement "virtually all species on this planet are adapted to much higher levels of CO2" is utter rubbish. Humans weren't even on the planet at that time!

Edited June 16, 2008 by stevoh

Wild Bill · June 16, 2008

Really? What is the current CO2 concentration? Just over 380 ppm.
When was the last time the atmosphere had this much CO2?

Ice core data tells us that there wasn't that much CO2 in the atmosphere for at least the last 750 000 years. If you look to other means of measuring carbon dioxide (geochemical, etc) estimates are that the last time we had this much CO2 in the atmosphere is about 40 million years ago.

The ice core data is the most reliable.

Well, there are a number of people with evidence and argument that the ice core data is NOT the most reliable!

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

and especially:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1992468/posts

Pretty conclusive stuff.

myata · June 16, 2008

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.

OK, so your (pseudo) logic goes like this: because I don't want (dont' believe, don't think it's possible, etc) to do what experts recommend me, I should consider the possibility that they are wrong. Very smart; but what does this have to do with the science of the things? E.g I strongly dislike the gravity pulling me down, while I'd like to soar with the birds; I consider, and even make me convinced that the science may be wrong... And? Will my belief make me soar? Or smash into a little red spot? There's only one way to find out..

noahbody · June 16, 2008

Will my belief make me soar? Or smash into a little red spot? There's only one way to find out..

HURRY! THERE'S NO TIME FOR DEBATE!

stevoh · June 16, 2008

Well, there are a number of people with evidence and argument that the ice core data is NOT the most reliable!
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

and especially:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1992468/posts

Pretty conclusive stuff.

These three links are all the work of one man, Zbigniew Jaworowski. That is hardly a number of people. It's one. And he believes that another ice age is coming. You support this theory?

Wild Bill · June 16, 2008

These three links are all the work of one man, Zbigniew Jaworowski. That is hardly a number of people. It's one. And he believes that another ice age is coming. You support this theory?

I don't know enough to have an opinion on a near future ice age. What attracts me to Jaworowski is that he put an assumption to a test. The idea that air bubbles trapped in polar ice will be hermetically sealed so that the ratio of gases such as CO2 will be forever unchanged is a HUGE assumption, in my books! That would be one of the first things I would have expected would be tested. Obviously, if the amount of CO2 can migrate out of the ice then it changes totally any assumption about differences in CO2 levels over the ages.

I have heard others suggest another ice age is coming. I'm curious enough to want to learn more. Right now I'm more interested in finding out if assumptions have been checked in the CO2 argument. If they haven't then I lose confidence in those who made the original predictions. I would have expected them to know better.

stevoh · June 16, 2008

I don't know enough to have an opinion on a near future ice age. What attracts me to Jaworowski is that he put an assumption to a test. The idea that air bubbles trapped in polar ice will be hermetically sealed so that the ratio of gases such as CO2 will be forever unchanged is a HUGE assumption, in my books! That would be one of the first things I would have expected would be tested. Obviously, if the amount of CO2 can migrate out of the ice then it changes totally any assumption about differences in CO2 levels over the ages.
I have heard others suggest another ice age is coming. I'm curious enough to want to learn more. Right now I'm more interested in finding out if assumptions have been checked in the CO2 argument. If they haven't then I lose confidence in those who made the original predictions. I would have expected them to know better.

Jaworowski debunked:

http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7

Keepitsimple · June 16, 2008

For me, it's not a question of whether the "consensus" is wrong - it's a question of whether it makes sense to challenge it......and any reputable scientist will agree that that's the ONLY way to conduct science. The media have not yet bought into relaying this message to the public. Ironically, the pendulum has a habit of swinging both ways when it comes to the media. When you beat people over the head with Climate Hysteria day after day, year after year - it begins to fall on deaf ears and the media's ability to generate attention and revenues through these apocolyptic stories start to fade to the back pages. So how best to start generating new revenues and grab the attention of the public? Bring on the challenges to the consensus. Bring on the utter failure of the EU to reduce GHG. Bring on the taxpayer revolts in Europe. Bring it all on. Sell those papers - generate that advertising revenue.

Wild Bill · June 16, 2008

Jaworowski debunked:
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7

Interesting link! Thank you!

It does seem to refute Mr. J. Still, I appreciate him for challenging that assumption. Nothing bothers me more than some CBC NW talking head spitting out conclusions without any backup. This tactic ALWAYS makes me very suspicious!

At least your link gave me some real reason to accept the premise.

Riverwind · June 17, 2008

The statement "virtually all species on this planet are adapted to much higher levels of CO2" is utter rubbish. Humans weren't even on the planet at that time!

Most humans live in indoor environments which can have CO2 levels as high as 1000ppm. More imporantly, humans have technology which will allow them to adapt. In any case, I was speaking mainly of other species. For example, most plants thrive on high CO2 and actually require less water. Some plants don't benefit from CO2 but they are not harmed either.

Life on this planet has survived for billions of years with much higher CO2 levels. A changing climate will hurt some species but help others but at the end of the day live on this planet will continue to thrive no matter what humans do. It is most definitely not an ecological problem - the earth can look after itself without humans.

Climate change is only a problem because some humans will find it difficult to adapt because there are too many people and any place worth moving to is already occupied by other humans.

Riverwind · June 17, 2008

OK, so your (pseudo) logic goes like this: because I don't want (dont' believe, don't think it's possible, etc) to do what experts recommend me, I should consider the possibility that they are wrong.

No. Your problem is you think carbon mitigation is no big deal so you have no incentive to look into the science. You think that a few twisty lights and hybrid cars will make the problem go away so there is no need to question the science - we should just do something about CO2 just in case. If I believed that then I would agree with you too. The real problem is carbon mitigation is impossible given the technology that we currently have and that trying to stop CO2 from rising is an exercise in futility. If the problem is real then only real option we have is adaption and making huge investments in CO2 reductions will cost lives in the long wrong because money wasted on mitigation could have been used for things like dikes, air conditioners and water systems. Those were the arguments I made before I looked at the science myself. However, now that I have looked at the science I now realize that it is as reliable as George W's intelligence reports and the hysteria is definitely not justified. We should keep an eye on the data because you never know but even if warming reappears the focus should be on adaptation not mitigation. Edited June 17, 2008 by Riverwind

Riverwind · June 17, 2008

It does seem to refute Mr. J. Still, I appreciate him for challenging that assumption. Nothing bothers me more than some CBC NW talking head spitting out conclusions without any backup. This tactic ALWAYS makes me very suspicious!

IMO. Jaworowski is not a skeptic worth quoting. He may be vindicated if the earth starts to cool rapidly and demonstrate that the consensus got the basic GHG assumptions completely wrong but I don't think that will happen. We will see continued warming but not at the rate predicted by the IPCC.

stevoh · June 17, 2008

Most humans live in indoor environments which can have CO2 levels as high as 1000ppm. More imporantly, humans have technology which will allow them to adapt. In any case, I was speaking mainly of other species. For example, most plants thrive on high CO2 and actually require less water. Some plants don't benefit from CO2 but they are not harmed either.
Life on this planet has survived for billions of years with much higher CO2 levels. A changing climate will hurt some species but help others but at the end of the day live on this planet will continue to thrive no matter what humans do. It is most definitely not an ecological problem - the earth can look after itself without humans.

Climate change is only a problem because some humans will find it difficult to adapt because there are too many people and any place worth moving to is already occupied by other humans.

I remember first watching a fascinating program on the effects of CO2 on growing potatoes in Great Britain. At that time, the thrust was to find out whether there was a difference in growing potatoes in a city garden, with presumably higher levels of CO2, or a country farm. Global warming was barely an issue at the time, nice to have a simple experiment based on plain science rather than all of the other garbage clouding efforts today.

The result of the experiment has been mirrored in other experiments since, the potatoes grew larger. This was expected. However, the nutritional content of the larger potatoes was inferior to the smaller ones. This was not expected.

Other research has since indicated the same, including specific research around foliar nitrogen. increasing CO2 reduces foliar nitrogen, reducing the nutritional content of the leaves, as in this study from Smithsonian Environmental Research Center:

For instance, the reduced nitrogen also means that green foliage is now less nutritious for the grazers who depend on it for their survival. Leaf miners on the oaks in Florida represent such a grazing system; and our recent studies have clearly shown that the insects are impacted in several ways by having to eat leaves grown in elevated CO2. They must eat more to fill their dietary requirements. This takes more time; which gives their predators more opportunities; which they use effectively to reduce the numbers of miners.

You can easily see how this is going to effect all herbivores throughout the planet, they have to eat more to get the same amount of nutrition. Normally, if the change are happening slowly, adaptation can allow compensation. However, the pace of the CO2 change means that evolutionary forces most likely will not be able to keep up. And, if the predation/prey relationship of other animals follows the model set by leaf miners, populations of prey animals will reduce (followed shortly by predators) as they are more exposed to predation when eating.

And, of course, it will effect humans as well. We will have to eat more to get the same amount of nutrition. Typically, this will effect third world countries more than us.

I am glad you brought up this point Riverwind. I think the current focus on global warming is far too narrow. The effects of modifying the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are going to be far and wide, global warming is just one potential effect. We also are beginning to understand how CO2 effects ocean acidity, and how CO2 effects plant (and therefore animal and human) health. I am sure there are many other effects that will occur, some identified, and some yet to be discovered.

Increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere without truly understanding many of these effects carries significant risk. I certainly hope that there never comes a time when we say "oops" because some effect turned out to be far more hazardous than expected.

We are effectively conducting a massive experiment on earth without really knowing the eventual results. THAT is a little too high risk for me.

stevoh · June 17, 2008

Interesting link! Thank you!
It does seem to refute Mr. J. Still, I appreciate him for challenging that assumption. Nothing bothers me more than some CBC NW talking head spitting out conclusions without any backup. This tactic ALWAYS makes me very suspicious!

At least your link gave me some real reason to accept the premise.

+ 2 for Wild Bill.

Someone who actually reads rather than having unshakeable pre-conceived ideas!

myata · June 17, 2008

No. Your problem is you think carbon mitigation is no big deal so you have no incentive to look into the science. You think that a few twisty lights and hybrid cars will make the problem go away so there is no need to question the science - we should just do something about CO2 just in case.

This norhtern country was able to reduce its carbon emissions to below 1990 level: Statistics Finland. Which proves that your pseudo science is wrong. Again.

If I believed that then I would agree with you too.

That's exactly the cause of your (and Harper's) problem. You consider a practical technical and scientific matter to be an issue of personal belief.

Edited June 17, 2008 by myata

GostHacked · June 17, 2008

For me, it's not a question of whether the "consensus" is wrong - it's a question of whether it makes sense to challenge it......and any reputable scientist will agree that that's the ONLY way to conduct science. The media have not yet bought into relaying this message to the public. Ironically, the pendulum has a habit of swinging both ways when it comes to the media. When you beat people over the head with Climate Hysteria day after day, year after year - it begins to fall on deaf ears and the media's ability to generate attention and revenues through these apocolyptic stories start to fade to the back pages. So how best to start generating new revenues and grab the attention of the public? Bring on the challenges to the consensus. Bring on the utter failure of the EU to reduce GHG. Bring on the taxpayer revolts in Europe. Bring it all on. Sell those papers - generate that advertising revenue.

Chicken little, the sky is falling.

Little Boy who cried wolf.

peter_puck · June 17, 2008

If the problem is real then only real option we have is adaption and making huge investments in CO2 reductions will cost lives in the long wrong because money wasted on mitigation could have been used for things like dikes, air conditioners and water systems.

We are going to have to adapt anyways. There is a finite amount of oil on the planet. Every barrel we consume makes the next cost a little more.

Every barrel we spend driving a hummer on a 50 mile commute is oil that cannot go towards a dike. Every old incadesent light bulb, tank hotwater heater, poorly insulated house takes money and resources away from other uses.

How many lives will be saved when we drive oil up to $200 a barrel. How many 3rd world countries will be able to afford fertilizer ? How many people will be able to buy food from the farmer who can afford the fertilizer and pesticide.

Even with out global warming, the west needs to get smarter in a hurry. We are wasting huge amounts of power for nothing.

noahbody · June 17, 2008

Every barrel we spend driving a hummer on a 50 mile commute is oil that cannot go towards a dike.

If I have to choose between a hummer and a dike, I'll take the hummer every time.

Edited June 17, 2008 by noahbody

peter_puck · June 18, 2008

As I said before - there are qualified experts that disagree with the consensus position and are challenging the science in the usual venues.

First of all, you should qualify "qualified experts". The Senate report that the anti-AGW types like to quote lists 400 "prominent scientists"- many of whom don't have Phd's in science, or Phd's at all.

There are dissenters in a wide range of fields. OJ Simpson's defense team came up with scientific evidence to clear him. That Kelly guy had video experts claiming the tape was fake. There are scientists that claim smoking is not harmful for you. There are scientists who claim to have refuted the "theory" of evolution. Heck there is even a study that a Hummer produces less greenhouse gas that a Prius.

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 run into the same problem as you do in the scientific forums. How are the politicians going to decide on the state of the scientific knowledge. If they ask the majority of scientists ---they will say its settled.

Besides, politicians don't give a rats ass about the state of the science. The leading anti-AGW senator called a science FICTION writer to testify about global warming. Politicians rule number one is that if a long term problem ain't gonna bite you before the next election, ignore it. (look at the debt)

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

Studies how the more CO2, the more the temperature rises. If policies reduce carbon, temperature should rise slower. Kind of obvious. (of course, some all the families in china buying their first electric scooter may offset this but ....)

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?

The IPCC study involved a number of parts. One was the impact of global warming on the economy, social factors, political factors etc. If you go to many anti-

They concluded that the results of global warming would be devestating. Although I would agree, it is far from settled. Anti-AGW scientists can have been debunked in a scientific manner. Its a little hard to debunk a prediction about population movements or future economics.

peter_puck · June 18, 2008

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.

Ummm.... One of these guys is a economist from a right wing think tank while the other is a former mining executive with only a BSc in math. Where did they get their expertise in climate science ?

Edited June 18, 2008 by peter_puck

peter_puck · June 18, 2008

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

I looked at the list of papers. I have to admit I did not understand a lot of it. But from reading the abstracts, it is a very poor list. Many of the papers are not anti-AGW. Most seem to be AGW agnostic. The ones that are anti-AGW tend to be old (outdated), published in journals that are unrelated to climate change (petroleum ), or published in journals that are not recognized (as anything but a place where climate deniers can publish crap).

Some examples:

How does the fact that very high elevations of Mont Blanc have not been affected by climate change make a difference (the authors are studying the EFFECT of climate change on a mountain, not if it exists.)

Another starts off with this:

"Extreme river floods have been a substantial natural hazard in Europe over the past centuries1, and radiative effects of recent anthropogenic changes in atmospheric composition are expected to cause climate changes, "

They acknowledge AGW in the first paragraph !!! (then go on to mention various factors in river flooding)

Another paper ends with

"Our review does not disprove a significant anthropogenic influence on global climate."

Googling some of the authors indicates they are pro AGW!

This stuff reminds me of soemthing OJ's defense team would do