Tories new attack ads on carbon tax

[Riverwind]

Wrong, as usual. Honda just released a 100% hydrogen powered model, if you follow the news.

A publicity stunt. Hydrogen cars will be impractical until a more efficient way of storing and transporting hydrogen is devised. See thi: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-03-12.html#feature

Alternatives like conservation; renewable energy sources; clean technologies; All are impractical, or even impossible?

They cannot possibly provide the amount of reliable energy required. I fully support R&D and even susidies but under no conditions should we abandon existing sources of reliable power (i.e. coal) until these alternatives prove themselves.

Yet wind farms operate all around the world, even in Quebec. Finland has their emissions at 1990 level.

I already explained why Finland's 'achievement' is meaningless because it was the result of fortunate weather events and not government policies. Denmark's wind mills are similar jokes: they produce an equivalent of 20% of Denmark's power but most of their output is sold at a discount to neighbors because the power comes in bursts. Only 6% of the power actually consumed by Danes comes from windmills. The rest comes from Nukes and Coal powered stations.

"Practical" is in the eye of the beholder. If for somebody who fears, dislikes and shuns all change, the only thing practical is to sit on their hands and do nothing, nothing will come out, for sure.

Sometimes waiting and seeing is the most intelligent response to a situation. Anyone who looks objectives at the weather data can only conclude that at wait and see approach is the most prudent at this time.

[peter_puck]

Actually. We have plenty of coal and this can produce plently of electricity - more than enough to replace oil. However, the AGW zealots don't want to let people build coal power electricity anymore which will delay the transition from an oil based to an electricity based transportation sector and ultimately impose unnessary suffering on billions.

Cool ....but how do I use this coal based electricity to lubricate my engine ? Where can I buy a cost effective electric car ? An electrical powered transport truck...ocean liner. How do I make plastic...or fertilizer....out of this electricity.

BTW, nuclear is a better source of electricity than coal ...but the point is the same. There are some areas where oil and electricity overlap, but there are many that don't.

[geoffrey]

It's funny, markets that don't have huge government intervention generally build coal plants. One's the have the government covering all costs build fancy technology.

The reason you can't afford to use an electric car is because your nuclear plant costs too much. Coal is cheap and it is now fairly clean and very abundant.

Nuclear is not a better source. Costs more, leaves you with waste you can't get rid of for 50,000 years and risks absolute disaster all the time.

[peter_puck]

However, most of the "rebuttles" are hypocritical nonsense do not really address the criticisms. In some cases, the counter arguments actually undermine AGW theory more than the skeptical arguments.

Most of these "rebutles full of hypocritcal nonsense" manage to make it past editorial review boards of esteemed scientists. Who are you to judge them as "hypocrital nonsense".

They can't have both ways - either the recent temperature trends falsify AGW hypothesis or they have to admit that they don't know how much of the recent warming was natural and how much was CO2 induced.

You don't seem to understand the concept. The rise of C02 is one factor that effects temperature. There are many others, many of which can be considered random for our purposes. Global warming states that temperatures will rise slowly over time, not in a 1, 5 or 10 year time frame. There is no way you can use this to predict temperatures from year to year. To put it another way, they don't say the Toronto Maple leafs will lose to the Red Wings .....they only give odds. By your logic, I suppose you could say the "Leafs suck" theory would be destroyed by a couple back to back wins against Detroit.

You also ignored the more important links I provided to peer reviewed research ( http://climatesci.org/ ).

If it was the "most important" you should have labeled it as that. It would have saved me from wasting my time going through the other list of CRAP.

Much to my shock, this is the weblog of a REAL climate scientists. He is not, however a global warming skeptic. He seems to have a broader focus regarding the causes of global warming and wants more details. He is clearly somewhat out of step with the scientific majority, but he is not a skeptic:

From his page (and Wikipedia)

"

the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers (e.g. see http://climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-258.pdf). [1]

"

I really don't have time to pick through the whole thing. The papers I have read so far don't seem anti-AGW. You have to remember that a paper that says 20 percent of the rise in global temperatures is caused by a change in land use does not count as an anti-AGW paper.

People arguing about details is not an anti-AGW paper. Just because someone says we need better climate models does not mean that they don't believe in AGW.

Again, I am not seeing anti-AGW peer-reviewed articles written by scientists. (I found a quote from Lomberg, but he is a POLITICAL SCIENTIST and the quote was from his own book)

[Riverwind]

Most of these "rebutles full of hypocritcal nonsense" manage to make it past editorial review boards of esteemed scientists. Who are you to judge them as "hypocrital nonsense".

Ah yes. The appeal to the authority of "esteemed scientists" that defend junk like the hockey stick. I am sorry but such people are not worthy of trust or respect. Any claims they might make must be treated with extreme scepticism and verified against the data when possible.

You don't seem to understand the concept. The rise of C02 is one factor that effects temperature. There are many others, many of which can be considered random for our purposes.

Try reading the IPCC report. It claims that the earth would have cooled over the last 20 years if humans had not added CO2. Their analysis claims that "weather noise" is too small to explain the trend. Yet they now claim that "weather noise" is very large since it has swamped the effect of rising CO2. It is either one or the other. If weather noise is too small to explain the earlier trend then it cannot explain the current lack of warming. If it is large enough to hide the warming then they cannot argue that the previous warming was not the result of "weather noise" as well (which would imply that the CO2 effect is much smaller than claimed).

We also know next to nothing about how the sun affects climate which means it cannot be excluded as possible cause of the warming. More importantly, alarmists assume that the sun has cause warming trends in the past but the most recent data tells us that this cannot possibily be true if the sun's effect on climate is limited to changes in TSI. If the sun affects climate in ways unrelated to changes in TSI (e.g. its magnetic field) then it could also be the source of a significant portion of the warming over the last century.

Much to my shock, this is the weblog of a REAL climate scientists. He is not, however a global warming skeptic. He seems to have a broader focus regarding the causes of global warming and wants more details. He is clearly somewhat out of step with the scientific majority, but he is not a skeptic

I am perfectly aware of that. He is one of the few dedicated climate scientists who looks at the data and is not afraid of criticizing alarmists or skeptics when he feels they make claims that are not supported by the data. He does not dispute that CO2 causes warming but feels that its role is being greatly exagerrated. He strongly believes that humans are affecting climate in many ways and that we should do something about it. Here is summary of his views on CO2 reductions. http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=445

EcoWorld: What policies should be considered to deal with climate change? Is reducing CO2 emissions part of the solution?

Pielke: Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions can only serve as a useful "environmental currency" as long as it provides the benefits needed to reduce the risk to critical environmental and social resources. As such, it needs to be part of a win-win strategy that provides a diversity of benefits. With energy efficiency and energy independence, for example, everyone benefits. As the "currency" for these benefits, however, greenhouse gas emission reduction represents an unnecessarily blunt instrument if there are more effective ways to reduce the risks to societal and environmental resources. Moreover, greenhouse gas policies can produce serious unintended negative consequences such as an increase in carcinogenic emissions when biodiesel is used, or reductions in biodiversity and alterations in climate when land management practices convert large areas to biofuels.

Greenhouse gas emission reductions, relative to other environmental currencies, should be evaluated with respect to their ability to reduce risk to essential social and environmental resources. In this framework, greenhouse emission reductions are only useful if they provide real benefit to those resources. Thus, if a policy made for other reasons also happens to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, you clearly have a win-win situation. The current focus on using reductions in CO2 emissions as the primary currency for achieving benefits to society and the environment, however, clearly represents a very flawed approach.

I agree 100% with his assesments but feel that we cannot have any meanful discussion of CO2 reductions as long as CO2 obsessed alarmists control the policy agenda because this obsession will lead to many destructive policies that accomplish nothing yet hurt many.

The papers I have read so far don't seem anti-AGW. You have to remember that a paper that says 20 percent of the rise in global temperatures is caused by a change in land use does not count as an anti-AGW paper.

You are completely missing the point. I don't dispute that CO2 causes some warming - neither do many skeptics. The is issue is how much warming. All of the alarmist computer model predictions are based on the *assumption* that alll of the recent warming was caused by CO2. This assumption is used to predict the amount of future warming. If other factors caused some of the recent warming then the amount of future warming due to CO2 must be reduced accordingly. If the amount of future warming is less than 1 degC then it is not possible to justify any action on CO2 since that amount of warming is not likely to lead to any negative consequences large enough to justify the cost of reducting CO2.

The most recent weather data tends to support the hypothesis that CO2 induced warming is less than predicted which means massive interventions may not be required.

Edited June 20, 2008 by Riverwind

[myata]

A publicity stunt.

...

Sometimes waiting and seeing is the most intelligent response to a situation. Anyone who looks objectives at the weather data can only conclude that at wait and see approach is the most prudent at this time.

Anything can be dismissed out of hand as publicity stunt, impossible or impractical by a non-believer who only accepts their own position without any rational argumentation. You keep ignoring expert opinion, actual examples of others maintaining emissions at controlled level, practical developments in technology in favours of what - doing nothing. So, sure, nothing will come out of it. I don't think anything can be added to what was already said.

...

Or someone stuck in a house that's on fire... Which is a better analogy? We have the opinion of experts on one side, with measurements and analysis of numerous parameters of land, ice water, air, armed with best models developed on the basis of physics and math, same physics and math that powers whole of our everyday life. And non-believers who'll keep droning the same thing like broken record until it strikes them on the head, or maybe even then. As said, without expert knowledge, the choice is everybody's. And I think, majority of Canadians, understand the importance of this issue, and the need to do something. What you insist on denying the science and any possibility of positive development, is your personal belief. And beliefs cannot be argued with, not rationally at least.

[Riverwind]

Anything can be dismissed out of hand as publicity stunt, impossible or impractical by a non-believer who only accepts their own position without any rational argumentation.

Did you even bother to read the link I provided? It explained in detail why hydrogen fuelled cars are no better than snake oil given the current state of technology. For the most part I have backed up my claims with links to other sources despite the fact that that you refuse to look at anything that does not tell you something that you want to hear. I have also provided very specific technical criticisms of your counter arguments which you ignore. You need to look in a mirror before accusing others of only accepting their own position.

You keep ignoring expert opinion, actual examples of others maintaining emissions at controlled level

The experts responsible for building such technologies (i.e. engineers) generally agree that there are no pratical replacements for Co2 emitting sources at this time. The 'experts' that you are talking about are people that know nothing of the engineering issues and simply assume that something that sort of works in a lab can deployed on a large scale. I am sorry to burst your bubble but many technologies that work in a lab are never deployed widely because technical limitations make them impractical. That is why I might invest some money in a company with an interesting yet unproven idea but the bulk of my savings will go into companies that actually have a real product or service that can be sold for a profit. Introducing policy changes that presume that technological break throughs will occur is as risky as investing all of one's savings in a internet start up. You may be willing to take the risk but you have no business demanding that others take the same risk too.

Which is a better analogy? We have the opinion of experts on one side, with measurements and analysis of numerous parameters of land, ice water, air, armed with best models developed on the basis of physics and math, same physics and math that powers whole of our everyday life.

The trouble is the "best models" don't produce results that match the real measurements of the real parameters.

I think part of your problem is you think that computer models are these magical god machines that cannot possibly be wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. That is why computer models used by engineers to build things like nuclear plants have to go through some pretty rigorous validation procedures before their outputs can be used to make decisions. The climate models have been developed by people that know nothing about software development and have never been subjected to any sort of rigorous testing to determine whether they have been coded correctly. Their output could be complete junk because of a software error yet we would never know if this error causes the models to produce results that conform to the modeller's preconceptions. Unverified models are no better than astrologers when it comes to predicting the future.

What you insist on denying the science and any possibility of positive development, is your personal belief. And beliefs cannot be argued with, not rationally at least.

Sorry bud. It is you that seems to have a hopelessly naive view of what the science actually says and how little we really know. Edited June 20, 2008 by Riverwind

[myata]

Did you even bother to read the link I provided? It explained in detail why hydrogen fuelled cars are no better than snake oil given the current state of technology.

....

For the most part I have backed up my claims with links to other sources despite the fact that that you refuse to look at anything that does not tell you something that you want to hear. I have also provided very specific technical criticisms of your counter arguments which you ignore. You need to look in a mirror before accusing others of only accepting their own position.

The release of these cars means that technology is now viable to the extent that major business is investing into it; just what you were trying to prove impossible a few posts back. The network of hydrogen stations already exists e.g in California, and will be expanded as technology develops; as well as process for separation of hydrogen; compare the car of late 1880 vs todays; things change; technology develops; improves; unless you believe that Honda 2008 was created by Almighty 6 days back?

...

There's no shortage of any kind of links on the net, as I'm trying to patiently convey on you; throwing around bunch of links isn't a prove of anything and isn't a substitute for an expert argument, at least in the matters of science and technology; if anybody from the streat writes a blog, it doesn't make a scientific agument and repeating it (reposting etc) means even less.

The experts responsible for building such technologies (i.e. engineers) generally agree that there are no pratical replacements for Co2 emitting sources at this time. The 'experts' that you are talking about are people that know nothing of the engineering issues and simply assume that something that sort of works in a lab can deployed on a large scale. I am sorry to burst your bubble but many technologies that work in a lab are never deployed widely because technical limitations make them impractical. That is why I might invest some money in a company with an interesting yet unproven idea but the bulk of my savings will go into companies that actually have a real product or service that can be sold for a profit. Introducing policy changes that presume that technological break throughs will occur is as risky as investing all of one's savings in a internet start up. You may be willing to take the risk but you have no business demanding that others take the same risk too.

Of course, you're free to create random noise like this. It's the net, and typing, and posting is free.

The trouble is the "best models" don't produce results that match the real measurements of the real parameters.

and this.

I think part of your problem is you think that computer models are these magical god machines that cannot possibly be wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. That is why computer models used by engineers to build things like nuclear plants have to go through some pretty rigorous validation procedures before their outputs can be used to make decisions. The climate models have been developed by people that know nothing about software development and have never been subjected to any sort of rigorous testing to determine whether they have been coded correctly.

and this.

Their output could be complete junk because of a software error yet we would never know if this error causes the models to produce results that conform to the modeller's preconceptions. Unverified models are no better than astrologers when it comes to predicting the future.

and this. I'm mean, keep blogging. This is internet and anyone can write whatever they desire.

Sorry bud. It is you that seems to have a hopelessly naive view of what the science actually says and how little we really know.

I'm somewhat short of time to take lessons about what science actually says from about anybody, but I'd agree that we don't know everything. Which isn't the same as saying that we know nothing and because of that shouldn't think about what we're doing because it doesn't matter because we don't know anything anyways.

But, the ranks of unbelievers shrink, now business leaders as well are calling for emissions reductions: Global business leaders calling for carbon curbs: BBC. Are you going to dismiss them as clueless ignorants performing meaningless publicity stunts? I won't be surprised.. But would it speak about them, or yourself? That's the $100 science question.

[Bryan]

I firmly believe that we should trust the science. That is why I don't believe in AGW. It isn't science, it's politics.

[Riverwind]

things change; technology develops; improves;

Sure. But politicians can't wave a magic wand and make technology appear on their schedule. That is why it is irresponsible to promote policies that assume that technological change occurs.

There's no shortage of any kind of links on the net, as I'm trying to patiently convey on you; throwing around bunch of links isn't a prove of anything and isn't a substitute for an expert argument

You need to join the 21th century. Experts have blogs and they publish their opinions on the internet. This allows people who are willing to learn to hear what the issues are an formulate their own opinion. There used to be a time when the catholic church insisted that only priests were allowed to read the bible and the masses were expected to listen without questioning. The protestant reformation changed that but it appears that you are nostalgic for those days. I find your desire to remain as ignorant as possible to be quite disturbing.

There's Global business leaders calling for carbon curbs: BBC[/url]. Are you going to dismiss them as clueless ignorants performing meaningless publicity stunts? I won't be surprised.. But would it speak about them, or yourself? That's the $100 science question.

Business leaders see climate alarmism as an opportunity to make money. It is no considence that the CEO of Enron was one of the first corporate leaders to jump on the green bandwagon because he recognized the potential for making money by manipulating the carbon markets. I suspect most business leaders share the opinion of GM's Robert Lutz who has recently called global warming a crock while he insisted that GM would deliver green products because that is what the consumer wants. Edited June 20, 2008 by Riverwind

[myata]

Sure. But politicians can't wave a magic wand and make technology appear on their schedule. That is why it is irresponsible to promote policies that assume that technological change occurs.

Profound thought. Really, why impose the technology to treat sewage? Prohibit toxic waste? Impose car emission standards? Food safety? Etc? It'll all take care of itself, naturally.

Congrats on breaking some really new ground here.

You need to join the 21th century. Experts have blogs and they publish their opinions on the internet. This allows people who are willing to learn to hear what the issues are an formulate their own opinion.

Oh I see, you somehow confused this site with one of those expert subject blogsites? Check your bookmarks. BTW any success with publishing your learned opinions there (as opposed to here, where it's free of side effects both for your membership and professional reputation)?

Business leaders see climate alarmism as an opportunity to make money. It is no considence that the CEO of Enron was one of the first corporate leaders to jump on the green bandwagon because he recognized the potential for making money by manipulating the carbon markets. I suspect most business leaders share the opinion of GM's Robert Lutz who has recently called global warming a crock while he insisted that GM would deliver green products because that is what the consumer wants.

Wow, looks like at least one of my predictions was a success! Though not full 100% - they aren't after all, clueless ignorants, just following hidden agendas. OK, what have we got here? Clueless scientists and experts, dumb engineers (wasting their time on useless technologies), conspiring enterpreneurs, gullible politicians - the world indeed is going down, man. My condolences.

[Remiel]

This looked like a kind of fun observation:

Coal and coal waste products including fly ash, bottom ash, and boiler slag, contain many heavy metals, including arsenic, lead, mercury, nickel, sulphur, vanadium, beryllium, cadmium, barium, chromium, copper, molybdenum, zinc, selenium and radium, which are dangerous if released into the environment. Coal also contains low levels of uranium, thorium, and other naturally-occurring radioactive isotopes whose release into the environment may lead to radioactive contamination.[7][8] While these substances are trace impurities, enough coal is burned that significant amounts of these substances are released, resulting in more radioactive waste than nuclear power plants.[9] Mercury emissions from coal burning are concentrated as they work their way up the food chain and converted into methylmercury, a toxic compound[10] that may affect people who frequently consume freshwater fish affected by mercury pollution from nearby coal-fired power plants.[11] Ocean fish account for almost all of most people's exposure to methylmercury;[11] the sources of ocean fish methylmercury are not well understood.

[Riverwind]

This looked like a kind of fun observation:

It all comes down to cost of doing something about a potential problem vs. the potential risk. There are many anti-pollution measures that can easily be justified despite the costs. For example, the ban on CFCs was based on dubious science but there were technically feasible alternatives available and the costs to society were minimal. OTOH, human over population is a huge cause of environmental problems and preventing humans from reproducing would deliver many tangible benefits but the costs of such measures are too high despite those environmental benefits. This debate is really about where there CO2 risk lies on that continium.

Any policiy discussion on CO2 reductions must take into account the fact that we really don't know if it will be a problem and that there are no technically feasible alternatives that can provide the energy that humans need. That does not mean we do nothing. However, does mean that we cannot simply outlaw existing energy sources.

Edited June 20, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Wow, looks like at least one of my predictions was a success! Though not full 100% - they aren't after all, clueless ignorants, just following hidden agendas. OK, what have we got here? Clueless scientists and experts, dumb engineers (wasting their time on useless technologies), conspiring enterpreneurs, gullible politicians - the world indeed is going down, man. My condolences.

We live in a world where over half of the human population lives under despots that maintain their power because of thousands of 'collaborators' who carry out the depot's will, religious fanatics that will kill thousands of people in the name of their god and politicians that will cherry pick intellegence reports in order to justify an expensive war. I think the better question why you are naive enough to blindly trust people simply because someone slaps a label on them and calls them an 'expert'?

Bottom line is the alternate views are available. You can choose to inform yourself and you might even be able to convince yourself that the alarmist's counter arguments have merit. However, refusing to even consider the possibility that the experts could be wrong is an abdication of responsibility.

Edited June 20, 2008 by Riverwind

[gc1765]

I don't dispute that CO2 causes some warming - neither do many skeptics. The is issue is how much warming. All of the alarmist computer model predictions are based on the *assumption* that alll of the recent warming was caused by CO2. This assumption is used to predict the amount of future warming. If other factors caused some of the recent warming then the amount of future warming due to CO2 must be reduced accordingly. If the amount of future warming is less than 1 degC then it is not possible to justify any action on CO2 since that amount of warming is not likely to lead to any negative consequences large enough to justify the cost of reducting CO2.

I don't know, as far as I know the warming caused by CO2 can easily be calculated using basic physics. This was done by Arrhenius back in 1896. link

I realize there is a possibility that there is some other factor which could lessen the influence of CO2, but so far I haven't heard anyone make such an argument. Is there some reason to believe that Arrhenius was wrong? If you have any references on that topic, I'd be interested in reading them.

Now, just because those calculations don't fit the observed temperature does not mean that the contribution from CO2 is wrong. The best analogy that I can think of is try to throw a feather off of a tall building and try to predict where and when it will land. There are so many factors at play (air resistance, wind etc.), that it would be nearly impossible to predict, but what we do know for certain is the contribution due to gravity which can easily be calculated. Of course, in this case there is air resistance which would slow down the descent compared to what it would be if gravity was acting alone. So far though, I have not heard any reasons why CO2 will not cause as much warming as based on those calculations, but again I'd be interested in learning more if you have any references.

[myata]

That does not mean we do nothing. However, does mean that we cannot simply outlaw existing energy sources.

Good admission. We can start from there. BTW nobody here (as far as I can see) is proposing to "outlaw existing energy sources".

Bottom line is the alternate views are available. You can choose to inform yourself and you might even be able to convince yourself that the alarmist's counter arguments have merit. However, refusing to even consider the possibility that the experts could be wrong is an abdication of responsibility.

You can certainly consider possibility that they are wrong. The question is how your interpret your consideration. If it's a private opinion, its fine. It's fine to discuss in an unqualified forum as a matter of private opinion or believe. Like that on aliens. Or Maple Leafs' game.

What doesn't make sense is to make an uneducated, unsubstantiated statement in a expert forum (or pretending to make expert statement while it's in fact a private opinion or belief); science and technology work because every result goes through rigorous process of review, discussion and acceptance by qualified peers. An outlandish statement with no meanigful substantiantion will be ignored. People only have so much time, nobody wants to spend time going through internet'intellectual waste anymore than you'd want to seep through your neighbourhood's trash in the search of a rare jewel.

[peter_puck]

I firmly believe that we should trust the science. That is why I don't believe in AGW. It isn't science, it's politics.

Then why are the people who publish it scientists, while the people who publish rebuttles are politicians or other non-scientists ?

Why does every major scientific organization support global warming ? Are you better qualified than they are to understand what science is ?

[Riverwind]

Then why are the people who publish it scientists, while the people who publish rebuttles are politicians or other non-scientists ?

For starters there several are scientists who dispute key parts of the AGW alarmists claims (Linzden, Spencer, Christie, Pielke, Loehe, Svenmark, etc). They are in the minority but there are bona fide scientists with long publishing records. There are also published economists that strongly dispute the economic portions of the IPCC report (Lomberg, McKitrick).

For decades the consensus was that stress and lifestyle choices were the cause of ulcers. It took one scientist a decade or more to establish that ulcers were, in fact, caused by bacteria. In the end he was forced to deliberately infect himself with the bacteria to prove the causal link. Before the 'consensus' shifted he was ridiculed by the establishment that pointed to the hundreds of peer reviewed papers showing the causal link between stress and ulcers.

There are other numerous examples of situations where the 'consensus' was wrong and a minority of scientists were right. In the long run science is self correcting and bad science will be quietly discarded, however, once a certain idea is established as the 'consensus' it will take decades to over turn it. We don't have decades to wait for for the scientists to hash it out because major policy actions are being demanded today and the cost of being wrong on CO2 is as huge as the cost of being right and doing nothing. For that reason we need to be proactive when it comes to looking at the sceptical views and those outside the climate science community need to insist that the traditional way of resolving disputes with the consensus is not good enough when so much is on the line.

That said, there are ways to deal with uncertainty but they don't included launching a 'war on carbon' where all else is sacrificed in the name of reducing CO2 below some level pulled out of hat (400ppm, 350ppm, whatever). We should invest in energy efficiency and alternatives to gasoline. We should remove the roadblocks that delay the construction of nuclear plants and other non-CO2 emitting alternatives. We should look building dams and dikes to protect water supplies and coastal communities.

We should not be playing around with measures like carbon taxes or carbon caps because such measures are too blunt and the potential for unintended consequences is huge. We also have to be realists and recognize that technology will likely allow us to limit our CO2 emissions once the human population has stopped growing but that it will likely take 100+ years. Politicians promoting "plans" to stop emissions growth in 10-30 years are simply pandering to the public.

[Riverwind]

---

Edited June 21, 2008 by Riverwind

[gc1765]

We should not be playing around with measures like carbon taxes or carbon caps because such measures are too blunt and the potential for unintended consequences is huge.

What are the unintended consequences of a revenue neutral carbon tax? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you argue in another thread that consumption taxes (i.e. the GST) are better for the economy than income taxes? So how is a consumption tax on fossil fuels worse for the economy than income & business taxes?

[Riverwind]

What are the unintended consequences of a revenue neutral carbon tax? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you argue in another thread that consumption taxes (i.e. the GST) are better for the economy than income taxes? So how is a consumption tax on fossil fuels worse for the economy than income & business taxes?

Consumption taxes are a percentage of the good or service traded. They are not intended to change consumer behavoir they only exist to fund government operations. Carbon taxes are a tax on energy have the potential to make some essential goods outrageously expensive while having little effect on non-essential goods. This means the negative effect on the economy is potentially much larger.

The idea that carbon taxes are revenue neutral is also a myth since the government needs the revenue and will have to increase taxes in order to replace income lost if the tax has its intended effect. In addition, the bureacracy required to monitor and enforce a carbon tax will eventually rival that of income tax because it is so easy to cheat when it comes to reducing CO2 and politicians will be forced to create various sorts of exemptions and subsidises to deal with the fact that carbon taxes increase the cost of essential goods and services. The cost of the bureaucracy required to manage the GST is tiny in comparison.

The problems that Canada has had with softwood lumber is another example of the problems that will arise if gov'ts 'put a price on carbon'. With softwood lumber differences between the US and Canadian systems led to accusations of subsidies and anti-dumping duties. These actions have cost the Canadian industry dearly even though most independent analysis agree that the difference in systems does not constitute a net subsidy to the Canadian industry. Such problems will become commonplace if 'carbon subsidies' are incorporated into international trade agreements (carbon taxes without carbon tariffs are a recipe for economic suicide).

Edited June 21, 2008 by Riverwind

[peter_puck]

For starters there several are scientists who dispute key parts of the AGW alarmists claims (Linzden, Spencer, Christie, Pielke, Loehe, Svenmark, etc). They are in the minority but there are bona fide scientists with long publishing records. There are also published economists that strongly dispute the economic portions of the IPCC report (Lomberg, McKitrick).

Lets look at your list:

Richard Lindzen:

Receives money from oil interests and has been associated with groups that recieve money from the oil industry groups. In the past he has questioned the link between smoking and lung cancer.

John Christie:

He did a study with a number of individuals that "disproved" AGW. This was the one that the science fiction write used. Problem was of course, the study was crap. Most of the people who worked with him on it agree it is fataly flawed. No known connection *yet* to Exxon

Spencer

No knwn connection to Exxon (that fact that articles written by him have this under his name tells you a lot)

Has spoken out in favor of intelligent design. At one time was part of the "it is really getting cooler" movement.

Most of his old work is clearly debunked, though it comes up from time to time

Pielke

I have already talked about him

Craig Loehle

He is an ecologist. From what I can tell, his only published papers on global warming are in that journal whose editor has not taken a univeristy level science course.

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.

For decades the consensus was that stress and lifestyle choices were the cause of ulcers. It took one scientist a decade or more to establish that ulcers were, in fact, caused by bacteria. In the end he was forced to deliberately infect himself with the bacteria to prove the causal link. Before the 'consensus' shifted he was ridiculed by the establishment that pointed to the hundreds of peer reviewed papers showing the causal link between stress and ulcers.

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.

There are other numerous examples of situations where the 'consensus' was wrong and a minority of scientists were right. In the long run science is self correcting and bad science will be quietly discarded, however, once a certain idea is established as the 'consensus' it will take decades to over turn it.

This was the EXACT argument that the tobacco companies used for years (and would have used for another centure if they could). They had the same small minority of scientists just like you do. Some of them have actually moved on to get into the big buck game of AGW denying.

We don't have decades to wait for for the scientists to hash it out because major policy actions are being demanded today and the cost of being wrong on CO2 is as huge as the cost of being right and doing nothing.

Lets say we take your path....not cut back on carbon output. Then we run out of oil and all the bad things you are talking about happening anyway.

For that reason we need to be proactive when it comes to looking at the sceptical views and those outside the climate science community need to insist that the traditional way of resolving disputes with the consensus is not good enough when so much is on the line.

We should not be playing around with measures like carbon taxes or carbon caps because such measures are too blunt and the potential for unintended consequences is huge. We also have to be realists and recognize that technology will likely allow us to limit our CO2 emissions once the human population has stopped growing but that it will likely take 100+ years. Politicians promoting "plans" to stop emissions growth in 10-30 years are simply pandering to the public.

Peak oil renders that sort of logic moot. At our current rate of growth, we will have wiped most of our fossil fuels.

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.

Peak oil on the other hand will eventually destroy our way of life.

[Bryan]

Richard Lindzen:

Receives money from oil interests and has been associated with groups that recieve money from the oil industry groups.

So does David Suzuki.

Edited June 21, 2008 by Bryan

[gc1765]

The idea that carbon taxes are revenue neutral is also a myth since the government needs the revenue and will have to increase taxes in order to replace income lost if the tax has its intended effect.

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.

In addition, the bureacracy required to monitor and enforce a carbon tax will eventually rival that of income tax because it is so easy to cheat when it comes to reducing CO2 and politicians will be forced to create various sorts of exemptions and subsidises to deal with the fact that carbon taxes increase the cost of essential goods and services. The cost of the bureaucracy required to manage the GST is tiny in comparison.

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

If the bureaucracy is going to be prohibitively expensive as to cause "serious negative consequences" (which I doubt), then we could always just raise the gas tax (and perhaps add it to other fuels as well). It's unfortunate that Dion decided not to tax gas more, but I guess that's politics.

[jdobbin]

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

Unlikely that one can be found since one of the reasons the carbon tax is promoted is because it can be used with the present system and there's no need for a new bureaucracy.

Edited June 21, 2008 by jdobbin