Question about the Green Shift

jdobbin · August 6, 2008

There is scientific consensus on very few if any subjects. There is not a consensus when it comes to global warming. You can find many scientist (and many of those in the climate field) that disagree.

There is a consensus on global warming. The people who disagree are a lot smaller than those who agree that there is global warming.

Also, you talk about reports that say GW will be bad for Canada. There are other reports that say it would be nothing but good. More crop land would be opened up and the growing season would be longer. There would also be room for northward population expansion and many of the natural resources that exist in the north would become much easier to access. Another benefit would be less infrastructure damage with a less intense freeze thaw cycle.

Two official reports commissioned by the government and written by experts outline both the good and the bad. I have said the reports say there will be a lot fewer cold related deaths and illnesses. However, they will be replaced by growing numbers of heat related illnesses and deaths.

Smallc · August 6, 2008

There is a consensus on global warming.

Thats simply false, it doesn't matter how many times you say it.

jdobbin · August 6, 2008

Thats simply false, it doesn't matter how many times you say it.

I'm afraid you are incorrect.

Read through this and let me know what you think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_consensus

Smallc · August 6, 2008

I'm afraid you are incorrect.
Read through this and let me know what you think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_consensus

That still does not mean that there's a consensus. the world may very well be getting warmer, but the truth is that we really can't say what's causing it.

Riverwind · August 6, 2008

That still does not mean that there's a consensus. the world may very well be getting warmer, but the truth is that we really can't say what's causing it.

Wikipedia is also an extremely unreliable source when it comes to GW information because a small group of GW fanatics with administrative privileges keep blocking any information that does not support the consensus narrative. When it comes to AGW - the NPOV of wikipedia is a fiction. Edited August 6, 2008 by Riverwind

jdobbin · August 6, 2008

That still does not mean that there's a consensus. the world may very well be getting warmer, but the truth is that we really can't say what's causing it.

I don't what you would believe for a consensus. Some people are still not convinced that smoking is harmful to their health either.

jdobbin · August 6, 2008

Wikipedia is also an extremely unreliable source when it comes to GW information because a small group of GW fanatics with administrative privileges keep blocking any information that does not support the consensus narrative. When it comes to AGW - the NPOV of wikipedia is a fiction.

And scientific academies that are footnoted are suspect. All scientists who support global warming are wrong. The consensus is against global warming but it all part of an international conspiracy that even Harper supports now. I guess that about covers it.

Keepitsimple · August 6, 2008

Perhaps I've missed something in all of the posts on this thread but I can't seem to find any targets for reducing GHG's. The Conservatives have 20% by 2020 and it is usually ridiculed as far too little....yet unless I have missed something, there is nothing in the Green Shift plan that sets out a goal for reducing GHG's. Have I missed something?

jdobbin · August 6, 2008

Perhaps I've missed something in all of the posts on this thread but I can't seem to find any targets for reducing GHG's. The Conservatives have 20% by 2020 and it is usually ridiculed as far too little....yet unless I have missed something, there is nothing in the Green Shift plan that sets out a goal for reducing GHG's. Have I missed something?

Yes, you have. And it has been posted here in these forums more than once.

http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:gzq4R5...;cd=2&gl=ca

We believe that our target should be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent below 1990 levels
by 2020.

That is from the Liberal site and it is the Green Shift complete.

Now, can we say there is something in the Green Shift that sets a target for green house decreases.

Edited August 6, 2008 by jdobbin

Keepitsimple · August 7, 2008

Yes, you have. And it has been posted here in these forums more than once.
http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:gzq4R5...;cd=2&gl=ca

That is from the Liberal site and it is the Green Shift complete.

Now, can we say there is something in the Green Shift that sets a target for green house decreases.

Thanks for pointing that out. Funny how it's mentioned on Page 16 that they believe their target should be 20% below 1990 by 2020.....but it's not included as a goal in the Executive Summary - not one mention of hitting a target. Why do you think that is Dobbin?

By the way....if the Liberals took power in 2010, they'd have 10 years to reduce GHG by over 50%. That's usually the difference between Liberals and Conservatives - Liberals promise the world and deliver next to nothing. Conservatives are pragmatic - promises are made in moderation and they deliver at least something. Three pie-in-the-sky Liberal promises come to mind and I'm sure other people have some:

1) Wiping out poverty by 2000

2) Committing to meet Kyoto

3) Fixing Healthcare for a generation

jdobbin · August 7, 2008

Thanks for pointing that out. Funny how it's mentioned on Page 16 that they believe their target should be 20% below 1990 by 2020.....but it's not included as a goal in the Executive Summary - not one mention of hitting a target. Why do you think that is Dobbin?

I have no idea although Dion in the first minutes of the news conference mentioned what the target was.

By the way....if the Liberals took power in 2010, they'd have 10 years to reduce GHG by over 50%. That's usually the difference between Liberals and Conservatives - Liberals promise the world and deliver next to nothing. Conservatives are pragmatic - promises are made in moderation and they deliver at least something. Three pie-in-the-sky Liberal promises come to mind and I'm sure other people have some:
1) Wiping out poverty by 2000

2) Committing to meet Kyoto

3) Fixing Healthcare for a generation

The Tories have had two versions of their environmental plans go down in flames because Canadians believed they were too pragmatic.

I think I've already said that the Chretien government made stupid promises in a time when they were cutting back and eradicating the deficit.

Unlike the Tories prior who didn't cut spending and raised taxes several times.

noahbody · August 8, 2008

The Tories have had two versions of their environmental plans go down in flames because Canadians believed they were too pragmatic.

That's because Canadians are fed "if we don't do something drastic by 2012 we're doomed." The reality is whether we meet our targets today or in 50 years it really doesn't make a difference to the environment. If you asked them "Do you want to sacrifice your income for no reason at all?" you'd likely get a different answer

I think I've already said that the Chretien government made stupid promises in a time when they were cutting back and eradicating the deficit.

You forgot creating a health care crisis and stealing taxpayer money.

jdobbin · August 8, 2008

That's because Canadians are fed "if we don't do something drastic by 2012 we're doomed." The reality is whether we meet our targets today or in 50 years it really doesn't make a difference to the environment. If you asked them "Do you want to sacrifice your income for no reason at all?" you'd likely get a different answer

Why don't the Tories do that then? Why do they now say that the green house gases are something they are now serious about? Are they lying now? Have they caved to public pressure? And if so, why are people on the right not moving to other more right wing parties? Have they caved as well?

You forgot creating a health care crisis and stealing taxpayer money.

The provinces were cutting back on healthcare at the same time. There is a lot of blame to spread around.

Yup, there was a reason why the Liberals lost the last election. And there is a reason now why the Tories are still stuck in minority territory.

TomS · August 8, 2008

I'm afraid that no matter how angry you get about it that most scientists still disagree with your point of view.

I must inform you that facts are not reached by concensus. Science is not a democracy. Think back throughout history all the times the " concensus " was wrong, or changed their minds. The earth isn't flat, the Sun doesn't go around the Earth, there wasn't a coming ice-age in the mid 70s,etc...

jdobbin · August 8, 2008

I must inform you that facts are not reached by concensus. Science is not a democracy. Think back throughout history all the times the " concensus " was wrong, or changed their minds. The earth isn't flat, the Sun doesn't go around the Earth, there wasn't a coming ice-age in the mid 70s,etc...

I think I have shown that there was no consensus of scientists saying there was an ice age.

Likewise, there was very few peer reviewed works during the debate on whether the sun was circling the earth.

If people on the right want to continue there is no consensus on things like smoking, it lacks credibility. It seems conservative would like to wait for the science to be settled to act. However, at the same time, they argue that science is never settled so therefore no action can be taken. It is a clever way to try and teach intelligent design in schools and not do anything on smoking.

The majority of scientists lean towards human influence on global warming. A minority of scientists disagree or have other viewpoints.

TomS · August 8, 2008

I think I have shown that there was no consensus of scientists saying there was an ice age.
Likewise, there was very few peer reviewed works during the debate on whether the sun was circling the earth.

If people on the right want to continue there is no consensus on things like smoking, it lacks credibility. It seems conservative would like to wait for the science to be settled to act. However, at the same time, they argue that science is never settled so therefore no action can be taken. It is a clever way to try and teach intelligent design in schools and not do anything on smoking.

The majority of scientists lean towards human influence on global warming. A minority of scientists disagree or have other viewpoints.

Who said I was on the right, I don't smoke because I believe it is unhealthy, I believe in evolution, I am agnostic, and I don't believe Al Gore or David Suzuki. I have respect for the equally educated scientists (of which there are many), who will not allow popular opinion to dictate there findings. If the facts devlop, I'm sure these equally educated scientists will see them also. Until then people who don't jump on the band-wagon should not be insulted for not following blindly.

jdobbin · August 8, 2008

Who said I was on the right, I don't smoke because I believe it is unhealthy, I believe in evolution, I am agnostic, and I don't believe Al Gore or David Suzuki. I have respect for the equally educated scientists (of which there are many), who will not allow popular opinion to dictate there findings. If the facts devlop, I'm sure these equally educated scientists will see them also. Until then people who don't jump on the band-wagon should not be insulted for not following blindly.

I never said you were on the right.

However, if people argue that no science is settled enough to make policy on, it opens the doors to removing present legislation on smoking and laws on not teaching intelligent design in schools.

Don't believe in Al Gore and David Suzuki. Accept that a majority of scientists say global warming is happening and it is enough for governments to act on. If there were more scientists saying "do nothing", governments would gladly accept that.

No government acted in fear with the small amount of scientists talking about a new ice age. The consensus at the time was that a new ice age was not occurring.

Riverwind · August 8, 2008

Don't believe in Al Gore and David Suzuki. Accept that a majority of scientists say global warming is happening and it is enough for governments to act on. If there were more scientists saying "do nothing", governments would gladly accept that.

Scientists are not qualified to make policy decisions. All they are saying is CO2 is likely to be a problem. It is up to the rest of to decide what to do about it. If we decide that living with the conquences of GW is preferrable to engaging in a futile effort to stop it then that is our choice. The scientists who say that rapid reductions in CO2 are the only option are entitled to their opinion but it is no more valid than yours or mine.

jdobbin · August 9, 2008

Scientists are not qualified to make policy decisions. All they are saying is CO2 is likely to be a problem. It is up to the rest of to decide what to do about it. If we decide that living with the conquences of GW is preferrable to engaging in a futile effort to stop it then that is our choice. The scientists who say that rapid reductions in CO2 are the only option are entitled to their opinion but it is no more valid than yours or mine.

Scientists are not making the policy decisions.

As for the validity of what advice a scientist gives, it does have more value if is based on their expertise. There are some arguing that science is just an opinion and therefore no need to act on it. Ever.

eyeball · August 9, 2008

Scientists are not qualified to make policy decisions...It is up to the rest of to decide...

I assume you were going to say its up to the rest of us to decide what to do about it and the thing is we did decide. A majority of Canadians clearly said we should implement Kyoto, and the government didn't do it. The government was told to scrap the gun registry and it didn't...etc etc etc...the list goes on and on and on.

So, the politicians/policy makers we elect appear just as unqualified for the job of making a decision. Perhaps it all starts with us. Can we honestly look ourselves in the face and say we're qualified to vote? Because we never seem to get governments that ever do what we've decided we want them to do.

Perhaps we should let the Supreme Court decide what to do. Just about everything else that's really important eventually ends up in their lap.

Riverwind · August 9, 2008

As for the validity of what advice a scientist gives, it does have more value if is based on their expertise.

Expertise in the mechanics of climate does not make one qualified to assess the various economic and social trade-offs that have to be factored into any political decision. That is what the political process is for.

jdobbin · August 9, 2008

Expertise in the mechanics of climate does not make one qualified to assess the various economic and social trade-offs that have to be factored into any political decision. That is what the political process is for.

That is why we have had economic and health reports done as well to help determine the political response. Some have dismissed those as well. Some will likely dismiss any and all reports.

Edited August 9, 2008 by jdobbin

Riverwind · August 9, 2008

That is why we have had economic and health reports done as well to help determine the political response. Some have dismissed those as well. Some will likely dismiss any and all reports.

Really? So now you are claiming there is a "consensus" among economists too? That would be unheard of. The fact is different economists have different opinions on the best way to deal with the change even if one accepts the scientific consensus at face value. At the end of the day we have to find a compromise that balances the competing interests. Edited August 9, 2008 by Riverwind

jdobbin · August 9, 2008

Really? So now you are claiming there is a "consensus" among economists too? That would be unheard of. The fact is different economists have different opinions on the best way to deal with the change even if one accepts the scientific consensus at face value. At the end of the day we have to find a compromise that balances the competing interests.

What compromise are denialists asking for? They say it isn't happening so therefore nothing needs to be done.

Topaz · August 9, 2008

We all seen what China looks like with its pollution and I don't think other people in other countries would want that for their environment. They had to shut down all manufacturing and stop people from driving a day before the Olympics started. I'm wondering how many of their people have breathing problems and lungs diseases. You can't put a price on your health and so whatever it takes to stop Canada from turning into China, I'm all for it! Now, the problem is HOW to go about it. If the polluters of this country won't reduced their pollution than they need to be fined. There's so many ways Canada can do this and I'm sure there's people out there that can comes up with ideas that won't hurt the business out there.