Global Warming Happening on all Planets

[jdobbin]

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry christmas. Have one by the way. However, the fact is the model has been proven wrong.

Has it? I've not seen that evidence here.

If you can't see the model is wrong, you're the one in denial. It's a simple as that.

If you can't show evidence that a consensus of scientists affirms this then you are simply blowing...well, hot air.

Perhaps you should ask why the Harper government is in denial since they still are working for a cap and trade. Will it change your unchangeable vote to someone else?

Edited December 25, 2008 by jdobbin

[Oleg Bach]

Global warming happening on all planets? - hey - we live on this one and not the others - so this topic is redundant.

[Riverwind]

Okay, scratch the climate scientists then. Let all scientists vote if that's the case.

I don't see why a scientist who studied fruit fly biology is anymore qualified than a non-scientist who takes the time to educate themselves on the issues.

What we need to do is seperate the data collection groups from the climate modelling groups. As it stands the people doing the climate modelling are also collecting the data that supposed to be used to determine whether the models are correct. This is like allowing a corporation to audit itself.

We also need to insist that the climate models be put throught the software Q&A process that is used in industries like nuclear power. As it stands these programs are hacked together by grad students and scientists with no background in computer programming. The results of the models could easily be the result of a computer error and no one would know.

Once this is done we then need to insist that the climate modellers provide falsifiable predictions based on the data collected by these other groups. Policy action would depend on how well the models predict the future. The key point is falsifiable - i.e. it must be possible to show that the models are wrong and/or over/under estimated the effect of CO2.

If the modellers come back and claim that any possible weather outcome is "predicted" by the models (this is what they are doing now) then the models will have to be discarded because the provide no useful information. i.e. the models are no better than a financial advisor that tells you the TSX will be somewhere between 5000 and 20,000 10 years from now. The financial advisor is probably correct but that does not mean the advisor is providing useful information.

Edited December 25, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

I don't see why a scientist who studied fruit fly biology is anymore qualified than a non-scientist who takes the time to educate themselves on the issues.

Excellent idea. We should let people who have studied medicine themselves to diagnose illnesses.

[Riverwind]

Perhaps you should ask why the Harper government is in denial since they still are working for a cap and trade. Will it change your unchangeable vote to someone else?

Cap & trade is a scam used by politicians to create the illusion of action. For example, the recent cap™ plans in the EU and Australia which provide so many exemptions they are virtually meaningless. There is no reason to believe that Obama will be more successful than Sarkozy or Rudd once the negotiations start. Edited December 25, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Excellent idea. We should let people who have studied medicine themselves to diagnose illnesses.

That is exactly what we would have to do if the medical community demonstrated that it was willing to defend junk science in order to promote a particular set policy choices. I would love to be able to trust the climate science community's opinion - the trouble is they have proven that they cannot be trusted. Edited December 25, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

Cap & trade is scam used by politicians to create the illution of action. The recent cap™ plans in the EU and Australia which provides so many exemptions it is virtually meaningless. There is no reason to believe that Obama will be more successful than Sarkozy or Rudd once the negotiations start.

And yet you support Harper and aren't continually on him for pursuing this. All you talk about is the scientists and don't aim your arrow at people like Harper who are carrying out the policy. All I hear is that "he isn't that bad" or "he will not really carry the policy out."

Well, he is carrying the policy out. He doesn't speak out against the science. The plans of his government as proposed are just as expensive. Tens of millions are already being spent on reducing emissions and the money for it keeps growing even now.

[jdobbin]

the trouble is they have proven that they cannot be trusted.

People say the same thing about doctors.

[Riverwind]

All you talk about is the scientists and don't aim your arrow at people like Harper who are carrying out the policy.

What is your point? Harper has to respond to public opinion and the public has been duped by political activists masquerading as scientists. The best he can do is make sure that nothing too damaging is done until the fad subsides. Edited December 25, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

People say the same thing about doctors.

And many people do their own research and educate themselves about the diagnoses and treatments recommended by their doctors. Edited December 25, 2008 by Riverwind

[jdobbin]

And many people do their own research and educate themselves about the diagnoses and treatments recommended by their doctors.

Many people bypass their doctors and try to come up with diagnoses themselves because they believe doctors can't be trusted. It is all about the anti-science move that is out there.

[jdobbin]

What is your point? Harper has to respond to public opinion and the public has been duped by political activists masquerading as scientists. The best he can do is make sure that nothing too damaging is done until the fad subsides.

The best that you can do is to be an apologist for what Harper does. Show some courage and rake him over the coals, change your vote, run yourself but please don't tell me he has no choice and you have none either.

[Keepitsimple]

The biggest problem with Climate Change "science" is the mandate of the IPCC and the media's blind following of this self-serving organization. As you can see below, the role of the IPCC is clearly biased in favour of finding human-induced causes. Back in the 90's this mandate was boldly proclaimed on their website....now you have to dig pretty deep because their is so much evidence that Climate Change has many factors that are not human-induced. As a result, obvious factors such as the Sun and others such as orbital variations and wind and ocean current cycles are given short-shrift, if not discredited altogether. There are very few real "skeptics" in the world. By far the majority of people understand that climate change has always been with us - it's just a question of to what extent you believe that human factors play a role. It's frightening that science has been hijacked to the point that many of these people who believe in climate change but do not subscribe to a major human-induced factor are called skeptics and deniers.

Role of the IPCC

The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. Review by experts and governments is an essential party of the IPCC process. The Panel does not conduct new research, monitor climate-related data or recommend policies. It is open to all member countries of WMO and UNEP.

Link: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/10th-anniversary/an...ry-brochure.pdf

Edited December 26, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I will suggest the biggest problem with climate change is the finger pointing. It matters not whose fault it is, the fact of its reality is what is really important. Doing something about it is important.

Climate change is probably good news for Alberta. Warmer with more moisture is not exactly bad news here in the frozen chosen. The thing to do is decide how we live with the changes. Fixing them is not really an option, weather control is a little beyond us at this point in time so the simple thing to do is adapt to the changes. Humanity has done this for thousands of years, until now. Now we want to talk about it instead of doing something, that is what the problem is.

[eyeball]

I don't see why a scientist who studied fruit fly biology is anymore qualified than a non-scientist who takes the time to educate themselves on the issues.

Okay, we agree there are no scientists who can be trusted, so what or who do we trust instead?

I'd like to return to the 400 years of economic experience you pointed out. If there is one thing we've learned and proven its that we can recover from economic disasters, even global ones. We have no way of knowing however if we can recover from a global environmental disaster. We know from the fossil record that changes to the environment routinely causes species to go extinct. Are you aware of even a single species going extinct because of economic changes?

Precaution dictates and so do you, that we only act on what we know. Our historical experience also teaches us that collective democratic decision making is the only trustworthy alternative to small elites, like climate or economic science communities making our decisions for us. Do you agree or will we now have to scientifically question and prove to some nth degree that democracy does or doesn't work before you agree to its implementation? What scientists will you trust to do that task without corrupting it?

You can have a natural ecosystem without a human economy but you cannot have it the other way around. Believeing otherwise not only defies logic, it defies cause and effect, the physical laws of the universe, and the point of just about every single thing you've written on the subject. I can prove that natural ecosystems can and do persist in the absence of any inputs from human beings. Do you have any evidence that human beings can do likewise in the absence of any inputs from a natural ecosytem?

[Riverwind]

It matters not whose fault it is, the fact of its reality is what is really important. Doing something about it is important.

What we do depends very much on whose fault it is. The climate change alarmists insist that it is entirely man's fault and that we need to immediately stop burning fossil fuels no matter what the cost. The skeptics (a.k.a. climate change realists) think a significant portion is natural and that adaptation is most prudent course of action.

To use the example of the Alberta:

If the alarmists get their way the oil patch will be hit with punative taxes that will put many out of business. Those that remain will likely get a free ride when it comes to water and other non-CO2 related pollution because the government will be desperate to keep some part of the industry alive.

If the realists get their way the oil patch will continue to be a big part of the Alberta economy that would provide the revenues required to do things like build the dams and/or irrigation canels required to stabilize the water supply after the glaciers in the Rockies melt.

If you make no assumptions about who is most correct you should see that adaptation is the best bet because there is a good chance that mitigation would not stop any climate change even if it was possible to get a robust global agreement. No matter what happens we are likely going to have to adapt. Trying to do it with one hand tied behind our backs by denying ourselves access to fossil fuels is simply dumb.

Edited December 26, 2008 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

Precaution dictates and so do you, that we only act on what we know.

The pragmatic approach requires that we:

1) Acknowledge the potential risk even if uncertain;

2) Invest in alternative energy sources;

3) Adapt.

Aggressive CO2 mitigation policies cannot be justified given the current state of scientific knowledge because the cost of eliminating CO2 with our current technology is simply too high. The last point is important to remember when making the 'precautionary principal' or 'insurance policy' argument. Spending $1000/year on fire insurance for a $300,000 home is easy to justify. Spending $100,000/year impossible to justify and one would be better off taking the risk. CO2 mitigation is the $100,000 insurance policy.

[eyeball]

Aggressive CO2 mitigation policies cannot be justified given the current state of scientific knowledge because the cost of eliminating CO2 with our current technology is simply too high.

Only the economic cost though. What if a majority of people elect to take the view that timid CO2 mitigation policies cannot be justified because the environmental risk is simply to high? You know for certain that we can survive a man-made economic catastrophe but you are simply guessing and hoping we can survive a man-made environmental one.

What is more pragmatic, acting on your certainty or your hope?

The issues here are democracy, certainty and uncertainty. These have nothing to do with science. Science has taken its best shot and come up short, now its our turn.

Edited December 26, 2008 by eyeball

[Riverwind]

Only the economic cost though. What if a majority of people elect to take the view that timid CO2 mitigation policies cannot be justified because the environmental risk is simply to high?

CO2 is NOT an environmental problem. CO2 is a human economic problem. It is not an enviromental problem because the CO2 levels and temperatures of the earth have been much higher in the past yet life thrived. In fact, primates first appeared on a scene during a period of high temps and CO2. CO2 and the potentially higher temperatures are only a potential problem because of human societies have emerged with one climate and economic and social disruption could occur if the climate changes.

For that reason the only thing that guides our decision making are economic factors. i.e. is is cheaper to try and prevent climate change from occurring or to adapt to whatever changes come.

Our current state of knowledge/technology tells us:

1) Climate change might not be caused by CO2.

2) Even if climate change is caused by CO2 it could be too late to stop the changes.

3) Eliminating CO2 is incredible expensive and would undermine our ability to adapt if necessary.

Given those facts the the rational action is one that focuses on adaptation as required.

[eyeball]

CO2 is NOT an environmental problem.

What if a majority of Canadians conclude otherwise?

Is democracy a problem? Do you think we can adapt without it?

[GostHacked]

What if a majority of Canadians conclude otherwise?

Is democracy a problem? Do you think we can adapt without it?

Plants love CO2, they turn it into oxygen for us to breath.

[eyeball]

What does that have to do with humans democratically arriving at a conclusion?

[GostHacked]

What does that have to do with humans democratically arriving at a conclusion?

You mean we have to vote on if there actually is global warming?? Will a democraticly decided conclusion tells us without a doubt that global warming is real??

This mocks science. The science is being manipulated by people in power. Why should you know the truth anyways?

Carbon Monoxide is a problem.

Nuclear waste is a prolem.

Electronic waste is a problem.

I would say that global warming is not as big as an issue as us changing how and what we treat as garbage. These toxins will bite us in the ass,... already is, way before global warming ever will.

[kuzadd]

Plants do indeed love Co2 and thankfully so, for out benefit that is.

Greenhouses growers love co2 because plants love co2.

Carbon Dioxide In Greenhouses

Also interesting in the news as of late.....

Carbon dioxide found on extrasolar planet could lead to proof of extraterrestrial life

seems carbon dioxide is associated with life, except strangely enough here.

[kuzadd]

What is your point? Harper has to respond to public opinion and the public has been duped by political activists masquerading as scientists. The best he can do is make sure that nothing too damaging is done until the fad subsides.

Harper does NOT have to respond to public opinion.

what a laugh!

"The best he can do is make sure that nothing too damaging is done until the fad subsides."

god the baloney of that statement.....

Harper is responding to those higher up who wants the bogus controls in place to make money.

cap and trade and carbon taxes/cards are all bogus excuses to extract more money from the common folk and exert more control.