Has ClimateGate Changed Your Thinking ?

[Oleg Bach]

So tell me how regulating CO2 emissions is going to do anything about 'consumerism on the grandest scale'? If anything regulating CO2 will actually increase consumption and environmental degredation because people will have produce more in order to pay the higher energy costs.

To give you one concrete example: the oil sands are not going to get shutdown because they are too valuable. But if they are forced to spend billions reducing CO2 emissions you can bet that the tailings ponds and other toxic waste will be quietly ignored. Personally, I think the environment would be better off if the tailings ponds were cleaned up and the CO2 emitted.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to have a rational discussion of such trade offs in a CO2 obsessed world.

Go grab the bastards who demand "higher energy costs" - and audit the creeps - find out what profits THEY are making and cap them. We must all work together on this - You can not have one person demanding billions of dollars while billions of people strain to appease this little bastard or bastards.. The CO2 obsessed world is a lot like the swine flu crowd or the fear mongers that profit in the terrorist industry - The term carbon foot print should be banned - It's about management, budgeting and clean housekeeping on a planetary scale - keep it simple - I am not saying shut down the rich but educate the dumb buggers.

[Oleg Bach]

So tell me how regulating CO2 emissions is going to do anything about 'consumerism on the grandest scale'? If anything regulating CO2 will actually increase consumption and environmental degredation because people will have produce more in order to pay the higher energy costs.

To give you one concrete example: the oil sands are not going to get shutdown because they are too valuable. But if they are forced to spend billions reducing CO2 emissions you can bet that the tailings ponds and other toxic waste will be quietly ignored. Personally, I think the environment would be better off if the tailings ponds were cleaned up and the CO2 emitted.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to have a rational discussion of such trade offs in a CO2 obsessed world.

Carbon foot prints should be banned along with terms like ethnic cleansing and peace process...to much misleading Orwellian jabber being banted about..keep it plain and simple..If it works - leave it alone - If it's broken fix it. Also self made heros like Al Gore should get off the band wagon and go back into the field of buisness - where he could educate the people that are causing the problem - His friends and peers - Instead the rat goes around like a wanna be rock star educating the educated...preaching to the choir is to no avail..it's in vain and full of vanity.

[sunsettommy]

I chose no because I knew they were long holding data and resisting requests for the release of data.

[eyeball]

Explain in the context of my question, please.

Your last 4 questions are matters of privacy, and have no bearing on a public interest that our, your's and mine, common property resources i.e fish, be managed in a sustainable manner. The first question is rendered moot if an adequate monitoring and auditing regime is in place. Fishermen now have one but not DFO. Who do you trust?

You want to be able to see what private industry discusses with government, but not have others see what you discuss with government - is that right ?

Not without good reason. I want the data the government uses that impact my industry to be auditable by a third party.

If the data show more discrepancies than can be accounted for, i.e. salmon keep disappearing despite all government efforts to curb fishermen from catching them - then I want to start seeing human observers - process guardians if you will - that observe, record and report the internal discussions government is having on the issue. If it became clear that some other private or public industry was somehow involved in the disappearance of salmon then I would suggest we devise similar monitoring and auditing process' for these. This is also the point at which I would want to be able to see these industries discussions with my government. Perhaps this helps explain why I would like to see public representatives be elected to boards of directors of corporations that are involved in activities that impact the environment that things like fish and fishing communities rely on. My goal here is accountability not dictatorship as I'm often charged as advocating in these sorts of posts.

As you know, fish stocks around the world are predicted to collapse within our lifetimes. Many fishing communities have already begun to collapse. Somebody is either doing their job too well or not well enough, who shouldn't be a mystery but more importantly who shouldn't be a secret.

Edited December 13, 2009 by eyeball

[eyeball]

Sounds soviet. What next, a chivato on every corner watching you?

No, we start aiming the Telescreens the other way and watch right back.

[Michael Hardner]

Not without good reason. I want the data the government uses that impact my industry to be auditable by a third party.

If the data show more discrepancies than can be accounted for, i.e. salmon keep disappearing despite all government efforts to curb fishermen from catching them - then I want to start seeing human observers - process guardians if you will - that observe, record and report the internal discussions government is having on the issue. If it became clear that some other private or public industry was somehow involved in the disappearance of salmon then I would suggest we devise similar monitoring and auditing process' for these. This is also the point at which I would want to be able to see these industries discussions with my government. Perhaps this helps explain why I would like to see public representatives be elected to boards of directors of corporations that are involved in activities that impact the environment that things like fish and fishing communities rely on. My goal here is accountability not dictatorship as I'm often charged as advocating in these sorts of posts.

As you know, fish stocks around the world are predicted to collapse within our lifetimes. Many fishing communities have already begun to collapse. Somebody is either doing their job too well or not well enough, who shouldn't be a mystery but more importantly who shouldn't be a secret.

You seem to be modifying your stance somewhat, which sounds good to me. Documented decisions, audits to fish stocks, and documented plans that are agreed upon and understood by stakeholders - these are all good things, and may be necessary to having a good process.

[eyeball]

You seem to be modifying your stance somewhat, which sounds good to me. Documented decisions, audits to fish stocks, and documented plans that are agreed upon and understood by stakeholders - these are all good things, and may be necessary to having a good process.

You seem to be coming around to the idea of monitoring, that's good too.

[Michael Hardner]

You seem to be coming around to the idea of monitoring, that's good too.

Monitoring, yes, especially where it's reasonable and there is mistrust between the parties.

[eyeball]

Monitoring, yes, especially where it's reasonable and there is mistrust between the parties.

Well, you just described the state of affairs between much of the governed and the government and I'd suggest its the governed who are being monitored to a far greater extent.

Amongst other things that's just simply not fair.

[Michael Hardner]

Well, you just described the state of affairs between much of the governed and the government and I'd suggest its the governed who are being monitored to a far greater extent.

Amongst other things that's just simply not fair.

Fair has nothing to do with it. It's about costs, and benefits, as well as community notions of privacy. If people weren't interested in having their finances private, we could achieve a lot more by throwing the accounts open for all to see.

[eyeball]

Fair has nothing to do with it. It's about costs, and benefits, as well as community notions of privacy. If people weren't interested in having their finances private, we could achieve a lot more by throwing the accounts open for all to see.

Follow the money...I recall your suggestion that money be digitized and chipped or otherwise uniquely identified so that each transaction could be given a time, date and location stamp like email.

As for community notions of privacy, I think the government deliberately and routinely confuses these with its notions of secrecy. Consider for example how the video evidence of in-custody deaths at the hands of police is often withheld by police out of concerns for the privacy of the victim, even after the victims families demand that this evidence be made public.

The original footage may be lost, or may be in the custody of the RCMP or Coroner’s Office. Both offices have refused to release the edited or the full video to the public citing privacy concerns, despite receiving a notarized release from Clayton Willie’s family.

Source

Climate change, like so many many other issues that confound us is steeped in the same mistrustful environment of un-accountability and opacity as the official mishandling of Clayton Willie's death. Our capacity for trust is about as completely exhausted as our system is bereft of any institutions of meaningful accountability. This seems like an even more dangerous state of affairs to be in than a warming climate.

Edited December 14, 2009 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

Follow the money...I recall your suggestion that money be digitized and chipped or otherwise uniquely identified so that each transaction could be given a time, date and location stamp like email.

As for community notions of privacy, I think the government deliberately and routinely confuses these with its notions of secrecy. Consider for example how the video evidence of in-custody deaths at the hands of police is often withheld by police out of concerns for the privacy of the victim, even after the victims families demand that this evidence be made public.

Source

Climate change, like so many many other issues that confound us is steeped in the same mistrustful environment of un-accountability and opacity as the official mishandling of Clayton Willie's death. Our capacity for trust is about as completely exhausted as our system is bereft of any institutions of meaningful accountability. This seems like an even more dangerous state of affairs to be in than a warming climate.

Interesting analogy there.

[eyeball]

Interesting analogy there.

Instead of a frog in a pot waiting for whatever happens, society is more like a crowd in a dark nightclub with an unmarked exit.

[Michael Hardner]

In related news, we have interestingly 11 to 10 in favour of this changing your thinking.

If the results are as such across society, then science needs to take stock. I would like for them to reach out to the public through the web to educate and infotain.

[bloodyminded]

In related news, we have interestingly 11 to 10 in favour of this changing your thinking.

If the results are as such across society, then science needs to take stock. I would like for them to reach out to the public through the web to educate and infotain.

I agree, a concerted effort needs to be made. The hardened core of deniers wouldn't be swayed even by worst-case destructive scenarios (they'd blame "the left," I believe); so they're unreachable. But everyone else can learn.

[Riverwind]

I agree, a concerted effort needs to be made. The hardened core of deniers wouldn't be swayed even by worst-case destructive scenarios (they'd blame "the left," I believe); so they're unreachable.

I would say the bigger problem are the hard core alarmists who have been so thoroughly brainwashed into believing in the AGW religion that another 10 years of cooling wouldn't be enough to dent their faith. If there is a rational discussion to be had it can only be had between the people in the middle who agree that 1) CO2 is a hypothetical risk that is worth doing 'something' about and 2) Any actions on CO2 must take into account economic realities.

[eyeball]

I would say the bigger problem are the hard core alarmists who have been so thoroughly brainwashed into believing in the AGW religion that another 10 years of cooling wouldn't be enough to dent their faith. If there is a rational discussion to be had it can only be had between the people in the middle who agree that 1) CO2 is a hypothetical risk that is worth doing 'something' about and 2) Any actions on CO2 must take into account economic realities.

I fail to see how any discussion that includes people who refuse to acknowledge the economy must take into account its effects on the environment could be considered rational.

Put another way the biggest problem are the hard core economic alarmists who are thoroughly brainwashed into believing the economy trumps the environment. This is the complete antithesis of any sort of precautionary principle and its just flat out insane.

[Riverwind]

I fail to see how any discussion that includes people who refuse to acknowledge the economy must take into account its effects on the environment could be considered rational.

People without jobs don't give a damn about the environment. If misguided economic policies do severe damage to the economy it could take decades to repair the damag and in the meantime people suffer. If you want to apply the precautionary principal to CO2 then you must also apply it to the economy. Edited December 14, 2009 by Riverwind

[eyeball]

People without jobs don't give a damn about the environment. If misguided economic policies do severe damage to the economy it could take decades to repair the damag and in the meantime people suffer.

If misguided economic policies do severe damage to the environment the human suffering could last a lot longer than a few decades.

If you want to apply the precautionary principal to CO2 then you must also apply it to the economy.

We should have been applying it to both a long time ago.

[Riverwind]

If misguided economic policies do severe damage to the environment the human suffering could last a lot longer than a few decades.

IOW - we are damned if we do and damned if we dont. That is why the only rational policy discussion is one that tries to find the right balance between costs of action and the cost of being wrong.

[waldo]

IOW - we are damned if we do and damned if we dont. That is why the only rational policy discussion is one that tries to find the right balance between costs of action and the cost of being wrong.

wtf! You've peeled back away from your call for a moratorium on any action (mitigation/adaptation) whatsoever... your emphatic call for, "wait and see", "no need to do anything yet", "we have 50 to 100 years before any action is required". Oh my, has someone hacked Riverwind's MLW account? Where is the real Riverwind?

[eyeball]

Where is the real Riverwind?

He's grappling with his conscience. Give him a break.

[Riverwind]

You've peeled back away from your call for a moratorium on any action (mitigation/adaptation)

A moritorium is necessary as long as the AGW religious zealots control the debate. Get rid of them and I quite certain that a set of rational policies could be put in place that would move us away from fossil fuels. Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen anytime soon.

[waldo]

A moritorium is necessary as long as the AGW religious zealots control the debate. Get rid of them and I quite certain that a set of rational policies could be put in place that would move us away from fossil fuels. Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen anytime soon.

conscience grappling aside, your conspiracy reach has cast a wide net so far... very wide indeed. You're formally on the MLW record as including all scientific organizations/agencies/societies/etc., all climate scientists (the 97% figure often thrown back you), all scientific journals, the AGU itself, the IPCC, etc., etc., etc. Once you get rid of all these AGW religious zealot conspiracy targets of yours, just who/what will provide the scientific foundation to help support the debate conclusions? Why do we need to move away from fossil fuels... I thought you said there wasn't a problem? Oh my... like I said... where is the real Riverwind?

[Riverwind]

Once you get rid of all these AGW religious zealot conspiracy targets of yours, just who/what will provide the scientific foundation to help support the debate conclusions?

There are plenty of good scientists out there who have been bullied into silence by the alarmist zealots. Shove the alarmists off the stage and these people will be able to make contributions and those contributions won't necessarily support the sceptical view but if the debate is freed from those who seek to control it for political objectives we will be better able to assess to true state of the science. Edited December 14, 2009 by Riverwind