Conservative War On Science

[bush_cheney2004]

Kyoto isn't exactly unresearched. The IPCC does study peer-reviewed, published scientific research, whether or not you like their findings.

Then why didn't the Liberals comply? Was it the "conservative war on science"?

[waldo]

Eventually all governments will be forced to sign on I think. They will be forced because the reality of the situation will become too much.

yes... even those choosing to throw an ideological bent and/or self-serving blind-eye to that reality:

Leading climate change economist warns U.S. of trade boycott

A British climate change economist at the heart of international negotiations seeking a greenhouse gas deal said Friday that the U.S. faces a trade boycott if it fails to rein in its carbon emissions.

Lord Nicholas Stern, author of the British government's 2006 report on the economics of climate change, warned the U.S. that many countries would shun its goods if they deemed them to be "dirty."

"The U.S. will increasingly see the risks of being left behind, and 10 years from now they would have to start worrying about being shut out of markets because their production is dirty," Stern told The Times.

"If they persist in being slow about reducing emissions, U.S. exports will start to look more carbon intensive."

Stern advises several G20 countries and his 2006 Stern review is regarded as the most in-depth and well-known study into climate change economics.

World leaders will meet at the U.N. climate change conference in Cancun, Mexico, in 10 days' time to try and kickstart emissions negotiations which faltered at the Copenhagen conference last December.

Stern said that countries who have pledged to reduce their emissions would resent competition from "dirty" exports. He highlighted aircraft, cars, and machine tools as goods which could face restrictions.

"If you are charging properly for carbon and other people are not, you will take that into account," he said. "Many of the more forward-looking people in the U.S. are thinking about this."

President Barack Obama pledged before the Copenhagen conference to cut U.S. emissions by 17 percent on 2005 levels by 2020, but has been thwarted by Congress.

Any new U.S. commitments within the next two years are highly unlikely following the Republican party's gains in the midterm elections.

[bush_cheney2004]

yes... even those choosing to throw an ideological bent and/or self-serving blind-eye to that reality:

LOL! Guess which nation will be the last to even think of such a boycott? CANADA!!!!!!!!

[Evening Star]

Virtually anything that the U.N. does is suspect IMHO.

"suspect" <> "unresearched"

[Evening Star]

Then why didn't the Liberals comply? Was it the "conservative war on science"?

Some combination of short-sightedness, fiscal concerns, and political expediency, I'm guessing? It's unsurprising when governments break promises and has little to do with the specific Conservative policies about scientist-media communication that were the original topic of this thread.

[Evening Star]

Virtually anything that the U.N. does is suspect IMHO.

But, I mean, for real? Including the WHO, UNESCO, UNICEF, ...?

[bush_cheney2004]

Some combination of short-sightedness, fiscal concerns, and political expediency, I'm guessing? It's unsurprising when governments break promises and has little to do with the specific Conservative policies about scientist-media communication that were the original topic of this thread.

But the net result is the same. The Canadian Parliament ratified a treaty and failed to comply, not so the "conservatives" in Canada (or America). So who really declared "war"?

[TimG]

Every bit of increased warming means more water can be stored in the atmosphere which means when it rains it rains harder and droughts get worse because there is less water in the soil.

That does not mean the magnitude of the effect will be measureable. There are plenty of theorectical effects that are irrevelent in practice. e.g. relativity says mass increases the faster we go but that does not mean it matters when designing a car.

I am saying it is impossible to attribute any current events to the minscule warming and even if there are theoretical effects the money would be better spent preparing for them.

Edited November 22, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

Some combination of short-sightedness, fiscal concerns, and political expediency, I'm guessing? It's unsurprising when governments break promises and has little to do with the specific Conservative policies about scientist-media communication that were the original topic of this thread.

Actually, it is the result of a rational cost benefit analysis. CO2 reductions are too expensive to justify hypothetical benefits so any responsible government refuses to implement them.

[Guest TrueMetis]

That does not mean the magnitude of the effect will be measureable. There are plenty of theorectical effects that are irrevelent in practice. e.g. relativity says mass increases the faster we go but that does not mean it matters when designing a car.

I am saying it is impossible to attribute any current events to the minscule warming and even if there are theoretical effects the money would be better spent preparing for them.

Just ignore that that "minscule" effect is a lot higher in many places. Remember it's global average temperature, meaning in places it will be hotter and others will be colder. The north tends to get a lot hotter.

Edited November 22, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Shady]

... identifying the members of the 112th U.S. Congress that are on record challenging the scientific consensus on AGW climate change

Like any good McCarthyist would do!

They may prevent such situations from getting worse.

What situation? There isn't any.

That does not mean the magnitude of the effect will be measureable

Exactly. Even the hardcore alarmists tell us that it'll be decades before most of the effects they talk about will be evident and/or measurable. Anybody that tries to tie a current weather occurance to so-called climate change is a damn liar.

Anyways, we already have IPCC officials admitting to what the UN's climate policy is really all about.

IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World's Wealth”

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated.

Link

[TimG]

A British climate change economist at the heart of international negotiations seeking a greenhouse gas deal said Friday that the U.S. faces a trade boycott if it fails to rein in its carbon emissions.

I am curious whether he expects the same terms to be applied to India and China. I am willing to bet that, like the other UN yahoos, expect China and India to be given a free ride and while the US cripples its economy. That simply is not going to happen.

In fact, in the UK they are starting to come to grips with how rediculously insane the EU emission policy is:

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid640957304001?bctid=676265059001

Transcript here:

http://www.aggreko.com/media-centre/press-releases/speech-to-scottish-parliament.aspx

He talks in concrete terms why the UK emission reduction schemes will fail and will lead to disaster.

Edited November 22, 2010 by TimG

[Evening Star]

A number of European countries have been complying without great economic suffering, haven't they? Sweden exceeded their targets while remaining one of the most prosperous countries.

[dre]

Actually, it is the result of a rational cost benefit analysis. CO2 reductions are too expensive to justify hypothetical benefits so any responsible government refuses to implement them.

LOL. List the governments that have refused to implement measures to reduce CO2 emissions? Name a single one.

[Shady]

I am curious whether he expects the same terms to be applied to India and China.

Nope. People of Waldo's ilk couldn't care less about China building 2 new coal power plants every week. Because his goal, like other alarmists is for wealth redistribution, and controlling people's lives. Telling them what they can eat, what they can drive, what kind of light bulbs they can use, how much water they can have in their toilets, etc, etc, etc. There isn't a dictator in the world that can measure up to the totalitarianism of environmentalist wackos.

[Shady]

A number of European countries have been complying without great economic suffering, haven't they?

Nope. That isn't true.

[dre]

But the net result is the same. The Canadian Parliament ratified a treaty and failed to comply, not so the "conservatives" in Canada (or America). So who really declared "war"?

Every country that signed it failed to comply. But most or all of those countries did more than what they would have otherwise.

[Shady]

List the governments that have refused to implement measures to reduce CO2 emissions?

Several have implemented token measures. But nothing serious that would impact their economies. Because they know what it would do. The only country that's gone beyond token is Spain. Their so-called green jobs program has resulted in 2 jobs lost for every 1 green job created. Their unemployment rate is almost 20%.

[dre]

Nope. People of Waldo's ilk couldn't care less about China building 2 new coal power plants every week. Because his goal, like other alarmists is for wealth redistribution, and controlling people's lives. Telling them what they can eat, what they can drive, what kind of light bulbs they can use, how much water they can have in their toilets, etc, etc, etc. There isn't a dictator in the world that can measure up to the totalitarianism of environmentalist wackos.

Because his goal, like other alarmists is for wealth redistribution, and controlling people's lives.

[jbg]

A number of European countries have been complying without great economic suffering, haven't they? Sweden exceeded their targets while remaining one of the most prosperous countries.

Nope. That isn't true.

The problem with Kyoto is the "base year". The selection of 1990 for a treaty penned in 1997 was no accident. Most European economies had declined or were at best flat between 1990 and 1997 whereas the U.S. and Canada had come out of a recession and were vigorously expanding during that period. Add to it the fact tha the collapse of the Soviet Union and unification of Germany cratered the newly joined Germany's output levels.

Given that Europe spent the early 00's crawling back to 1990 levels keeping emissions down was a no-brainer. This would have been an impossible task for the U.S. and Canada.

Edited November 22, 2010 by jbg

[TimG]

LOL. List the governments that have refused to implement measures to reduce CO2 emissions? Name a single one.

Are your talking about measures that actually have a chance of reducing CO2 or are you talking about games designed to fool the public into thinking something is being done?

The liberals and conservatives did nothing to meet the kyoto target because there was no benefit to doing so.

Edited November 22, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

Several have implemented token measures. But nothing serious that would impact their economies. Because they know what it would do. The only country that's gone beyond token is Spain. Their so-called green jobs program has resulted in 2 jobs lost for every 1 green job created. Their unemployment rate is almost 20%.

Several have implemented token measures. But nothing serious that would impact their economies. Because they know what it would do.

Not token measures. Theyve spent money on research, updated regulations and all kinds of things. Since Kyoto was signed dozens of countries and thousands of companies have put considerable resources into play.

But yes... of COURSE no country is going to willingly cause serious harm to its own economy! Politicians that did that would not last.

[BubberMiley]

Anybody that tries to tie a current weather occurance to so-called climate change is a damn liar.

I figured that's what you were doing last spring when you commented in your status update on how cold it was outside and tried to pass that off as evidence that there is no "global warming." Glad to see you admit it. Way to go.

[Evening Star]

Anyways, we already have IPCC officials admitting to what the UN's climate policy is really all about.

I read the interview. It's not as one-sided as GWPF's introduction makes it sound, based on a quote taken out of context.

He definitely still seems to think climate policy is driven by environmental concerns but he also believes that countries that can afford it and that have benefited the most, historically, from burning fossil fuels should carry the larger share of the burden of change:

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community.

it is no longer just our luxury, our environment. Developing countries have realized that causes of climate change lie in the north and the consequences in the south. And in developed countries, we have realized that for a climate protection target of two degrees neither purely technical solutions nor life style change will be sufficient.

Regardless of whether or not one agrees with his perspective, he is not 'admitting' that climate change policy is just a cover for a redistributive economic agenda. He thinks that some level of redistribution is necessary in order to make C02 reductions work without causing too much economic suffering in LDCs.

[jbg]

I figured that's what you were doing last spring when you commented in your status update on how cold it was outside and tried to pass that off as evidence that there is no "global warming." Glad to see you admit it. Way to go.

Bubber -

You should also point out that at the same time, on December 19, 2009 that Washington, DC and New York were getting 25 - 50 cm snow and the temperature was 0 - -2C Iqaluit on Baffin Island was a toasty (for them) +1C. That is the result of the high-pressure NAO blocking that helps cause the mega-storms in the U.S. Northeast.

I don't believe in AGW. But I'll point out the arguments going both ways.