Assuming AGW is real, what do we do about it ?

[Michael Hardner]

Well great. You just set the bar so high that no human being can ever try to educate others about the subject again.

Not really. If they had run the script by the climate scientists of the UEA, they likely would have changed a few things.

[dre]

Not really. If they had run the script by the climate scientists of the UEA, they likely would have changed a few things.

Sure but 100%?

But whatever... I get your point and its valid.

[TimG]

Science and technology has a MASSIVE impact on public policy. Especially here in the west. Its not a matter of scientists having the authority to "tell people what to do".

Science can inform. It cannot dictate. There is a huge difference. Science tells us that smoking increases the risk of cancer. It does not tell us we should outlaw tobacco. The decision on what to do (if anything) is up to the politicians who must juggle any number of competing priorities.

Climate scientists cross the line from scientist to political lobbiest as soon as they demand that government adopt policies to reduce CO2 emissions. They are obviously entitled to express their opinion as any other citizen but it is just their opinion. Anyone who claims that "the science says we must..." is not only wrong they undermine the credibility of science by drawing it into a political debate.

Edited October 4, 2010 by TimG

[betsy]

true enough, but look at the situation here in Canada we have the official Conservative party line demonizing Ignatieff as an "intellectual" and "elitist" since when is being an intellectual a bad thing?

Same way that Harper is being demonized for his religion. Since when is being religious a bad thing?

is it preferable to elect high school dropouts to be an MP?...then the same party muzzles scientists where the info should be coming from,

Then the same Harper bashers muzzles scientists that opposes GW.

so who does that leave to keep us informed and advise us? David Suzuki?

...few people paid any attention to AGW issue when it was presented by scientists

Because it was really politicized along with Environment issue! From GW....they changed it to "Climate Change"...now it's back to GW again.

not until a concerned political figure(Gore)made a documentary did it gain public attention

if it weren't for that documentary I doubt we'd be discussing this topic now...

Oh boy, let's not get too carried away with this!

FYI I have not even seen that docu by Gore. We're discussing this now because that's what we've been hearing politicians - specifically the NDP, the Green and the Liberals - who just cannot, and won't let go of the environment issue since it's one way to poke at Harper! Let us please give the credits to our fellow-Canadians Elizabeth May, Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff!

AGW should be purely a scientific issue but too many people can't separate partisan politics from science...

At least we agree on that. If only politicians left the sacred temple of science to do its noble work alone....and not use it and drag it down to the dirty path of politics.

Edited October 4, 2010 by betsy

[ToadBrother]

This thread is about "what do we do about it". It is not about the science. It is about policy and politics. The opinions of Gore and any other advocate for climate policy is most definitely relevant.

How? Gore is not in a position to make policy. Even his position, such as it was, as some sort of laymen's educator has dwindled.

The biggest problem with this debate are people who think that the science dictates what policy to adopt.

It tells us no such thing. It identifies a particular problem that we should discuss. How we act on that information is up to us. More importantly scientists have no special expertise that gives them authority tell us what to do. They can express their opinion but it carries no more weight that the opinion of any other lobbiest.

If a geologist tells you that the ground a house you're thinking about buying is on has a moderate or high potential of turning into a sinkhole, posing a risk to life and property, you're saying his opinion should carry no more weight than the real estate agent trying to sell you the house?

Scientists, particularly those in the employ of governments and government-funded institutions are not lobbyists, Tim. They're state employees, in large part paid to investigate issues relating to the public interest; on everything from air quality to building standards to, yes, climate change. It fascinates me no end how you "skeptics" quickly wander from trying to claim the science is questionable to ultimately trying to make what a scientist who comments in his field of expertise has to say on that field no better, no more informed and no more rigorous than the dubious sources you guys quote from have to say.

Tim, not all opinions are created equal. What you're advocating, when you brush away all the verbiage, is nothing less than epistemological nihilism. In that you guys duplicate the Creationist anti-evolutionary nonsense as well. The climate skepticism industry in virtually every tactic has come to duplicate the Creationist anti-science schemes. It's extraordinary, in a way, because most of you, not having dealt with Creationism aren't even aware that the tack your taking was pioneered for decades to call biologists into question.

[TimG]

Maybe AGW can be the vehicle used to convince liberals, and things like "Energy Indepence", and "security" and "economic" concerns can be used to convince conservatives.

Actually, all of the different spins (green jobs, energy independent, economics, et. al.) have been tried. The problem is the "science" (or economics if you prefer) shows that limiting CO2 will reduce employment, do nothing for energy independence and undermine the economy. The net result is the spin does not sell.

[ToadBrother]

Actually, all of the different spins (green jobs, energy independent, economics, et. al.) have been tried. The problem is the "science" (or economics if you prefer) shows that limiting CO2 will reduce employment, do nothing for energy independence and undermine the economy. The net result is the spin does not sell.

Unless, of course, AGW is right, in which case, maybe, just maybe, we at least shave the top off the worst case scenarios, as opposed, like a number of other civilizations did, just running straight into the wall.

[TimG]

If a geologist tells you that the ground a house you're thinking about buying is on has a moderate or high potential of turning into a sinkhole, posing a risk to life and property, you're saying his opinion should carry no more weight than the real estate agent trying to sell you the house?

You have changed the onus with your example. The geologist is not recommending that you _do_ something. The recommendation is not to do something. A better example would be you have already bought a house and discovered it is sitting on a sinkhole. The geologist says you could reduce the risk by spending $100,000+ on engineering remendies that might not work or simply live with the risk. The geologist's opinion does not dictate what you do. It is your choice based on your priorities.

Scientists, particularly those in the employ of governments and government-funded institutions are not lobbyists

If they speak out publically like Jim Hansen of NASA they are lobbiests.

They're state employees, in large part paid to investigate issues relating to the public interest; on everything from air quality to building standards to, yes, climate change.

What they get paid to investigate depends very much on the priorities of their masters in the bureaucracy. And those priorities are driven by what is good for the bureaucracy and politicians more than it is driven by public interest. They are no different that scientists working for a oil company and face the same pressures to look after the interests of their employers. The biggest conceit if the AGW lobby is "their" scientists are impartial but scientists which dispute the "consensus" are motivated by money. All scientists are biased and this must be taken into account when dealing with opinions that are not backed up with conclusive evidence from real experiements.

It fascinates me no end how you "skeptics" quickly wander from trying to claim the science is questionable to ultimately trying to make what a scientist who comments in his field of expertise has to say on that field no better, no more informed and no more rigorous than the dubious sources you guys quote from have to say.

The problem is when you look at the basis for their claims you find it is nothing but a pile of assumptions, guesses and opinions that have yet to be validated with any real world data. To make matters worse there is strong evidence that a suffocating case of group think has infested the field which makes me question whether the consensus is even real.

As for your analogies to creationists: you have again screwed up the onus. Sceptics are not running around telling people they have to radically change their lives because of a hypothetical problem 100 years from now. It is AGW lobby that is doing that. Therefore, the onus is on the AGW lobby to demonstrate that the science they use to justify their position is sound. The onus is not on the sceptics to prove that it is not. If there doubt about the reliability of the scientific claims then that is an argument against large interventions.

Edited October 4, 2010 by TimG

[wyly]

Same way that Harper is being demonized for his religion. Since when is being religious a bad thing?

when religion promotes/teaches ignorance, intolerance and hate... which is all too often...when we have a PM that believes the world is 6,000 yrs old,that women are not the equal of men, that gays are a sin against god, it's time to be very afraid...

Then the same Harper bashers muzzles scientists that opposes GW.

so who does that leave to keep us informed and advise us? David Suzuki?

apperently it does fall to Suzuki as everuone on the government payroll is muzzled...do you care to provide a list of climatologists or pretend climatologist/bloggers that have been muzzled by the opposition parties Betty?

Because it was really politicized along with Environment issue! From GW....they changed it to "Climate Change"...now it's back to GW again.

then you won't mind giving us the exact dates these events happened will you Betty

Oh boy, let's not get too carried away with this!

FYI I have not even seen that docu by Gore. We're discussing this now because that's what we've been hearing politicians - specifically the NDP, the Green and the Liberals - who just cannot, and won't let go of the environment issue since it's one way to poke at Harper! Let us please give the credits to our fellow-Canadians Elizabeth May, Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff!

Betty it doesn't surprise me that you haven't seen the Gore doc, you clearly have no grasp of the science of climate change...the only reason climate change is as well known and debated as much as it is, is because of Gore, Climate Change went mainstream with that documentary...that you don't realize it reflects your lack of knowledge on the issue and the science...

At least we agree on that. If only politicians left the sacred temple of science to do its noble work alone....and not use it and drag it down to the dirty path of politics.

which is why we question Harpers muzzling of scientists and your support of him...tell us Betty which political parties are muzzling the skeptical scientists?...which poster likes bringing non scientist Al Gore into the discussion and post dishonest info about him for political reasons, which I find really strange since he isn't an active politician nor is he even Canadian...

[TimG]

Unless, of course, AGW is right, in which case, maybe, just maybe, we at least shave the top off the worst case scenarios, as opposed, like a number of other civilizations did, just running straight into the wall.

Even if they are right I still think that there is nothing governments can do that will help avoid the crash. The best option is to make sure we have the tools to survive it. Edited October 4, 2010 by TimG

[TimG]

when religion promotes/teaches ignorance, intolerance and hate

I think the 10/10 climate snuff video is a good example of how the promotion of ignorance, intolerance and hate is not limited to religious groups. Unless you count the AGW lobby as a religion.

[wyly]

Even if they are right I still think that there is nothing governments can do that will help avoid the crash. The best option is to make sure we have the tools to survive it.

unless it's a worst case scenario then there will be no tools to survive it...it'll be be every man for himself...

[TimG]

unless it's a worst case scenario then there will be no tools to survive it...it'll be be every man for himself...

And if the worst case scenario is headed our way then absolutely nothing we do now will prevent it.

[wyly]

I think the 10/10 climate snuff video is a good example of how the promotion of ignorance, intolerance and hate is not limited to religious groups. Unless you count the AGW lobby as a religion.

:lol: just saw it, too funny :lol: ...you failed to make a point it's typical british humour that's been around for decades...

[TimG]

you failed to make a point it's typical british humour that's been around for decades.

Sorry. Blowing up school children who don't want to participate in a useless gester is not humour - even to the British. The message is clear: if you disagree with the CO2 police you deserve to die. Replace "CO2 sceptic" with "Muslim/Jew/Christian" and it would be a hate crime.

[betsy]

when religion promotes/teaches ignorance, intolerance and hate... which is all too often...when we have a PM that believes the world is 6,000 yrs old,that women are not the equal of men, that gays are a sin against god, it's time to be very afraid...

Sorry, I can't help you with your theophobia. You've got to try and contain it....it distorts your reasoning.

Your resentment towards people simply based on their religious belief that obviously does not coincide with yours is a form of bigotry.

And your last statement, "it's time to be afraid..." smacks of promoting or inciting hate/fear towards people who believe in religion.

As long as the Prime Minister does not break any laws and as long as he follows the Charter of Rights....it shouldn't matter if he believes that homosexual act is a sin against God or that the world is 6,000 years old. He has a right, like you or anybody else, to his belief!

apperently it does fall to Suzuki as everuone on the government payroll is muzzled...do you care to provide a list of climatologists or pretend climatologist/bloggers that have been muzzled by the opposition parties Betty?

I don't have names off-hand.....but there are groiups of scientists who've complained about this quite sometime ago.

Betty it doesn't surprise me that you haven't seen the Gore doc, you clearly have no grasp of the science of climate change...the only reason climate change is as well known and debated as much as it is, is because of Gore, Climate Change went mainstream with that documentary...that you don't realize it reflects your lack of knowledge on the issue and the science...

That's your opinion. But I tell ya....better get that phobia fixed.

Obviously I touched a very sensitive nerve with you by bringing up Gore. Gee, by the way you're going, if GW was a religion and Gore is its god....I swear you make a fantastic devoted fanatic!

which poster likes bringing non scientist Al Gore into the discussion and post dishonest info about him for political reasons, which I find really strange since he isn't an active politician nor is he even Canadian...

And lo, you seem to be mimicking your hero....you lecture to me about having "no grasp" or understanding, and yet it's you who demonstrate the qualities. You still going on harping about why I brought Gore into this topic....and I've already explained to you why!

Aww...give it a rest, Wily. It's you who keeps prolonging what's turning out to be really irrelevant now to this topic. Let's not further derail this topic. If you want to go on and on about Gore, better create a separate thread for it. Don't take the Gore-thingy too personal...I bet he's used to criticisms. He's been a politician after all!

unless it's a worst case scenario then there will be no tools to survive it...it'll be be every man for himself...

End times....again?

Heh-heh-heh....just kidding. Bye.

Edited October 5, 2010 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

Sure but 100%?

But whatever... I get your point and its valid.

Well, nobody's perfect... I should have said it has to seem 100% right. Really, what we need to do is stop fighting ideological battles for entertainment.

[jbg]

I'll take this thread's bait.

If AGW is real, what we should do is throw away our money in order to make Maurice Strong richer. Or provide a source of funding for the LPC to replace the Sponsorship money.

[waldo]

I'll take this thread's bait.

If AGW is real, what we should do is throw away our money in order to make Maurice Strong richer. Or provide a source of funding for the LPC to replace the Sponsorship money.

and I'll take your bait... although this is a somewhat predictable response from the likes of yourself, if you've reconciled to the reality of AGW, what does your desire to piss it all away reflect upon?

btw, as a foreign interloper, are your purposeful targets an attempt to appear germane to a 'Canadian board'?

[wyly]

Sorry. Blowing up school children who don't want to participate in a useless gester is not humour - even to the British. The message is clear: if you disagree with the CO2 police you deserve to die. Replace "CO2 sceptic" with "Muslim/Jew/Christian" and it would be a hate crime.

not a Monty Python fan obviously...

[jbg]

and I'll take your bait... although this is a somewhat predictable response from the likes of yourself, if you've reconciled to the reality of AGW, what does your desire to piss it all away reflect upon?

Same as your desire to piss away other peoples' money.

btw, as a foreign interloper, are your purposeful targets an attempt to appear germane to a 'Canadian board'?

Interloper?

You must admit my examples are good ones.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Interloper?

You must admit my examples are good ones.

No kidding.....we know who uses "foreign" sources and references the most when it comes to the AGW circle jerk.

[waldo]

Same as your desire to piss away other peoples' money.

Interloper?

You must admit my examples are good ones.

no - clearly your past posting record confirms your denier position... one lacking in even the most rudimentary understandings. Your examples simply reflect your wanton desire to piss on this thread - to stir the pot... in spite of the OP's repeated requests to respect the intent of the thread.

[jbg]

no - clearly your past posting record confirms your denier position... one lacking in even the most rudimentary understandings. Your examples simply reflect your wanton desire to piss on this thread - to stir the pot... in spite of the OP's repeated requests to respect the intent of the thread.

I did. I suggested using the carbon tax to "provide a source of funding for the LPC to replace the Sponsorship money".

[waldo]

I did. I suggested using the carbon tax to "provide a source of funding for the LPC to replace the Sponsorship money".

Your examples simply reflect your wanton desire to piss on this thread - to stir the pot... in spite of the OP's repeated requests to respect the intent of the thread.