Conservative Ottawa MPP candidate doesn't understand difference be

[-1=e^ipi]

Edit: title should be: Stupid Conservative Ottawa MPP Candidate doesn't understand difference between CO2 and carbon, but the title got cut off.

Stumbled upon this video recently from the last Ontario election. Martin Forget, the conservative MPP candidate for Ottawa-Vanier not only doesn't understand the difference between CO2 and Carbon, but thinks that it is 'science beyond him' and is a trivial matter that isn't really relevant.

What a joke. Good thing I spoiled my ballot and did not vote for this idiot. The absolute lack of scientific knowledge by politicians is disgusting.

Interestingly Dave McGruer, the Freedom Party MPP candidate for Ottawa-South, commented on the video. Too bad Ottawa-Vanier did not have a Freedom Party MPP candidate, I may have voted for him/her.

Thanks First-Past-the-Post! *sarcasm*

And it's not just the provincial senate that is a joke. Look at our so called 'sober second thought' senate and how they react to a simple presentation by Ian Clark. Go to 10:00, the actual content of the presentation isn't so much relevant as the reaction by the senators. They don't even know wtf a greenhouse gas is and only 1 of the senators has a science background.

Also, retarded bilingual policies mean that the overheads of the presentation are not allowed to be available on CPAC or online to the general public.

The senate is a joke and should be abolished.

Edited July 19, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[Bryan]

It's almost refereshing to hear a politician admit he doesn't know something, instead of sticking to his talking points in an intractable manner.

Harris certainly does have a point though, it's blurring the line between actual pollution and CO2 emissions, coupled with referring to the latter as "carbon" that causes a lot of confusion, and leads otherwise well-meaning people to waste a lot of money on fantasy schemes. Using the word "carbon" is not an accident, it's a deliberate attempt to confuse the two terms in people's minds and make them think of CO2 as "dirty".

Edited July 19, 2014 by Bryan

[-1=e^ipi]

@ Bryan - He only admitted to the distinction being 'beyond him' after being pressed for not answering the questions for 5 minutes. And even then he implied that his lack of knowledge was not relevant.

Edited July 19, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[Bryan]

@ Bryan - He only admitted to the distinction being 'beyond him' after being pressed for not answering the questions for 5 minutes. And even then he implied that his lack of knowledge was not relevant.

Yes, it's obvious that was not the way he wanted the conversation to go. He was trying to stay on script, but eventually had to give that up. Still better than what most politicians would have done, which is call Tom Harris a "denier" and cut him off.

[-1=e^ipi]

Fair enough, but he sort of is a denier, to be honest.

[Moonlight Graham]

From the 2nd video in the OP, I like how the Conservative majority Senate brought in a AGW skeptic scientist (Ian Clark) to speak at their hearing called "The Current State and Future of Canada's Energy Sector" to all those Senators who don't know squat about climate science. Is this how they formulate policy in Ottawa?

I have no problem with Professor Ian Clark or his scientific opinions (legit science skepticism is good), but where's the other scientific opinions? Ian Clark doesn't represent what the large majority of scientists believe about climate change and CO2, so is this represented properly to the senators? Just looks like more conservative politicians trying to load their arguments in order to get more oil flowing.

[-1=e^ipi]

I have no problem with Professor Ian Clark or his scientific opinions (legit science skepticism is good), but where's the other scientific opinions? Ian Clark doesn't represent what the large majority of scientists believe about climate change and CO2, so is this represented properly to the senators? Just looks like more conservative politicians trying to load their arguments in order to get more oil flowing.

There are other hearings with different scientists, this was just one I watched recently and wanted to share it because of the lack of scientific knowledge of the senators. Ian Clark primarily did stick with uncontroversial science (though his bias dis slip through a few times). But it's not like the senators would be able to tell the difference between junk science and real science. You could probably give them a presentation of homeopathy and they would then agree to pass laws to allow for homeopathic 'medicine' to be covered by health care plans.

[waldo]

Harris certainly does have a point though, it's blurring the line between actual pollution and CO2 emissions, coupled with referring to the latter as "carbon" that causes a lot of confusion, and leads otherwise well-meaning people to waste a lot of money on fantasy schemes. Using the word "carbon" is not an accident, it's a deliberate attempt to confuse the two terms in people's minds and make them think of CO2 as "dirty".

CO2 is a pollutant... it's not pollution in the more traditional toxic pollution context... but it is pollution. In past MLW threads, I've offered statements to that effect from both U.S. and Canadian judicial and/or regulatory bodies.

the term 'carbon pollution' is one oft used and well understood in the related lexicon... relative to the burning of a carbon based source where most of the carbon atoms end up combining with two oxygens to form CO2. In this regard, someone trying to belabour a compound versus element distinction is simply on an obfuscating mission... choosing to, again, carry anal nitpicking forward.

and, by the by, yes - Tom Harris is a denier - big time! Based on some of his past and current associations/affiliations, on many of his statements, it is not difficult at all to similarily label Ian Clark.

[Shady]

No CO2 isn't a pollutant. If that's the case then Oxygen is also a pollutant.

[Shady]

Edit: title should be: Stupid Conservative Ottawa MPP Candidate doesn't understand difference between CO2 and carbon, but the title got cut off.

Stumbled upon this video recently from the last Ontario election. Martin Forget, the conservative MPP candidate for Ottawa-Vanier not only doesn't understand the difference between CO2 and Carbon, but thinks that it is 'science beyond him' and is a trivial matter that isn't really relevant.

What a joke. Good thing I spoiled my ballot and did not vote for this idiot. The absolute lack of scientific knowledge by politicians is disgusting.

Interestingly Dave McGruer, the Freedom Party MPP candidate for Ottawa-South, commented on the video. Too bad Ottawa-Vanier did not have a Freedom Party MPP candidate, I may have voted for him/her.

Thanks First-Past-the-Post! *sarcasm*

And it's not just the provincial senate that is a joke. Look at our so called 'sober second thought' senate and how they react to a simple presentation by Ian Clark. Go to 10:00, the actual content of the presentation isn't so much relevant as the reaction by the senators. They don't even know wtf a greenhouse gas is and only 1 of the senators has a science background.

Also, retarded bilingual policies mean that the overheads of the presentation are not allowed to be available on CPAC or online to the general public.

The senate is a joke and should be abolished.

It works both ways. We have alarmists that like to set economic policy, despite not knowing a kick about economics.

[waldo]

No CO2 isn't a pollutant. If that's the case then Oxygen is also a pollutant.

as one of MLW's most ardent members so heavily interested... and vested in the U.S., it's quite surprising that you go up against the related U.S. Supreme Court ruling and the subsequent U.S. EPA's endangerment finding - yes?

[waldo]

We have alarmists that like to set economic policy, despite not knowing a kick about economics.

MLW member Shady... perhaps you missed my post looking for additional insight - here: your comments in reply to that post would provide not only an opportunity to better explore and examine the more broadly attached denier mindset, but it would afford you a personal platform/outlet to allow other members to better understand and recognize the meaning/intent behind your perpetual use of the alarmism/alarmist tags. Please give consideration to adding your much needed and valued comment in reply to that post - thanks in advance.

[Argus]

You call him an idiot because he's not immersed himself in the 'science' of global warming? The media talking heads often uses the terms interchangeably, and often speaks of the need for 'carbon' taxes and 'carbon capture'.

The difference, in this context, IS trivial anyway, until someone comes up with an economically viable means of doing something about it.

[-1=e^ipi]

You call him an idiot because he's not immersed himself in the 'science' of global warming?

No, it is more like he doesn't even understand basic high school chemistry. How can any intelligent discussion on the issue of AGW take place if people do not even know what CO2 is?

It is like not understanding the difference between water and O2 and then pretending that such a distinction is trivial.

The media talking heads often uses the terms interchangeably, and often speaks of the need for 'carbon' taxes and 'carbon capture'.

Yes the media is largely at fault. They should stop calling it a 'carbon tax' and call it a 'CO2 emission tax'.

[waldo]

Yes the media is largely at fault. They should stop calling it a 'carbon tax' and call it a 'CO2 emission tax'.

no - again: the term 'carbon pollution' is one oft used and well understood in the related lexicon... relative to the burning of a carbon based source where most of the carbon atoms end up combining with two oxygens to form CO2. In this regard, someone trying to belabour a compound versus element distinction is simply on an obfuscating mission... choosing to, again, carry anal nitpicking forward.

[-1=e^ipi]

no - again: the term 'carbon pollution' is one oft used and well understood in the related lexicon...

So well understood that you get large sections of the population not understanding the difference between carbon dioxide and carbon.

All it accomplishes is a complete dumbing down of an issue that is quite complex.

Speaking of dumbing down, have you learned basic calculus yet?

In this regard, someone trying to belabour a compound versus element distinction is simply on an obfuscating mission...

This is completely absurd. A person trying to make a distinction between carbon dioxide and carbon is on an obfuscating mission, but all the people that try to confuse the two and think the distinction isn't necessary aren't?

[waldo]

So well understood that you get large sections of the population not understanding the difference between carbon dioxide and carbon.

All it accomplishes is a complete dumbing down of an issue that is quite complex.

in the context being discussed you're simply obsfucating

Speaking of dumbing down, have you learned basic calculus yet?

oh snap! I see I've pinched a nerve here... mission accomplished! And yes, my basic calculus is fine - thank you very much... how is your back-peddaling, trumped up partial versus full derivative, cya coming along?

This is completely absurd. A person trying to make a distinction between carbon dioxide and carbon is on an obfuscating mission, but all the people that try to confuse the two and think the distinction isn't necessary aren't?

in the context being discussed/emphasized there is no need to make the distinction of "compound versus element"! Only anal nitpickers need apply!

.

Edited July 20, 2014 by waldo

[Moonlight Graham]

No, it is more like he doesn't even understand basic high school chemistry. How can any intelligent discussion on the issue of AGW take place if people do not even know what CO2 is?

You can't expect elected MP's to be experts on climate change or the vast majority of other topics. It really frightens me that they have to decide massively important policy without that knowledge. We've seen the attitudes of the Harper gov towards global warming and GHG, among a bunch of other issues like crime and punishment, where they have their heads up their asses. Somehow, I think the community of experts on any subject should have more of role in drafting policy than simply being giving out advice a lot of politicians don't listen to anyways.

[eyeball]

Herein lies our species Achilles Heel - wilful ignorance. Normally, if a person is presented with an overwhelming informed expert opinion about something like a medical condition they pay attention to what they're advised to do. Likewise, when a panel of learned judges are faced with technically challenging evidence of a highly esoteric nature they listen to and question experts that are called to testify before them. When an overwhelming number of expert witnesses testify the same thing the judges usually listen and render their judgement accordingly.

Lay people normally discern shit from Shinola by the same process because it usually works.

I think the starkest and most alarming thing that stands out about climate change is just how badly politics has compromised our ability to depend on this process to guide informed collective action. Our species couldn't govern itself out of a wet-paper bag if it's existence depended on it.

[Mighty AC]

Herein lies our species Achilles Heel - wilful ignorance. Normally, if a person is presented with an overwhelming informed expert opinion about something like a medical condition they pay attention to what they're advised to do. Likewise, when a panel of learned judges are faced with technically challenging evidence of a highly esoteric nature they listen to and question experts that are called to testify before them. When an overwhelming number of expert witnesses testify the same thing the judges usually listen and render their judgement accordingly.

Lay people normally discern shit from Shinola by the same process because it usually works.

I think the starkest and most alarming thing that stands out about climate change is just how badly politics has compromised our ability to depend on this process to guide informed collective action. Our species couldn't govern itself out of a wet-paper bag if it's existence depended on it.

Well said! What's worse is our fossil fuel friendly government isn't actually ignorant, they are actively hiding information and confusing the issue for the benefit of one industry, at the expense of all of us.

Our department of fisheries and oceans has been ordered to stop sampling water for pollutants. Canada is no longer tracking contamination data, of any kind, in our oceans. Of course this severely hampers our ability to monitor our impact on natural ecosystems and intelligently aid fisheries and natural systems in collapse. However, the Conservative government ordered this cancellation because it means we will also no longer be able to accurately report on increased petroleum contamination as well.

This government is sick, corrupt and in need of removal.

[Mighty AC]

No CO2 isn't a pollutant. If that's the case then Oxygen is also a pollutant.

When we dig up and release ancient carbon stores overwhelming the natural carbon cycle's ability to mitigate atmospheric C02 levels, then it becomes a pollutant.

If we happened to be releasing Oxygen in the atmosphere, increasing the concentration to the point that it was inhibiting photosynthesis and thus harming life on this planet then it would also be considered a pollutant.

[Shady]

When we dig up and release ancient carbon stores overwhelming the natural carbon cycle's ability to mitigate atmospheric C02 levels, then it becomes a pollutant.

If we happened to be releasing Oxygen in the atmosphere, increasing the concentration to the point that it was inhibiting photosynthesis and thus harming life on this planet then it would also be considered a pollutant.

That's utterly absurd. That's like saying water is a pollutant if somebody deems that's there's too much of it.

[Mighty AC]

That's utterly absurd. That's like saying water is a pollutant if somebody deems that's there's too much of it.

Why is it absurd? Is it because CO2 naturally makes up a small amount of our atmosphere?

There are naturally occurring radioactive materials in the earth's crust. However, dumping radioactive byproducts on the ground is pollution and the radioactive wastes are pollutants. Similarly, arsenic can naturally be found in trace amounts in water as it gets picked up from rocks, yet dumping more arsenic into the ground water would be pollution.

CO2 makes up less than 0.04% of our atmosphere. However, dumping the byproduct of fossil fuel combustion into the atmosphere increasing the concentration thus creating damaging side effects makes CO2 a pollutant.

Explain how dumping arsenic is somehow different than dumping CO2?

Edited July 22, 2014 by Mighty AC

[Shady]

Why is it absurd? Is it because CO2 naturally makes up a small amount of our atmosphere?There are naturally occurring radioactive materials in the earth's crust. However, dumping radioactive byproducts on the ground is pollution and the radioactive wastes are pollutants. Similarly, arsenic can naturally be found in trace amounts in water as it gets picked up from rocks, yet dumping more arsenic into the ground water would be pollution.CO2 makes up less than 0.04% of our atmosphere. However, dumping the byproduct of fossil fuel combustion into the atmosphere increasing the concentration thus creating damaging side effects makes CO2 a pollutant.Explain how dumping arsenic is somehow different than dumping CO2?

Under your scenario anything can be classified as a pollutant. Absurd.

[waldo]

That's utterly absurd. That's like saying water is a pollutant if somebody deems that's there's too much of it.

water can be a pollutant on many levels! Water makeup can result in oxygen depletion... resulting anaerobic microorganisms produce toxins that can be harmful to people, animals and the environment. Additionally, nutrient concentrations in water can contaminate it for drinking purposes. Microorganisms like bacteria and viruses in water can cause illness, even death, in fish, land animals and humans. Suspended particulate matter in water can cause harm to marine life. Water can carry harmful residual products from industry and farming, etc..