David Suzuki versus Justin Trudeau

[waldo]

It seems to me David Suzuki is the one that usually avoids debates.This is why he does not like to debate:

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/david-suzuki-bombs-on-qa-knows-nothing-about-the-climate/

For the record,Justin Trudeau has a key advisor that could have easily written the Leap Manifesto,one Gerald Butts.

from renowned denier Nova... of course, there are no shortages of rebuttals to that "analysis"; of course, you would simply dismiss them as coming from "alarmists"

[bush_cheney2004]

Thanks for the encouragement, and I have to say that since my experience on forums started about 10 years ago, when I was more rightwing thinking and was on mostly US rightwing boards, I've seen worse....a lot, lot worse when it comes to trolls than bc. I often wonder why he's stayed here so long also! He would be much more at home on American forums....where he would be part of the mainstream thinking.

Thank you for your continued support. By your own admission, the US has occupied your attention for a very long time. So many discussions and concerns about the US for climate change polices, copious amounts of climate change data collection and analysis by government agencies (compared to Canada), and dependence on American academia (see Leap Manifesto) invariably means that an American or two will get involved.

I am here...because America is here...in spades.

[waldo]

Thank you for the links to my taxpayer funded, American resources. They seem to be a favorite 'round here.

please sir, you continue to highlight that MLW members utilize American sources as reference links. You have done this for years; I would suggest you have quite literally, posted to that end hundreds of times. Why do you continue to do so... why is it so important for you to continue to make this point?

[-1=e^ipi]

In the previous case involving ICE vs electrical engine efficiency, I caught you making flawed assumptions and that was at least a couple of orders of magnitude simpler than this.

I know I was making flawed assumptions, and I didn't claim to the contrary. You didn't 'catch' me. Given that I don't have information on the mass of the car used or the efficiency of the batter+motor, I can't make proper comparisons. However, the energy density approach did allow me to calculate a lower bound to the storage costs per kWh for solar/wind, which refuted your claim for solar/wind being cheaper.

This isn't the way people make decisions.

I know that it's not the way people make decisions. I'm saying it is the way people should make decisions, especially when the well being of 7 billion people is at stake.

In the past, people used to make decisions by looking at goat entrails. In the past, people didn't use the scientific method. Should we have never changed our decision making process simply because 'that's not the way people make decisions'?

executives go with their gut instincts

They do and they shouldn't. The existence of bad decision making doesn't justify bad decision making.

This problem lends itself to a risk management approach.

And using a social welfare function that is inherently risk averse isn't a way of doing this?

The available evidence suggests that we have a high probability of there being at least moderate impacts and at least a moderate possibility of there being high impacts.

'High' and 'Moderate' are vague. So is 'impacts'.

The logical approach is to eliminate fossil fuels over a period of time, using policy levers available to governments.

No that doesn't logically follow. You are just trying to make an excuse to use the strong precautionary principle (which is nonsense as it leads to absurd conclusions such as suggesting we need to spend money on military defense to fend off the flying spaghetti monster should the monster appear and decide to crush us) because you don't want to admit the complexity of the issue of climate change or use empirical evidence in decision making.

Here's an excellent example of the type of flawed assumption that is warping your conclusions.

I'm just going to give you a link to the other thread (http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24698-emission-scenarios-and-economic-impacts-of-climate-change/) and suggest that you go read the part about precipitation patterns.

NASA

1. That page uses information from the 4th assessment report rather than the 5th assessment report, so is out of date.

2. Computer model predictions such as CMIP5 have numerous problems and have not made predictions consistent with empirical observations; but that nuance is lost on you.

3. The page doesn't refute what I wrote.

Just please don't waste my time with it.

No because that might cause you to think, doubt and be critical. But that would get in the way of highly simplistic thinking which allows you to have a false sense of moral superiority.

Edited October 2, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

You (and someone else around here who I no longer debate) seem to think that you can just apply your own logic and formulae to make your own predictions, regardless of what the people who make their livings studying climate think.

You can make predictions regardless of what other people think. Why would other people being able to think stop you from trying to make predictions from empirical data?

[TimG]

Which only proves once again that capitalist markets are hard to predict how they will react to outside pressures because they are fundamentally irrational to begin with!

Exactly, which is why I think people who claim to know how the human economy will respond to climate change are peddling nonsense. I am certain that, whatever happens, the vast majority of the people claiming to know the future because of their "computer models" will be left looking as ridiculous as Rubin with his $200 oil prediction.

[bush_cheney2004]

If Trudeau's Liberals won't have a climate change target until at least 90 days after COP21 in Paris, they are the only major federal party without an emissions reduction plan:

"Trudeau has made it very clear that under the Liberals, Canada would go to Paris empty-handed with no target to contribute to the global fight against climate change," reacted NDP MP Malcolm Allen, the party's deputy critic of natural resources, near Niagara Falls, ON.

That's not leadership, and it's going make Canada a global climate laggard yet again.”

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/06/29/news/trudeaus-climate-change-target-wont-be-ready-un-summit-global-warming

Edited October 1, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

If Trudeau's Liberals won't have a climate change target until at least 90 days after COP21 in Paris, they are the only major federal party without an emissions reduction plan:

so you and your linked journalist don't understand the fundamentals of how the COP works! Country submissions to the UNFCCC are strictly for reference... many countries have yet to provide that reference... and it's not a stipulated requirement to do so. Actual COP negotiations, presuming towards the aspired legally binding targets, won't reflect upon submissions that individual countries bring forward prior to the COP. In Canada's case, 4 provinces have initiated actions on their own... not waiting on the do-nothing Harper Conservatives. In that regard it is quite folly for Canada to bring a target forward without inclusion and negotiation with Canada's provinces... which in keeping with Harper's steadfast refusal to engage the provinces directly highlights yet another Harper failure. Muclair and the NDP talk a good game... presuming to allow provinces to "opt out" of his grand "cap & trade" scheme... but again, how does he arrive at a figure without regard to provincial buy-in, or not... or negotiations with the provinces. Trudeau has formally given notice of meeting with the provinces towards structuring a plan, a price on carbon..... a federal price on carbon... one that factors in respective existing provincial actions and gives consideration to raised provincial interests/concerns.

[Keepitsimple]

Trudeau has formally given notice of meeting with the provinces towards structuring a plan, a price on carbon..... a federal price on carbon... one that factors in respective existing provincial actions and gives consideration to raised provincial interests/concerns.

So....let me understand....Trudeau's plan is that he plans to develop a plan, once he understands what the provinces plan to do. Yep....that's bold leadership. ....and hey, he's given "formal notice". Wow.

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, at least Justin Trudeau is continuing the LPC climate change tradition....lots of talk and zero action.

Edited October 2, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[angrypenguin]

Well, at least Justin Trudeau is continuing the LPC climate change tradition....lots of talk and zero action.

That's Trudeau all up.

[waldo]

So....let me understand....Trudeau's plan is that he plans to develop a plan, once he understands what the provinces plan to do. Yep....that's bold leadership. ....and hey, he's given "formal notice". Wow.

the linked article reference is so poorly written... and inaccurate... it's not surprising it was chosen and it's simply something you rally around without even bothering to check its integrity. The reference for your accepted "Conservative Plan" reads as an intended (by 2025) 6.5% reduction relative to 1990 levels... that bears no relation to the actual "Conservative Plan" you're, by implication, trumpeting... the actual measly 4 page no detail plan submitted by Harper Conservatives to the UNFCCC. In that so-called "plan", Harper Conservatives commit to a reduction of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. In that so-called "plan", the same nothingness statement concerning "sector-by-sector" regulations is referenced; however, the overall broad catch-all statements read like nothing more than a generic boiler-plate motherhood statement. The following pretty much speaks to the level of the Harper Conservative plan; specifically:

As part of our contribution to a new global climate change agreement, Canada intends to achieve an economy-wide target to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.

This target is ambitious but achievable. It represents a substantial reduction from Canada’s business-as-usual emissions. Canada has already undertaken decisive actions domestically to reduce our emissions, and is committed to doing more in concert with all major emitters. Reaching this ambitious target will require new policies in additional sectors and coordinated continental action in integrated sectors. Canada may also use international mechanisms to achieve the target, subject to robust systems that deliver real and verified emissions reductions

that's quite the detailed Harper Conservative plan, hey Simple? As for your blustering derision concerning relations with provinces and meeting with them to help shape/develop an actual plan, imagine reading this in that so-called "Conservative Plan":

In Canada, climate change is a shared responsibility that requires action from all levels of government. Canadian provinces and territories have jurisdictional authorities over the fields of natural resources, energy, and many aspects of the environment. Each has its own legal framework, policies and measures in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, a federal/provincial/territorial intergovernmental forum, has agreed that climate change will be on its agenda on an ongoing basis.

now we're all very familiar with Harper taking credit for provincial actions and emission reductions... one wonders just how that credit is formally structured into nothingness "sector-by-sector regulatory" platitude statements provided to the UNFCCC. And lo and behold... Harper Conservatives are now... NOW... going to give consideration to "climate change... as an agenda item, no less... within meetings of the CCME - Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment!

now just so you (and the link originator) are clear: those pre-COP submissions by countries to the UNFCCC are intended as nothing more than inputs to a "synthesis report" intended to reflect the aggregate emissions impact of countries that bother to submit prior to the actual COP21. As I stated, they have no bearing upon the actual COP negotiations... they're simply intended to showcase actual target commitments and results made by countries as a sort of "rallying effort" prior to the COP meetings.

[Keepitsimple]

the linked article reference is so poorly written... and inaccurate... it's not surprising it was chosen and it's simply something you rally around without even bothering to check its integrity. The reference for your accepted "Conservative Plan" reads as an intended (by 2025) 6.5% reduction relative to 1990 levels... that bears no relation to the actual "Conservative Plan" you're, by implication, trumpeting

Trumpet by implication? Come now Waldo - that's a new one. Your lengthy post was just a lot of deflective blather......I made no mention of the Conservative plan - be it good, bad or indifferent.....I was responding only and specifically to your actual trumpeting of the Trudeau non-plan......so to repeat:

So....let me understand....Trudeau's plan is that he plans to develop a plan, once he understands what the provinces plan to do. Yep....that's bold leadership. ....and hey, he's given "formal notice". Wow.

[waldo]

Trumpet by implication? Come now Waldo - that's a new one. Your lengthy post was just a lot of deflective blather......I made no mention of the Conservative plan - be it good, bad or indifferent.....I was responding only and specifically to your actual trumpeting of the Trudeau non-plan......so to repeat:

So....let me understand....Trudeau's plan is that he plans to develop a plan, once he understands what the provinces plan to do. Yep....that's bold leadership. ....and hey, he's given "formal notice". Wow.

no deflection at all Simple... I'm coming at you - head on! Don't hesitate to actually step-up and address that so-called "Harper plan"! ... or address the specifics within my post that truly showcase the nothingness of the Harper plan and speak directly to your targeted derision relative to engaging the provinces. Sure you can Simple... sure you can!

[Keepitsimple]

no deflection at all Simple... I'm coming at you - head on! Don't hesitate to actually step-up and address that so-called "Harper plan"! ... or address the specifics within my post that truly showcase the nothingness of the Harper plan and speak directly to your targeted derision relative to engaging the provinces. Sure you can Simple... sure you can!

You're embarrassing yourself again Waldo. Look at the Thread Title - Suzuki versus Trudeau - that's what we're talking about.....not the Harper Plan - as I said - be it good bad or indifferent. So please go ahead and defend your guy against Suzuki. Go ahead and defend his "plan to have a plan once he understands what the provinces plan to do". As you continually drone....Step Up Waldo!

[waldo]

You're embarrassing yourself again Waldo. Look at the Thread Title - Suzuki versus Trudeau - that's what we're talking about.....not the Harper Plan - as I said - be it good bad or indifferent. So please go ahead and defend your guy against Suzuki. Go ahead and defend his "plan to have a plan once he understands what the provinces plan to do". As you continually drone....Step Up Waldo!

so now... NOW... you don't want to talk about the very thing you brought forward! The recent declared embarrassment you presume to deflect away from is yours - you failed big-time in your misunderstanding in how tarsands sludge is extracted (surface mining versus in situ drilling) and most recently here by failing to understand the COP process and the significance (or rather lack therein) of "plans" submitted by countries to the UNFCCC prior to the actual COP 21 meetings. You were so quick to presume to criticize Trudeau over engaging the provinces... yet you sure are running away now from actually having to speak to the scrutiny I put forward in relation to that so-called Harper "plan". Carry on Simple... carry on!

[ReeferMadness]

I know I was making flawed assumptions, and I didn't claim to the contrary. You didn't 'catch' me. Given that I don't have information on the mass of the car used or the efficiency of the batter+motor, I can't make proper comparisons. However, the energy density approach did allow me to calculate a lower bound to the storage costs per kWh for solar/wind, which refuted your claim for solar/wind being cheaper.

If you know you're making flawed assumptions, why bother completing the calculation? All you get is nonsense carried to 6 decimal points.

I know that it's not the way people make decisions. I'm saying it is the way people should make decisions, especially when the well being of 7 billion people is at stake.

Normal people don't make decisions that way and they shouldn't. You can't put everything into a formula in life. There are too many variables and too much uncertainty. If you want to put everything into a formula go live on Spock's planet.

In the past, people used to make decisions by looking at goat entrails. In the past, people didn't use the scientific method. Should we have never changed our decision making process simply because 'that's not the way people make decisions'?

Now, you're just being ridiculous. There are lots of valid ways of making decisions that don't involve quantifying everything.

They do and they shouldn't. The existence of bad decision making doesn't justify bad decision making.

Just because a decision isn't based on a formula, that doesn't make it bad. Seriously, you need to get in touch with your human side. Maybe you've spent a bit too much time in Physics class.

And using a social welfare function that is inherently risk averse isn't a way of doing this?

It may have certain applicability but I would never trust a concept like social welfare to a formula.

'High' and 'Moderate' are vague. So is 'impacts'.

Yes. People are vague. The world is vague. All of the factors in your precious formulae are constantly changing. If you want your formulae to have even a whiff of validity, you need to perform a huge amount of data gathering (for example on the cost of renewables vs the cost of fossil fuels). Otherwise, it's just a case of garbage in, garbage out. People around here just throw around nonsensical assumptions like the cost of renewables is triple the cost of fossil fuels. Fossil fuel costs jump all over the map and the cost of renewables (particularly solar) have been dropping like a stone over the past 5-10 years.

No that doesn't logically follow. You are just trying to make an excuse to use the strong precautionary principle (which is nonsense as it leads to absurd conclusions such as suggesting we need to spend money on military defense to fend off the flying spaghetti monster should the monster appear and decide to crush us) because you don't want admit the complexity of the issue of climate change or use empirical evidence in decision making.

Now, you're completely misrepresenting my position. Either you don't understand or you're debating dishonestly. I believe in the precautionary principle, exercised prudently. In the case of climate change, nobody knows for sure what the exact effects are but the available credible analysis and data suggests that there is a good chance that the effects will be very serious. Further, CO2 is a long lived pollutant so we need a long lead time. Further to that, there are all sorts of demonstrated and possible harms associated with producing and using fossil fuels. In particular, deepwater drilling, fracking and transporting bitumen via tanker are all areas where good information is lacking about the long term consequences of problems.

So, the prudent course of action is to move away from fossil fuels in a controlled but determined way. I know there is lots of ambiguity in that logic. Deal with it.

2. Computer model predictions such as CMIP5 have numerous problems and have not made predictions consistent with empirical observations; but that nuance is lost on you.

No, it's not lost on me at all. I just think the onus should be on polluters to demonstrate that the pollution is safe and sustainable, not the other way around.

How about I come and dump raw sewage in your yard? After, all. It's naturally occurring. And it's plant food. Just like CO2. And, when come up with a precise model that shows exactly how it will hurt you and prove beyond a doubt that the economic harm to you is greater than the cost of me paying to process the waste, I'll stop.

Are you OK with that?

Edited October 2, 2015 by ReeferMadness

[ReeferMadness]

You're embarrassing yourself again Waldo. Look at the Thread Title - Suzuki versus Trudeau - that's what we're talking about.....not the Harper Plan - as I said - be it good bad or indifferent. So please go ahead and defend your guy against Suzuki.

The thread title is idiotic - someone thought it was a scandal that Suzuki would call out Trudeau. That's only because people who vote for Harper think that everyone who disagrees with Harper (and that's 70% of the country by the way) all think alike.

[TimG]

Now, you're just being ridiculous. There are lots of valid ways of making decisions that don't involve quantifying everything.

Yet you heap scorn on people who don't use your method of assessing risk and determining the best course of action. If you want to argue that 'lots of valid ways' exist then you should accept that many of those ways will reach conclusions that you personally don't like. Edited October 2, 2015 by TimG

[WIP]

Thank you for your continued support. By your own admission, the US has occupied your attention for a very long time. So many discussions and concerns about the US for climate change polices, copious amounts of climate change data collection and analysis by government agencies (compared to Canada), and dependence on American academia (see Leap Manifesto) invariably means that an American or two will get involved.

I am here...because America is here...in spades.

Yes, I know America is here...and I think everyone else knows that as well! I've mentioned previously that I've lived and worked in the US earlier in my life, and I have family relations (through my mother) in Michigan and elsewhere. But, that's not the point here! Most Americans of all backgrounds have been instilled with the notion that their nation is superior and deserves to rule the world....so America is dangerously paranoid today....and that's a big reason why Canada should have protected itself as much as possible from being colonized by US business interests.

The problem is (mostly out west) a bunch of morons who want us even more interwoven with US economic policy though the next round of even more intrusive trade agreements. When I was working in a small autoparts manufacturer during the time the Reagan/Mulroney deal came at us, I was in the minority who realized we were trading away independence for the promise of money(that supplier ended up shutting down 10 years later anyway).

Things turned out even worse than I or any free trade critic expected...because we didn't know it was all part of the great globalization scam that kicks all of the money up to the top...the owners and controllers of big capital, and everyone else would lose....only difference would be who's wages would stagnate or fall faster!

And now the clowns out west who think Canada is all about extracting resources for export...want to do it all over again! That's a big part of the reason why both the Liberal and the NDP parties start turning vague and fuzzy when it comes to environment issues! Extracting tarsands is so important to Albertans after 40 years of free money coming in, that not even an NDP Government can call for shutting it down no matter what the consequences are for the environment!

Edited October 2, 2015 by WIP

[WIP]

The thread title is idiotic - someone thought it was a scandal that Suzuki would call out Trudeau. That's only because people who vote for Harper think that everyone who disagrees with Harper (and that's 70% of the country by the way) all think alike.

That is the authoritarian mindset after all! Conservative-thinking people do as little independent thinking as possible, because their way of looking at the world is rule-based! They demand books and leaders with simple answers to the most complex problems.

And when it comes to leadership, liberal thinkers are wary and skeptical of those who strive for leadership....even the ones who match our thinking and positions on issues. And even when conservatives have a nasty, contentious fight for leadership (like McCain vs. Romney in 08), the conservatives are expected to rally round the leader afterwards, and will only snipe at him in retrospect.....like all the conservatives who have complained about Bush's wars and spending policies after he was out of office!

[TimG]

Conservative-thinking people do as little independent thinking as possible, because their way of looking at the world is rule-based! They demand books and leaders with simple answers to the most complex problems.

ROTFL - when it comes to demanding conformity of thought there is no group more insistent on it than "liberal thinkers". The running joke is a "liberal thinker" loves diversity in every aspect of life except thought. Edited October 2, 2015 by TimG

[WIP]

ROTFL - when it comes to demanding conformity of thought there is no group more insistent on it than "liberal thinkers". The running joke is a "liberal thinker" loves diversity in every aspect of life except thought.

Read "The Authoritarians" by Robert Altemeyer. An exhaustive analysis of subjects filling out questionnaires reveals that the profile of the average follower of an authoritarian leader is traditionalist, quickly motivated by fear response, and demands clear and definitive answers and proposals....no room for nuance or refraining from making snap decisions and judgments.....now who's profiles do those facets of personality reflect in the realm of politics?

And you can still download the pdf version for free: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Edited October 2, 2015 by WIP

[-1=e^ipi]

If you know you're making flawed assumptions, why bother completing the calculation?

Newtonian physics is flawed. Does that mean people shouldn't use Newtonian physics to make calculations that put satellites into orbit?

Normal people don't make decisions that way and they shouldn't.

Well if everyone thought normally, we wouldn't have an internet on which to communicate, or knowledge that CO2 causes warming,or an internal combustion engine.

Now, you're just being ridiculous. There are lots of valid ways of making decisions that don't involve quantifying everything.

Not when it comes to the welfare of 7 billion people.

It may have certain applicability but I would never trust a concept like social welfare to a formula.

And I don't trust using subjective feelings when the well being of 7 billion people is at stake.

If you want your formulae to have even a whiff of validity, you need to perform a huge amount of data gathering (for example on the cost of renewables vs the cost of fossil fuels).

Of course you do. And huge amounts of data are gathered and made accessible to all via the internet. You just need to know where to look.

I believe in the precautionary principle, exercised prudently.

If you believe in the weak precautionary principle rather than the strong precautionary principle, then don't make strong precautionary principle arguments.

In the case of climate change, nobody knows for sure what the exact effects are but the available credible analysis and data suggests that there is a good chance that the effects will be very serious.

You don't need complete certainty in order to make decisions about what to do with respect to climate change. A probability distribution function of various outcomes is sufficient.

So, the prudent course of action is to move away from fossil fuels in a controlled but determined way.

I wouldn't say this conclusion necessarily follows from your argument even if I agree with the conclusion. Anyway, the results from the work by people like William Nordhaus suggest exactly this.

I just think the onus should be on polluters to demonstrate that the pollution is safe and sustainable, not the other way around.

How about I come and dump raw sewage in your yard? After, all. It's naturally occurring. And it's plant food. Just like CO2. And, when come up with a precise model that shows exactly how it will hurt you and prove beyond a doubt that the economic harm to you is greater than the cost of me paying to process the waste, I'll stop.

I wasn't arguing anything remotely along those lines.

Anyway, laugh as you might at the idea of using math and reason when making decisions that affect 7 billion people, but I have an open invitation on the world's 5th most popular climate science blog (http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2013/12/15/ranking-of-climate-blogs-dec-2013/), which is run by a well published and well respected climatologist, for a guest blog post on the topic of decision making under uncertainty.

[TimG]

who's profiles do those facets of personality reflect in the realm of politics?

All irrelevant noise when you look at how so called 'liberal' react to people expressing ideas that do not confirm their approved narratives. Look the the climate change debate: anyone who questions the 'mitigate at any cost' narrative is labelled as a 'denier' even if they completely accept the CAQW claims but question the wisdom the policies (e.g. Bjorn Lomborg). Similar unwillingness to accept nuanced opinions on issues like abortion to gay marriage to the environment or tax policy are typical of "liberal thinkers". "Liberal thinkers" may have less respect for authority but desperately need for approval from those they see as peers. Edited October 2, 2015 by TimG