David Suzuki versus Justin Trudeau

[ToadBrother]

So what ? Have you ever been to the Salton Sea area ?

It is already "screwed up" so Americans and Canadians can have lettuce and strawberries in January.

Pretty stupid, eh?

[TimG]

He believes in the science that keeps big electricity utilities profitable. That's all.

This comment is a wonderful illustration of the bizarro conspiracy mindset that infects many CAGW advocates. I guess you needed a break from posting on 9/11 truther blogs about how Bush planned the whole thing. Edited September 29, 2015 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

Pretty stupid, eh?

Economics doesn't care so much about stupid that makes lots of money. So stupid they are continuing to do it.

[TimG]

The only thing bizarre here is that you spend half your time trying to convince me that increased temperature trapping in the lower atmosphere is the greatest thing since sliced bread

My argument was that there was no real evidence to support the claim that warmer temperatures are necessarily a bad thing. The idea that it is a net negative is nothing but an assumption which is convenient for the legions of people that seek to profit from government funded initiatives.

In any case, the two positions are not contradictory. i.e. even if I was convinced that CO2 is necessarily a bad thing I still think we can't do anything about it.

It is mystery why people who are so quick to deride the profit motive by existing companies providing a valuable product but seem completely forget that the people peddling solar panels and wind mills are not doing it out of the goodness of the heart. If the profit motive corrupts one it must necessarily corrupt the other.

Edited September 29, 2015 by TimG

[dre]

Maybe the feud is staged. Being called names by Suzuki might actually improve the liberals standing with swing voters by creating a perceived distance between the party and the hard-core environmental movement.

[ToadBrother]

My argument was that there was no real evidence to support the claim that warmer temperatures are necessarily a bad thing. The idea that it is a net negative is nothing but an assumption which is convenient for the legions of people that seek to profit from government funded initiatives.

In other words, your claiming that the climatological community are a bunch of profiteering liars. That claim has been made before; Creationists claimed it by biologists and tobacco companies claimed it about doctors researching lung cancer.

The science under attack may change, but the nonsense attacks remain the same. The climatologists would have jobs whether AGW was real or not.

In any case, the two positions are not contradictory. i.e. even if I was convinced that CO2 is necessarily a bad thing I still think we can't do anything about it.

Of course we can. We can reduce emissions.

It is mystery why people who are so quick to deride the profit motive by existing companies providing a valuable product but seem completely forget that the people peddling solar panels and wind mills are not doing it out of the goodness of the heart. If the profit motive corrupts one it must necessarily corrupt the other.

Valuable doesn't mean healthy. Lots of valuable products have bad aspects. This looks like nothing more than a non sequitur to me.

[waldo]

My argument was that there was no real evidence to support the claim that warmer temperatures are necessarily a bad thing. The idea that it is a net negative is nothing but an assumption which is convenient for the legions of people that seek to profit from government funded initiatives.

you had no argument... as is your typical way, you simply make unsubstantiated statements. More pointedly, you weren't speaking directly to "warmer temperatures"; this is what you actually said:

I am saying there is no real evidence to support the notion that CO2 is necessarily a net negative. You are asking me to prove a negative.

you were asked/challenged to speak to the positive... net positive... aspects of CO2. Once again, don't hesitate to produce your interpreted science that speaks to the "net positive" impacts of CO2 emissions... or, err... "warmer temperatures" as you now back-pedal to!

[Argus]

And there are plenty of alternatives, which have all been listed countless times in countless places. There is no technical obstacle to moving away from the use of long-chain hydrocarbons, or indeed simpler hydrocarbons, other than money. Even there, the economic costs overall will still be far smaller than refusing to curb CO2 emissions and waiting for the proverbial feces to hit the proverbial wall.

That is all very nice but I'm still waiting for the plan. If it's to have every country cut it's use of fossil fuels it ain't going to work. Too many big countries are not and will not be on board for decades, at the least.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Argus

[Argus]

Which is because energy has been so cheap that nobody cares much about making buildings use energy efficiently.

Energy is not cheap and has not been for many years now.

[waldo]

That is all very nice but I'm still waiting for the plan. If it's to have every country cut it's use of fossil fuels it ain't going to work. Too many big countries are not and will not be on board for decades, at the least.

which "big countries"? Are you finally going to step-up and support your repeated past statements concerning China... India...

[Argus]

Yeah. Just hop in your huge SUV and drive home 50 miles from work to relax in your hot tub and contemplate how many people in poor countries will die from climate change and there's not anything that anyone can do. Sad, right?

I have a CUV. So there.

And a lot of the countries which are not on board with any reduction in CO2 - unless we pay them to -- are those poor countries, like India.

[Argus]

Why do you even bother to make excuses? Why don't you just own it?

Pointing out the illogical nature of your arguments is not making excuses.

[ToadBrother]

I have a CUV. So there.

And a lot of the countries which are not on board with any reduction in CO2 - unless we pay them to -- are those poor countries, like India.

Considering the damage their doing, maybe we should.

[ToadBrother]

That is all very nice but I'm still waiting for the plan. If it's to have every country cut it's use of fossil fuels it ain't going to work. Too many big countries are not and will not be on board for decades, at the least.

The plan is to raise the price of fossil fuel to reflect the damage CO2 emissions do. In doing so, that will make alternatives more economical.

It's not as if certain kinds of businesses have not flourished under artificial scarcity.

[Argus]

China just announced it's new cap and trade program. These things will only accelerate I suspect as o the one hand, more evidence of climate change destruction reveals itself, and green tech. becomes more profitable on the other.

Uhm, a few things about China's 'cap and trade' program. Such programs work by penalizing companies that use a lot of energy, making them purchase 'points' from other companies which don't. Such points tend to be assigned by the government. Only here's the thing, all major companies in China are owned BY the government. So what they're volunteering to do is take money from one pocket and put it into another. Second, China is immeasurably corrupt, and such programs are open to massive corruption, as we have seen in Europe. No data from any Chinese company, organization or government can be relied on for truthfulness or accuracy. That goes for anything and everything the Chinese government says, by the way.

[waldo]

Uhm, a few things about China's 'cap and trade' program. Such programs work by penalizing companies that use a lot of energy, making them purchase 'points' from other companies which don't. Such points tend to be assigned by the government. Only here's the thing, all major companies in China are owned BY the government. So what they're volunteering to do is take money from one pocket and put it into another. Second, China is immeasurably corrupt, and such programs are open to massive corruption, as we have seen in Europe. No data from any Chinese company, organization or government can be relied on for truthfulness or accuracy. That goes for anything and everything the Chinese government says, by the way.

yet more of your baseless unsubstantiated statements.....

China Announces World’s Largest Cap and Trade Program

September 25, 2015: FACT SHEET: The United States and China Issue Joint Presidential Statement on Climate Change with New Domestic Policy Commitments and a Common Vision for an Ambitious Global Climate Agreement in Paris

on edit: added

China's submission to the UNFCCC... as a part of global nations "Paris Contributions" in regards to the upcoming Paris COP meetings:

Edited September 29, 2015 by waldo

[Argus]

I've already been there, many times, so I can see why they are doing what they are doing. It seems like you fell for the naysayers.

Reducing air pollution is not the same as reducing CO2 emissions,as the Europeans have discovered by emphasizing diesel cars because they emit less CO2 while belching out a lot more air pollution.

[Argus]

yet more of your baseless unsubstantiated statements.....

China Announces World’s Largest Cap and Trade Program

September 25, 2015: FACT SHEET: The United States and China Issue Joint Presidential Statement on Climate Change with New Domestic Policy Commitments and a Common Vision for an Ambitious Global Climate Agreement in Paris

You're talking about a country which signs trade agreements then labels their goods as products of another country to get around them. It also exports products from slave labour, in contravention of numerous signed agreements not to do so.

And you ignored my point. Chinese companies are owned by the government. Making them trade points back and forth between them is a joke. And by the way, any talk of goals is curiously absent in your cites.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

Reducing air pollution is not the same as reducing CO2 emissions,as the Europeans have discovered by emphasizing diesel cars because they emit less CO2 while belching out a lot more air pollution.

And the solution for diesel engines is urea or ammonia DEF systems in diesel engines. European car manufacturers just didn't want to pay the extra cost for those systems (and the long-term maintenance and replacement of urea), so they cheaped out.

As I said to TimG, that NOx is bad doesn't mean that CO2 isn't bad either. Both are bad in different ways.

[Argus]

The plan is to raise the price of fossil fuel to reflect the damage CO2 emissions do. In doing so, that will make alternatives more economical.

By 'economical' you mean they will still remain horrendously expensive, but since the plan makes fossil fuels horrendously expensive, too, alternatives are now 'economical'.

That doesn't change the fact that higher cost energy screws over the economy, costs jobs, and makes it harder for people to fuel their cars and heat their homes. and NO ONE who is pushing carbon trading or carbon taxation schemes is talking about that.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Argus

[ToadBrother]

By 'economical' you mean they will still remain horrendously expensive, but since the plan makes fossil fuels horrendously expensive, too, alternatives are now 'economical'.

If you want to put it that way, then yes. But that would be no different than if we started to run out of oil.

That doesn't stop the fact that higher cost energy screws over the economy, costs jobs, and makes it harder for people to fuel their cars and heat their homes.

Then the sooner we come up with cheaper less harmful ways to produce energy the better. We sit in a literal sea of energy, smacking down on us from a certain local nearby star, coming up from the vast engines in the mantle and core of the planet, from the movement of liquids and gasses on the surface.

Making oil more expensive will facilitate the move to better energy production means, and will reduce CO2 emissions. It's a win-win. BEtter to do it now, than wait until we're forced to do it, no?

[waldo]

And by the way, any talk of goals is curiously absent in your cites.

not at all... while you continue to provide nothing but your unsubstantiated statements, you simply choose to ignore details provided; again, for example:

China Announces World’s Largest Cap and Trade Program

September 25, 2015: FACT SHEET: The United States and China Issue Joint Presidential Statement on Climate Change with New Domestic Policy Commitments and a Common Vision for an Ambitious Global Climate Agreement in Paris

China's submission to the UNFCCC... as a part of global nations "Paris Contributions" in regards to the upcoming Paris COP meetings:

notwithstanding, of course, actual targets/goals in relation to the next COP (Paris) will be a part of negotiations between world nations...

[bush_cheney2004]

....Making oil more expensive will facilitate the move to better energy production means, and will reduce CO2 emissions. It's a win-win. BEtter to do it now, than wait until we're forced to do it, no?

No....better to do it when we have to, not want to. Everybody who wants to pay more for fossil fuel energy, please send in your cheques today.

[TimG]

In other words, your claiming that the climatological community are a bunch of profiteering liars.

YOu are the one claiming that anyone who is not a climate scientist is a profiteering liar. I am only pointing out the buck goes both ways. What I actually said is everyone is biased by their self interest and bias does not mean wrong. So companies are biased towards producing reports that benefit them and climate scientists are biased towards producing science that gets the public worried enough to pay them.

The science under attack may change, but the nonsense attacks remain the same. The climatologists would have jobs whether AGW was real or not.

Lots of scientists are forced to change fields or find other jobs because there is not enough funding for their speciality. Without the scare mongering a lot fewer people would have jobs in the climate field. More importantly, a lot of "top scientists" would lose the prestige that comes with large budgets and international recognition. You are hopelessly naive if you believe this does not influence what they research and how they spin any findings.

Of course we can. We can reduce emissions.

We might be able to reduce some if we stopped our population from growing (maybe 10-15%). There is no way we can get anything close to zero emissions globally and the cost of reducing the 10-15% in any given jurisdiction is astronomical.

Valuable doesn't mean healthy. Lots of valuable products have bad aspects. This looks like nothing more than a non sequitur to me.

You missed the point: people peddling CO2 reduction schemes are out to make profit. They are as biased.

[waldo]

You missed the point: people peddling CO2 reduction schemes are out to make profit. They are as biased.

who/what, as you say "peddlars", at the upcoming Paris COP meetings... are, as you say, "biased and out to make profit". Just the names please... just the names of your described "peddlars"!