David Suzuki versus Justin Trudeau

[Argus]

not at all...

And then you say...

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

I was mistaken about the absence of goals. The US promises to reduce by 32% in one of those cites. And China........... hmmm.

[Argus]

We might be able to reduce some if we stopped our population from growing (maybe 10-15%).

Ah, but the NDP have promised to increase our immigration to 370,000+ each year! They want to grow our population ever higher!

[waldo]

And then you say...

I was mistaken about the absence of goals. The US promises to reduce by 32% in one of those cites. And China........... hmmm.

no ... if you actually knew anything of the subject, you'd realize those initial citations were distinctly separate from formal (legally binding) UNFCCC pledges (should they be realized as a part of the upcoming Paris COP)... they were negotiated directly between the U.S. and China. Not sure why you would state "And China........... hmmm"... targets/goals are specifically mentioned.

[TimG]

Ah, but the NDP have promised to increase our immigration to 370,000+ each year! They want to grow our population ever higher!

Classic alarmist hypocrisy. Limiting population growth is one of the best ways to reduce emissions but politically that is not good for them so they ignore it. More evidence that the climate alarm is all for political show and even the advocates don't believe their own stories.

[waldo]

Classic alarmist hypocrisy. Limiting population growth is one of the best ways to reduce emissions but politically that is not good for them so they ignore it. More evidence that the climate alarm is all for political show and even the advocates don't believe their own stories.

oh snap! 370K is just huuuuuge... particularly in regards to a world population of 7 billion moving towards 8.5 billion/2030... and 9.7 billion/2050 (per the latest 2015 UN World Population Prospects).

[On Guard for Thee]

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.

Very good, keep reading those science books. Most air pollution contains CO2, so reducing one reduces the other.

[ToadBrother]

Classic alarmist hypocrisy. Limiting population growth is one of the best ways to reduce emissions but politically that is not good for them so they ignore it. More evidence that the climate alarm is all for political show and even the advocates don't believe their own stories.

You know another way to reduce emissions... reducing emissions. But you don't want that done.

[ToadBrother]

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.

Yes, it's a classic claim, that scientists are greedy. Attacking the messenger, a classic ad hominen fallacy.

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.

So let us get this straight. Your solution to AGW research is to simply reduce the number of researchers.

You really do believe the laws of physics bow to your pro-oil views.

[Argus]

oh snap! 370K is just huuuuuge... particularly in regards to a world population of 7 billion moving towards 8.5 billion/2030... and 9.7 billion/2050 (per the latest 2015 UN World Population Prospects).

It's 1% additional population for Canada, each year. You think that's not important? Over the likely 20 year period of some reduction efforts that increases our population by 25%+.

[Argus]

Very good, keep reading those science books. Most air pollution contains CO2, so reducing one reduces the other.

Not necessarily true.

[Argus]

You know another way to reduce emissions... reducing emissions. But you don't want that done.

You guys always reduce it to that. Nobody has a vested interest in preserving Co2 emissions, you know. It's more about a judgement call as to how much we CAN do, what the actual value of that is on a world scale, and what it would cost us. You guys tend to leave out the last two parts especially.

[On Guard for Thee]

Not necessarily true.

Most air pollution comes from burning fossil fuels which contains a lot of CO2. Volcanoes do as well, but we can't do much about them.

[angrypenguin]

I fly about 78,000 miles domestically for work and spent 225 nights last year on the road. I've flown with Suzuki maybe 5 times now? He always sits up front. Interesting coming from an environmentalist. His CO2 footprint would be the highest. He'd be better off flying on WestJet since they have lower environmental impact because they can fly more people for the same cost.

He's a hypocrit. Trudeau's a twerp though, he's right there.

[ReeferMadness]

Reviewing the posts, it's not surprising that we're making very little progress on CO2 reduction. Denial. Excuses. Foot dragging. Finger pointing. All the things that happen when people resist change.

Harper has made it acceptable for people to resist doing the right thing on climate change; just the same as he has made it acceptable for people to have bigoted views when it comes to Muslims.

Let's hope Canadians are wise enough to dump him in a couple weeks.

[angrypenguin]

Reviewing the posts, it's not surprising that we're making very little progress on CO2 reduction. Denial. Excuses. Foot dragging. Finger pointing. All the things that happen when people resist change.

Harper has made it acceptable for people to resist doing the right thing on climate change; just the same as he has made it acceptable for people to have bigoted views when it comes to Muslims.

Let's hope Canadians are wise enough to dump him in a couple weeks.

I'm all for climate change, AS LONG AS you don't make life more expensive for me.

[ReeferMadness]

I'm all for climate change, AS LONG AS you don't make life more expensive for me.

Yeah. As climate change and ocean acidification cause sea levels to rise, crops to fail, forest fires to burn bigger, fish stocks to decline and floods to become more frequent and severe, we'll pass a hat to make sure that YOUR life doesn't become more expensive.

Because, when you fly 80,000 miles a year, we KNOW that CO2 increases have nothing to do with you!

[angrypenguin]

Yeah. As climate change and ocean acidification cause sea levels to rise, crops to fail, forest fires to burn bigger, fish stocks to decline and floods to become more frequent and severe, we'll pass a hat to make sure that YOUR life doesn't become more expensive.

Because, when you fly 80,000 miles a year, we KNOW that CO2 increases have nothing to do with you!

My company buys carbon offset credits. I fly for work. Too bad planet.

Plus, I never said I was a green person, just that if you gave me a choice to be green or not, as long as it's not more expensive for me to be green, I'll do it. If not, then I won't be green.

[-1=e^ipi]

The study notes that proposed techno-fixes like carbon capture and storage are years away from reaching the point where they would have a significant impact on slowing carbon increases; and the energy and related costs would likely still make burning less carbon the only alternative to breaking through that 2 degree target.

What happens if Planet Earth blows right past 2 degrees? Past history indicates that carbon spikes from natural causes and increased temperatures are periods of extinction. But, when it comes to how much carbon can we burn/ how much do we have to leave in the ground.....these are at best - educated guesses, because the climate research on past events of Abrupt Climate Change, indicate temperatures can rise very quickly...in just a few decades during warmer periods when stored carbon in oceans and permafrost are released into the atmosphere.

It's a matter of percentages of risk, and the higher we turn the dials - the greater the risk. So, a 50:50 chance of blowing right past that 2 degree margin and starting a cascade of runaway climate change is already a coin toss on the odds of ending civilization and setting up eventual human extinction.

WIP, the argument in your post is roughly of the following form:

- Some people have claimed that we should meet the 2C target or risks become too high.

- Bad things happened in the past due to warming.

- Now suppose that there is a 50% chance of bad things happening if we go past 2C warming. That's really bad, so we shouldn't go above 2C.

So the first part of your argument is just an appeal to authority. Yes a lot of people repeat the 2C target over and over again, but that doesn't make it justified.

With respect to events in the past such as the Permian-Triassic mass extinction event, you in no way relate this to 2C of warming. You need to take into account the quantities. Your argument is like pointing out that some people have died of alcohol poisoning and then claiming that no one should ever drink more than 2 bears at a time.

Finally, you pull out a 50% chance from thin air. Is there any empirical evidence that suggests a 50% probability? No.

[-1=e^ipi]

No kidding! The big problem is the problems associated with global warming have been lowballed by all sides in the debate.

You mean like past estimates of climate sensitivity that have been overestimates? Oh wait...

[Hydraboss]

Two points:

1) Both Suzuki and Trudeau were correct in their estimations of each other. Full stop.

2) If the "people of Canada" gave a damn about climate change as immensely as some on this board try to make them out to be, then the Green party would be tied with the other majors or leading. They're not. Never have. Likely never will. Someone has it as their signature....economics trumps virtue or something like that. Everyone supports "green measures" until it means they can't buy a new Macbook or a 60" plasma.

[angrypenguin]

Two points:

1) Both Suzuki and Trudeau were correct in their estimations of each other. Full stop.

2) If the "people of Canada" gave a damn about climate change as immensely as some on this board try to make them out to be, then the Green party would be tied with the other majors or leading. They're not. Never have. Likely never will. Someone has it as their signature....economics trumps virtue or something like that. Everyone supports "green measures" until it means they can't buy a new Macbook or a 60" plasma.

Agreed.

[-1=e^ipi]

On a per capita basis (the only fair way of looking at it), Canada is in the top 3 worst in the world. We don't need to wait for China to cut its emissions.

No we aren't. I can list lots of countries that have higher emissions per capita.

Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, USA, Australia.

[Smallc]

2) If the "people of Canada" gave a damn about climate change as immensely as some on this board try to make them out to be, then the Green party would be tied with the other majors or leading. They're not. Never have. Likely never will. Someone has it as their signature....economics trumps virtue or something like that. Everyone supports "green measures" until it means they can't buy a new Macbook or a 60" plasma.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is being extraordinarily naive.

[-1=e^ipi]

Climate change is neither good nor bad. It is change. Any change has positive and negative effects. Some of these effects will be too small to notice others will be obvious. We have no way to know whether the balance will be a net negative or a net positive. Your assertion that is it is necessarily a net negative has no evidence to support it.

Integrated assessment models?

I didn't ask you to prove a negative. I asked you for actual evidence to support your ridiculous claim. Instead you come back with the old "all the scientists are in a big conspiracy" story.

With respect to TimG's claim of the existence of publication bias, I think this link is evidence:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988315002327

[waldo]

You mean like past estimates of climate sensitivity that have been overestimates? Oh wait...

did not realize the 'science was settled' on sensitivity!