Paris Climate Summit

[ReeferMadness]

I just find these climate justice arguments ridiculous. Much like I find arguments that use the bible to justify climate change mitigation ridiculous. Decisions should be made on the best available empirical evidence.

You're absolutely right. Nobody can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly what the effects changing the chemistry of our action will be. So, please, feel free to add as much CO2 as you like - just as soon as you prove it's safe to do so!

Please provide your peer-reviewed science that shows the cumulative economic, social and health effects of CO2 as concentrations grow in the atmosphere. Then we can hold a global referendum and agree what level of impact makes everyone comfortable.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Please provide your peer-reviewed science that shows the cumulative economic, social and health effects of CO2 as concentrations grow in the atmosphere. Then we can hold a global referendum and agree what level of impact makes everyone comfortable.

Or just continue burning fossil fuels without regard to all of the "climate justice" nonsense.

Time to fetch some more fire wood...gonna be chilly tonight !

[ReeferMadness]

Or just continue burning fossil fuels without regard to all of the "climate justice" nonsense.

Time to fetch some more fire wood...gonna be chilly tonight !

At least wood is renewable, unlike fossil fuels.

[waldo]

Or just continue burning fossil fuels without regard to all of the "climate justice" nonsense.

the only MLW member fronting the "climate justice" nonsense is you... with your earlier strawman post that had you firing googly on all cylinders!

now I did thank you for responding to my request by providing that googly link list; however, again as I said, you only addressed a part of my request: this request: "perhaps you can heighten discussion opportunity by attaching who/what has drawn that 'equality' {between COP21 and "Climate Justice"}... and in particular speak to the legitimacy of that 'who/what' and pointedly address what formal attachment and influence that 'who/what' has to COP21." Somehow, you failed to complete the request... that part bold-highlighted! Is there a problem for you?

again, in particular, speak to the legitimacy of that 'who/what' (your declared "climate justice warriours"), and pointedly address what formal attachment and influence that 'who/what' (your declared "climate justice warrious") has to COP21."

[waldo]

Lastly, the IPCC's own best models, when you plug in data from 50 years ago and look at today, they badly overestimate temperatures. Why would I trust them to be any better in predicting something I cannot measure in the future? [waldo: source/cite]

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13143-014-0011-z

without even looking at the particulars of your linked paper, and notwithstanding its singular and isolated focus on ocean layer temperature, how does it qualify your statement about, as you say, "the IPCC's own best models... badly overestimating temperatures"?

now... over some period of time through past threads we've had some serious chuckles over that most simplistic 1D climate model that Spencer/Braswell keep dragging around with them through an assortment of their failed papers! For sure, 'Uncle Roy' is legion with his failed simple 1D climate model, cranking out paper after paper with it. All those fake-skeptics/deniers that continually berate climate models (like you have done)... apparently, they/you likee this one, big time! After all, who would need more than a simple model (that can be run on a spreadsheet, no less!), to detail all the complexities of climate... and then presume to speak to climate sensitivity on that basis. Notwithstanding, of course, the "internal forcing" wizardry that Spencer just magically creates!

there's no shortage of formal take-downs of the ongoing Spencer/Braswell simplistic 1D climate model nonsense: this is a blog written summation on that particular paper you chose to link to... if you'd like formal rebuttals to their 1D climate model, please advise:

Another global warming contrarian paper found to be unrealistic and inaccurate

Dr. Spencer and his colleague Danny Braswell made a number of basic math and physics errors in the article that call into question their conclusions. Before we get into the errors, let’s talk about what their model does. They basically treated the ocean like a non-moving fluid and allowed heat to diffuse into the ocean depths. They did allow some mixing in the upper layers through added terms in a one-dimensional equation. The model neglects down-welling or up-welling of waters which occur particularly at the poles. In the end, they end up with a bunch of tunable parameters, which they adjusted so that the model output matches the measured temperature history.

So, what were the errors and poor modeling choices?

• The model treats the entire Earth as entirely ocean-covered
• The model assigns an ocean process (El Niño cycle) which covers a limited geographic region in the Pacific Ocean as a global phenomenon
• The model incorrectly simulates the upper layer of the ocean in the numerical calculation.
• The model incorrectly insulates the ocean bottom at 2000 meters depth
• The model leads to diffusivity values that are significantly larger than those reported in the literature
• The model incorrectly uses an asymmetric diffusivity to calculate heat transfer between adjacent layers
• The model contains incorrect determination of element interface diffusivity
• The model neglects advection (water flow) on heat transfer
• The model neglects latent heat transfer between the atmosphere and the ocean surface.

.

Edited October 29, 2015 by waldo

[Canada_First]

I applaud the efforts of PM designate Trudeau on the way he's handled this upcoming conference so far.

[-1=e^ipi]

without even looking at the particulars of your linked paper, and notwithstanding its singular and isolated focus on ocean layer temperature, how does it qualify your statement about, as you say, "the IPCC's own best models... badly overestimating temperatures"?

Come on Waldo. Predictions made by the majority of climate models have been overestimates. CMIP5 predictions are on the verge of being falsified at the 95% level as I explained in the other thread. CMIP5 models have a median ECS of 3.2, where as most of the recent empirical estimates are much lower (closer to 2). It seems to me that climate models overestimating warming by a factor of 50% is fairly likely.

Edited October 29, 2015 by -1=e^ipi

[hitops]

without even looking at the particulars of your linked paper.....

Indeed

and notwithstanding its singular and isolated focus on ocean layer temperature, how does it qualify your statement about, as you say, "the IPCC's own best models... badly overestimating temperatures"?

Because that is what the paper shows.

now... over some period of time through past threads we've had some serious chuckles over that most simplistic 1D climate model that Spencer/Braswell keep dragging around with them through an assortment of their failed papers! For sure, 'Uncle Roy' is legion with his failed simple 1D climate model, cranking out paper after paper with it. All those fake-skeptics/deniers that continually berate climate models (like you have done)... apparently, they/you likee this one, big time! After all, who would need more than a simple model (that can be run on a spreadsheet, no less!), to detail all the complexities of climate... and then presume to speak to climate sensitivity on that basis. Notwithstanding, of course, the "internal forcing" wizardry that Spencer just magically creates!

there's no shortage of formal take-downs of the ongoing Spencer/Braswell simplistic 1D climate model nonsense: this is a blog written summation on that particular paper you chose to link to... if you'd like formal rebuttals to their 1D climate model, please advise:

Another global warming contrarian paper found to be unrealistic and inaccurate

None of that addresses my statement. Rather than repeat it, I'll restate it by quoting Spencer:

"On this point, how is it that Abraham et al. nitpick a 1D model that CAN explain the observations, but the authors do not fault the IPCC 3D models which CANNOT explain the observations

The rest of the 'take-down' of the 'take-down' to use your words (sounds like a Jean Claude Van-Damme Movie no?):

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/sceptic-climate-scientist-spencer-hits-back-at-critics.html

If you and I both build washing machines, but yours does a better job, it matters little that mine has 19 settings and your has 3.

Come on Waldo. Predictions made by the majority of climate models have been overestimates. CMIP5 predictions are on the verge of being falsified at the 95% level as I explained in the other thread. CMIP5 models have a median ECS of 3.2, where as most of the recent empirical estimates are much lower (closer to 2). It seems to me that climate models overestimating warming by a factor of 50% is fairly likely.

Ya but you missed his point. He laughs at Spencer, ergo, Spencer's model, though more accurate, should be disregarded. It's the scientific method.

Edited October 29, 2015 by hitops

[hitops]

Reflections:

The one thing that cheers me about the otherwise unprecedented tsunami of hand-wringing nonsense, is that we will definitely find out what happens. There is no possibility of seriously lowering CO2 anytime soon, thank goodness. We will definitely find out if Bruce Willis needs to save us.

See, since nothing serious is going to happen, if we actually impoverished ourselves and restricted third-work development, weather would continue on normally, and the climate change proponents would say 'see look it worked', and we would never know. It's like when Bush said he kept the US safe after 9/11....we have no clue if it would have been safe anyway. But since we definitely will not significantly alter the effects of CO2 at this point, we can look at how it keeps going up, everything keeps on basically just fine, and then be satisfied.

Of course in the meantime, no matter what, we will have to endure references to global warming every single time a significant weather or geological event happens. You know.....the types of natural events that have always happened, and will always continue to happen.

Whether it is raining outside, or not raining outside, it is bad....and of course....it is due to climate change. Furthermore, Glenn would not have been eaten by zombies if not for climate change.

I wonder, then, in 50 years or so when we look back, will all the hand-wringers come out and say 'so sorry, we were wrong'? Of course not, they will be either dead or retired with their nest egg and university pension. Those that are not, will just slink back into the woodwork and hope we don't notice. Of course there will be a series of narratives built up to say 'well it would have happened if it wasn't for (insert new constructed 'totally unanticipated' event that means they were still right even though nothing they said came true, here). Because it is non-falsifiable, and no research, theory, nor reality itself will change that.

Edited October 29, 2015 by hitops

[waldo]

Indeed

that's right, indeed! You made an absolute brazen statement about IPCC models... and then proceeded to avoid showing any evidence... even any mention... of any IPCC model and temperature projections. Again, your linked paper presumes to speak to ocean layer temperatures... and not even the more typically profiled ocean surface temperature. And this has what to do with your statement about the IPCCs, as you said, "own best models"! Yes, indeed!

You have referred to a single 'take-down', a news article written by their usual contributor on the topic. I assume by 'no shortage', you are bursting at the seams with other ones?

Spencer is a charlatan... more pointedly, a creationist charlatan! Yes, that's right... your boy is actually a creationist! That simplistic "ID climate model" is the running joke within the scientific community. It's so bad that Spencer had to resort to publishing in obscure online journals... where he actually pays to get published! As I said, there is no shortage of formal published rebuttals to that simplistic "ID climate model". If you actually knew anything beyond what you apparently glean from denier blogs... you'd recognize and acknowledge this! Well no, you wouldn't actually acknowledge it, would you?

.

I think you missed the point of the paper (the point I was trying to make), which is that his model better estimates the actual record, and that 90 other widely used models largely overestimate it, some spectacularly. For the sake or argument, I'll accept Abraham 9 points at face value. It does not change the fact that Spencer's model does a better job than the alternatives at predicting what is actually observed.

you would presume to, without substantiation, critique "IPCC models"... notwithstanding there is no such thing as "IPCC models" - you more correctly should state the grouping of models that exist within the world community of scientists engaged in climate science modeling. You would presume to suggest the simplistic "1D climate model" hatched by Spencer... completely on his own... is a true representation of climate simulation! Of course you would! How absolutely generous of you in accepting something that so punts the failure of that Spencer model being used to speak to ocean layer temperatures... while at the same time you even more brazenly state that Spencer's model, in all it's failings and simplicity... tuneable simplicity... "does a better job"! Oh my.

,

Ya but you missed his point. He laughs at Spencer, ergo, Spencer's models, though more accurate, should be disregarded. It's the scientific method.

the laughing at Spencer, his simplistic model... and how he chooses to apply it... comes from within the scientific community.

so, let's recap: you made a statement about "IPCC models" and haven't substantiated that statement - you've shown nothing that presents either hindcast or forecast results of any models, particularly those most profiled in regards to either land only temperature or ocean surface only temperature or a combination of both. All you've shown is a link to that single paper that relies upon a most suspect simplistic model that presumes to speak to the role of ENSO in ocean temperatures extending that further to draw a summary assessment on climate sensitivity... a paper that, in itself, says nothing about it's results in relation to any other model! That's your reply to my request for a "source cite" to that statement you made about "IPCC models"!

.

[waldo]

Come on Waldo. Predictions made by the majority of climate models have been overestimates. CMIP5 predictions are on the verge of being falsified at the 95% level as I explained in the other thread. CMIP5 models have a median ECS of 3.2, where as most of the recent empirical estimates are much lower (closer to 2). It seems to me that climate models overestimating warming by a factor of 50% is fairly likely.

per norm, you make statements without qualification, particularly, for example, in terms of what SRES/RCP they're relying upon. As for your "other thread explanations": see waldo counters here... and here. You're welcome!

and again, you would presume to, with legitimacy, draw comparative summation from one methodology in estimating sensitivity and apply it towards a completely different approach/methodology. Notwithstanding there is, as of yet and as you're well aware, no summary consensus on the value of sensitivity... in a most active area of ongoing study/research published results continue to run the gamut from low(er) to high(er).

in regards any of the above, I would suggest if you're inclined to reply, rather than further derailing this thread, you resurrect the others... certainly you should relish any opportunity to bring forward your "sensitivity bible thread"!

.

[ReeferMadness]

Come on Waldo. Predictions made by the majority of climate models have been overestimates. CMIP5 predictions are on the verge of being falsified at the 95% level as I explained in the other thread. CMIP5 models have a median ECS of 3.2, where as most of the recent empirical estimates are much lower (closer to 2). It seems to me that climate models overestimating warming by a factor of 50% is fairly likely.

I'm still waiting for your proof of this wild premise that it's safe and economically benign to modify the chemistry of our one and only atmosphere. Given that most terrestrial life depends upon it, I'm sure you're just double-checking your work.

Just tell me how much more time you'll need.

[hitops]

that's right, indeed! You made an absolute brazen statement about IPCC models... and then proceeded to avoid showing any evidence... even any mention... of any IPCC model and temperature projections. Again, your linked paper presumes to speak to ocean layer temperatures... and not even the more typically profiled ocean surface temperature. And this has what to do with your statement about the IPCCs, as you said, "own best models"! Yes, indeed!

False. The paper I linked shows both the IPPC models and temperature projections, and how they differ from observations. This is what you asked for.

But....since you didn't read it (your own words), I can understand why you would not recognize that.

Spencer is a charlatan... more pointedly, a creationist charlatan! Yes, that's right... your boy is actually a creationist! That simplistic "ID climate model" is the running joke within the scientific community. It's so bad that Spencer had to resort to publishing in obscure online journals... where he actually pays to get published! As I said, there is no shortage of formal published rebuttals to that simplistic "ID climate model". If you actually knew anything beyond what you apparently glean from denier blogs... you'd recognize and acknowledge this! Well no, you wouldn't actually acknowledge it, would you?

Fallacy of ad hominem.

you would presume to, without substantiation, critique "IPCC models"... notwithstanding there is no such thing as "IPCC models" - you more correctly should state the grouping of models that exist within the world community of scientists engaged in climate science modeling. You would presume to suggest the simplistic "1D climate model" hatched by Spencer... completely on his own... is a true representation of climate simulation! Of course you would! How absolutely generous of you in accepting something that so punts the failure of that Spencer model being used to speak to ocean layer temperatures... while at the same time you even more brazenly state that Spencer's model, in all it's failings and simplicity... tuneable simplicity... "does a better job"! Oh my.

,

the laughing at Spencer, his simplistic model... and how he chooses to apply it... comes from within the scientific community.

so, let's recap: you made a statement about "IPCC models" and haven't substantiated that statement - you've shown nothing that presents either hindcast or forecast results of any models, particularly those most profiled in regards to either land only temperature or ocean surface only temperature or a combination of both. All you've shown is a link to that single paper that relies upon a most suspect simplistic model that presumes to speak to the role of ENSO in ocean temperatures extending that further to draw a summary assessment on climate sensitivity... a paper that, in itself, says nothing about it's results in relation to any other model! That's your reply to my request for a "source cite" to that statement you made about "IPCC models"!

.

Each of Abraham's 9 objections, some of which you rephrase in the above, are dealt with here:

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/sceptic-climate-scientist-spencer-hits-back-at-critics.html

But it come down to one main problem. Spencer's model better predicts observed, real-world results than those favoured and endorsed by the IPCC. None of the abundance of emotion, the quantity of words nor the derision in tone offered by yourself in the above, changes this reality.

The test of failing is not whether Abraham or anyone else says it does. It is whether it works, measured against observed reality. And it does, better than the alternatives. That does not mean it is perfect, or that nobody will ever do better. It does mean it is the best we have for now.

I'm still waiting for your proof of this wild premise that it's safe and economically benign to modify the chemistry of our one and only atmosphere. Given that most terrestrial life depends upon it, I'm sure you're just double-checking your work.

Just tell me how much more time you'll need.

Terrestrial life includes flora, it thrives on CO2.

CO2 has been around for all of human history and many years before it. The world's 'chemistry' has been altered many times before without the help of humans, and will likely be altered many more times in the future.

Edited October 29, 2015 by hitops

[waldo]

False. The paper I linked shows both the IPPC models and temperature projections, and how they differ from observations. This is what you asked for.

But....since you didn't read it (your own words), I can understand why you would not recognize that.

you linked to an abstract... sorry, I'm not prepared to pay $40 to read the full POS paper from the likes of your charlatan Spencer.

[waldo]

Fallacy of ad hominem.

no - everything I stated is factual. Of those stated facts, I appreciate one of them in particular is a tough pill to swallow when your boy's creationist position is highlighted... it's well known and has been well documented, inclusive of actual related statements made by the guy! If you don't think it valid/related that mentioning a creationist belief is held by your favoured scientist... I'm willing to entertain your argument that it has no bearing on a generalized scientist's research and study.

[ReeferMadness]

Terrestrial life includes flora, it thrives on CO2.

CO2 has been around for all of human history and many years before it. The world's 'chemistry' has been altered many times before without the help of humans, and will likely be altered many more times in the future.

That's it? That's your proof that everything will be hunky dory?

Hey, mercury is a naturally occurring element found in varying concentrations in the earth's crust since before human history. So, I have a truckload of soil that has some mercury in it. Clearly, according to your scientific proof, you won't mind if I dump it in your backyard, right?

[waldo]

Each of Abraham's 9 objections, some of which you rephrase in the above, are dealt with here:

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/sceptic-climate-scientist-spencer-hits-back-at-critics.html

dealt with by Spencer! You should have just taken that directly from Spencer's own blog... thanks for the freebee! It's always refreshing to read a denier link to some obscure blog that gives you no idea who is behind it... and who is writing the content. Apparently, they/the author(s) have some significant reservations in revealing themselves!

.

[waldo]

It is whether it works, measured against observed reality. And it does, better than the alternatives. That does not mean it is perfect, or that nobody will ever do better. It does mean it is the best we have for now.

thanks for exposing yourself to the fact you know nothing about models... that you would presume to suggest the complexities of climate and all its influences can be modeled by a simplistic 1D model that you can run on a spreadsheet, one created by a renowned denier... created in isolation by that single denier... and that you would further presume to put it up against the current state of models developed iteratively over decades by physicists, mathematicians, statisticians, computer engineers and climate scientists all working collaboratively through national and international organizations dedicated to modeling... to improving models and the results from them.

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm still waiting for your proof of this wild premise that it's safe and economically benign to modify the chemistry of our one and only atmosphere.

I never made such a claim.

[waldo]

Well 'climate change' has no real specific meaning, so I'm not sure how I'm supposed to explain how we adapt physically to an idea. It is exactly analogous as if I said to you "badness is happening, what do you propose to stop the badness?"

you were the one speaking to adaptation... you're the one that presumes to suggest costs for adaptation are significantly less than those for mitigation. How odd that you would now backpedal from my related request. Again, ignore the same request again: explain your adaptation only mindset that presumes to adapt... and re adapt... and re-adapt, etc., to ever increasing GHG levels, related warming and climate change

.

On warming, there is no trend for significant warning for nearly 20 years, so again I don't recommend adapting to something not clearly happening. But even if it is happening, it is not clear what the effect might be, or that we need any drastic measures to deal with it.

source/cite to your claim that there has been, as you say, "no trend for significant warming for nearly 20 years".....

.

Secondly, the costs of just dealing with changes in climate are orders of magnitude lower than trying to stop it. [waldo: source/cite]

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2011/06/06/economics-adaptation-climate-change

A negligible amount compared to trying to stop CO2 rise.

oh my! Did you even read your linked paper? It's only costs for developing nations! Apparently, in your world, there will be no adaptation costs for developed nations - yeesh! Notwithstanding, all you've done is drop a single link to a partial adaptation cost estimate, one that in itself is simply the first "phase" of adaptation isolated to the first 2°C warming... while offering nothing in regards to the costs of mitigation. Apparently this is how you do comparative analysis!

.

So to be clear, you see the existence and direct reliance of the IPCC upon the political process as something making it more likely to be objective?

what, as you say, direct reliance does the IPCC have upon the political process? I've related the mandate of the IPCC... and I've spoken to how (some of) it's reports aren't completed/released until formal acceptance by representatives of participating countries. If you presume to suggest some irregularity in report findings based on your undeclared/unspecified "direct reliance"... I suggest you provide clarity in that regard.

.

[hitops]

you were the one speaking to adaptation... you're the one that presumes to suggest costs for adaptation are significantly less than those for mitigation. How odd that you would now backpedal from my related request. Again, ignore the same request again: explain your adaptation only mindset that presumes to adapt... and re adapt... and re-adapt, etc., to ever increasing GHG levels, related warming and climate change

What are you even asking here? If little is going to change, little adaptation is needed. There is nothing to prove. I cannot prove how to not respond to a non-problem. Regarding any typical adaptation for things like changing water levels, cities already do that. Over long periods of time, such as what we are talking about with warming, obviously that adaptation would be easier.

source/cite to your claim that there has been, as you say, "no trend for significant warming for nearly 20 years".....

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/images/pics8/No-Warming-18-years-7-months-July-2015.png

oh my! Did you even read your linked paper? It's only costs for developing nations! Apparently, in your world, there will be no adaptation costs for developed nations - yeesh! Notwithstanding, all you've done is drop a single link to a partial adaptation cost estimate, one that in itself is simply the first "phase" of adaptation isolated to the first 2°C warming... while offering nothing in regards to the costs of mitigation. Apparently this is how you do comparative analysis!

If you multiplied it by 10, it would still be unnoticeable relative to the world economy.

what, as you say, direct reliance does the IPCC have upon the political process? I've related the mandate of the IPCC... and I've spoken to how (some of) it's reports aren't completed/released until formal acceptance by representatives of participating countries. If you presume to suggest some irregularity in report findings based on your undeclared/unspecified "direct reliance"... I suggest you provide clarity in that regard.

.

I do not need to clarify straw mans that you attribute to me. I only need to clarify my own statements.

If IPCC reports are not released until acceptance by political bodies, that is an obvious source of bias. Science is not supposed to depend on politicians. Why you believe this dependence is advantageous, is known only to you.

dealt with by Spencer! You should have just taken that directly from Spencer's own blog... thanks for the freebee! It's always refreshing to read a denier link to some obscure blog that gives you no idea who is behind it... and who is writing the content. Apparently, they/the author(s) have some significant reservations in revealing themselves!

Ad hominem is not an argument.

thanks for exposing yourself to the fact you know nothing about models... that you would presume to suggest the complexities of climate and all its influences can be modeled by a simplistic 1D model that you can run on a spreadsheet, one created by a renowned denier... created in isolation by that single denier... and that you would further presume to put it up against the current state of models developed iteratively over decades by physicists, mathematicians, statisticians, computer engineers and climate scientists all working collaboratively through national and international organizations dedicated to modeling... to improving models and the results from them.

More ad hominem. Nothing addressing the fact that Spencer's model does a better job than the 90 conventional models at predicting reality. It is almost comical to insist that an inferior model is actually a better one, since the superior model can be run on a spreadsheet. It does not matter if it can be run on an abacus. It is still better by the only test that ultimately matters - reality.

It does not matter that my washing machine as 19 settings and yours has only 3, if yours does a better job.

Edited October 29, 2015 by hitops

[overthere]

Funny you should say that. I don't know if you live in an echo chamber or what, but it's pretty widely recognized that Canada's loss of international influence and our international embarrassment comes at least in part from our about face on being a driving force behind worldwide climate change initiatives.

Oh FFS. Canada has never been more than a middling power with little influence. I spend plenty of time in Europe and believe it or not Harper/Canada was regarded as sober and sane and competent (and boring), Canadas economy through tough global times was seen as an example to follow, and our actual contribution (for the first time in living memory) to some hard times in places like Afghanistan was noted by our friends and allies.

Discard the retard meme that Canada is somehow diminished. We've never been global rockstars.

[Smallc]

I'm pretty sure that the Liberals committed is to hard times in Afganistan. As you say though, all the other stuff is really just a matter of perception of the Satan...I mean Stephen Harper.

[TimG]

I spend plenty of time in Europe and believe it or not Harper/Canada was regarded as sober and sane and competent (and boring)

Exactly my experience too. The 'Harper destroyed Canada's' rep is a meme that only plays in left wing echo chambers.

[Smallc]

Exactly my experience too. The 'Harper destroyed Canada's' rep is a meme that only plays in left wing echo chambers.

I would agree with that. Other than a few countries, no one pays attention to Canada. Harper didnt suddenly bring us to top of mind, certainly not in w negative way.