CDL.TO
Moderator
Is there any sort of consensus among the skeptics about why global warming isn't happening or isn't relevant?
|
|
|
Harper makes us proud once again
- Thread starter ITcomputer
- Start date
H
Hydrogen
Guest
Are you suggesting that the people who are skeptical of human-caused global warming all receive funding from oil companies? Again, good luck backing that up. Besides, it's hardly an argument. It's an ad hominem and a stereotype utilized to censor opinions you disagree with. It is utilized to kill debate and suppress open inquiry. It's all too common now, though. Nice way to conduct the shaping of policy.
You didn't answer my question as to whether you are a climatologist, but I won't chicken out in responding to your question. So just once I'll reveal more about myself than I care to. No, I'm not a climatologist. I worked for almost five years as a policy consultant for Environment Canada. I have an educational background in Environmental issues, science policy and education. My work brought me into contact with climatologists, geologists and other environmental researchers. It also brought me into contact with a number of environmental groups, their perspectives and their agendas. So while I may not work in that specific field today, I have a reasonable working knowledge of the issues surrounding the debate on climate change. But what you want to know is whether I'm an expert or not so you can discredit me on that ground. No, I'm not an expert. Are you?
As for carbon dioxide, it is essential to life. There is no life on earth without carbon dioxide. Period. That's not an opinion. Try inform yourself on this fact.
You portray me as a contrarian. So what? Should I suggest that you are exhibiting nothing more than a collective rationalization by way of holding an illusion of near unanimity amongst climate researchers - a unanimity that you can't prove? We are talking about your beliefs after all.
As for the carbon tax, it does not address your concerns at the source, does it? It taxes carbon emissions but does not actually reduce them directly. It only operates on a presumption that such a tax will reduce emission. Yet if you use it to replace other taxes, then you become dependent on maintaining its source. You will need carbon emissions to support the tax system. Those who can afford the tax then need not reduce their consumption. however, if the tax is set too high, it could have considerable negative downstream effects. If this is your position, then I am doing you a favour by pointing out some of its major weaknesses with it.
C. D. Howe is not the only think tank out there (and not all that conservative, either). Again, informing yourself means going beyond the sources you automatically accept as true. Rather than deriding skepticism, embrace it. It is a fundamental quality essential to good scientific research - and to being an active and informed citizen.
You'd have to ask them yourself.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
I was simply responding to your comment that I would have to seek them out. Why? Clearly if their conclusions were groundbreaking and significant, they would have very little problem receiving financial support to carry out and propagate their research. Clearly not all individuals who believe climate change is a hoax receive support from oil companies, though many demonstrably do. I'm just saying that if they had significant credibility, it's not like lack of funds will hold them back.
Oh I thought I made it clear that I wasn't. My experience with the subject is limited to university-level coursework. That's why I base my opinion on the wide variety of literature that I have read coming from an extremely broad range of sources. All of the most reputable sources I have encountered agree with the consensus that climate change is a serious problem.
So's Ozone. So are a lot of gases that, in sufficient concentrations, are quite hazardous. What's your point?
A lot of my beliefs are based on synthesis of the overwhelming majority of respectable scientists in the field, writing in the overwhelming majority of journals both academic and non-academic. I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with that.
Tax policy is a field about which I can speak with rather more expertise. I won't go into too much detail, but the most basic economics dictate that as the cost of a good rises, demand will decline (and fossil fuels are definitely price-elastic). Nobody can "afford" to pay a tax if they don't have to. Any business that is emitting unnecessarily will invest in reducing its emissions as long as those reductions are less expensive than the tax. It's not difficult to determine the best rate for the tax that optimizes reductions at a level that's environmentally beneficial but that is still possible to achieve with feasible investments.
Of course there'll be downstream effects. Capital will shift away from carbon-intensive industries. The rate would obviously be set at a level that wouldn't provoke a collapse in any sector.
Obviously as any sin tax achieves its goal of reducing consumption, the rate can be further increased to encourage more reduction. Alternatively, other tax sources could be phased back in. This will obviously happen over a long time and there are thousands of people up in Ottawa (as you are certainly aware) whose jobs are to forecast and plan for such things.
CDL.TO
Moderator
Isn't that important, though? If they all disagree with the "consensus", but all disagree for different reasons then the fact that they disagree doesn't mean anything, does it?
H
Hydrogen
Guest
There is no consensus that global warming is caused by human emissions. Unless you know something of what they are all thinking, then you are guessing on such things. Science is not done by way of consensus.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
There is considerable research published. It won't fall on your head.
I thought my point was obvious. Carbon dioxide is essential to life. Think plants, phytoplancton, algae and cyanobacteria. It's the base of your food chain. At roughly 380 ppm it poses absolutely no hazard to human life. Its concentration in the atmosphere has been dropping for the last thirty million years as the global climate has cooled over that time.
Resorting to hyperbole does not make a fact. You can't prove that there is an overwhelming majority of scientists. Have you heard from them all? And of course the use of respectable is telling in its own way.
You forgot that you wanted to reduce other taxes at the same time. But again, it does nothing to address the issue that you believe in at its source.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
You're telling me about it. What research? Where is it published? Which reputable journals? Where is your belief coming from? Mine comes from the United Nations, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, every major government (even George Bush believes in anthropogenic climate change these days), the American Metorological Society, the Royal Society, the American National Academy of Sciences, and countless other sources.
And its concentration over the last hundred and fifty years has been soaring totally out of linewith historic levels.
Yes it does. I mean, it's the most basic economics. You put an excise tax on something, consumption will go down. You tax carbon emissions, carbon emissions will go down. How much depends on the rate of the tax. As for other taxes, I said right above that they could potentially be phased back in if the carbon tax take declines so precipitiously that it stops pulling in enough revenue.
299 bloor call control.
Senior Member
The thing that pisses me off about skeptics and deniers is the fact that there is so much risk with their position. If they are wrong, our earth will plummet into an uncontrolled climate catastrophe that no doubt will mean the end of human civilization as we know it.
On the other hand, what would happen if the climate change 'believers' (I use that loosely, since it's more based on fact, not belief) are wrong? Nothing but benefits. We'll be living in a society that is more sustainable, clean, and if we ever get over this bickering, peaceful. The only big losers in a situation like this would be the oil and gas producers and multinational companies that depend on excessive consumption and the exploitation of developing countries for cheap labour. I still see myself employed if we moved to a carbon-neutral economy. I see all of my friends employed if we moved to a carbon-neutral economy... well except for my sister's fiance who works with oil companies.
On the other hand, what would happen if the climate change 'believers' (I use that loosely, since it's more based on fact, not belief) are wrong? Nothing but benefits. We'll be living in a society that is more sustainable, clean, and if we ever get over this bickering, peaceful. The only big losers in a situation like this would be the oil and gas producers and multinational companies that depend on excessive consumption and the exploitation of developing countries for cheap labour. I still see myself employed if we moved to a carbon-neutral economy. I see all of my friends employed if we moved to a carbon-neutral economy... well except for my sister's fiance who works with oil companies.
billonlogan
Active Member
OK wake up now.
299 bloor call control.
Senior Member
care to elaborate?
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
Admiral Beez
Superstar
In a post above it was shown that Canada produces about 2.5% of the world's emmissions. That's not bad for one of the 10 biggest economies in the world. Of course even that statistic is misleading, since Canada is generally regarded as the 8th largest economy in the world, about 45% smaller than number 7 (Italy, 2005 stats) and far smaller than any of the others. http://www.china-europe-usa.com/level_4_data/eco/042_3.htm By 2050 it is predicted that China will be by far the largest economy in the world, and that Canada will not appear in the top 10.
Thus, again, I say we consider forcing the big polluters to comply with Kyoto or other emmission reduction policies now by implementing an immediate carbon tax on all imports from China, India (and if we can do it) the USA.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
The research has been published in numerous books and journals, including Science, Nature, Geophysical Research Letters, Quarternary Science Reviews, Environmental Geology, Journal of Geophysical Research, Geology, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Energy and Environment, Journal of Climate, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Plant, Cell and Environment, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Space Science Reviews, Physics Letters, Journal of Atmospheric Science and many others. There is also the research of NASA, NOAA and the International Arctic Research Centre, among many others. You just have to look for it.
The fact that research is ongoing should indicate that everything is not finished. One would think that this is obvious.
As for the IPCC, it does not do original scientific research. The panel collects research that supports its views. It selects and edits, and does not present complete papers. And contrary to popular belief, it does not all consist of climatologists; most members of the IPCC are representatives of national governments and are not scientists. Have you read any of the IPCC reports? Seen one? Most of what gets reported in newspapers comes from the releases derived from the section outlining recommendations to policy makers. The science chapters have plenty of tentative language and passive phrasings. If this happens, this may be the result. The IPCC provides an immense range of what could happen based on climate models that have been selected because they support a view that C02 will warm the atmosphere. Based on a projected doubling of atmospheric C02, their scenario presents an average temperature increase of 1 to 4.5 degrees celsius. That's a big spread, and that alone suggest uncertainty with respect to the climate models selected to derive future predictions. Press stories typically report the high end projections.
But temperatures have not been soaring outside historical levels. And if you look at the curves of carbon dioxide emissions and temperature, they don't match particularly well. There is a better match between solar output and temperature variation. Post Little Ice Age, temperatures rose before CO2 increased, and this is an established pattern. And as I mentioned earlier, globally averaged temperatures have flatlined for the last eight years - regardless of the changes in carbon dioxide.
Again, if you tax carbon dioxide emissions, you don't reduce carbon dioxide emissions. You are not going to be managing the tax systems of other countries, are you? To do reduce carbon dioxide emissions, you must change things at the source of the emission. If your goal is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions effectively, then you must look to direct means and invest in them.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
One does not derive certain outcomes from uncertain premises. Listen carefully, he undermines the logic of his (simplistic) argument.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Hydrogen:
You will have to cite these ones. In addition, you are assuming that there is a linear relationship between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (emissions by itself is less relevant) AND temperature when we know that climatic systems does not necessarily behave in such a manner. Beyond that, has there been there a change in solar output for say, the past 50 years? Has the changes in global temperature during this period been correlated to changes in solar irradiance? Quoting Mauder Minimum isn't helpful when one hasn't demonstrated the changes in the condition of the sun.
With regards to the IPCC summary for policymakers - keep in mind that it is actually rather conservative and things could swing beyond the worst case scenario just as, if not more easily. The challenge here is making policy in light of the best available evidence - and the accompanying risk of failing to do so. I think this issue and others just highlighted how political system is ill-equipped for long-term planning.
AoD
You will have to cite these ones. In addition, you are assuming that there is a linear relationship between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere (emissions by itself is less relevant) AND temperature when we know that climatic systems does not necessarily behave in such a manner. Beyond that, has there been there a change in solar output for say, the past 50 years? Has the changes in global temperature during this period been correlated to changes in solar irradiance? Quoting Mauder Minimum isn't helpful when one hasn't demonstrated the changes in the condition of the sun.
With regards to the IPCC summary for policymakers - keep in mind that it is actually rather conservative and things could swing beyond the worst case scenario just as, if not more easily. The challenge here is making policy in light of the best available evidence - and the accompanying risk of failing to do so. I think this issue and others just highlighted how political system is ill-equipped for long-term planning.
AoD