Who will be the next Liberal leader?

[bizorky]

SD2,

I don't think there is anything absolutely sure about this issue except that climate changes are due to many causes. So we have to set this present variation within history and ask whether it actually is particularly different from others in terms of causes. This will require a greater appreciation for past climate variability as a fact of life. This includes variability that has occured within human history and before human production of GHG's.

I don't intend to be pedantic by pointing out that the major climate drivers are forces far beyond ourselves. Even a superficial look at climate history illustrates that far more significant changes have happened due to those drivers, and not us. We are not in control, just part of the action.

But just how much so? That is the question that is open to debate. I think it would be wrong to say that the science is settled and that humans alone are the cause.

Much of todays concern revolves around the idea of what the world will be like in 100 years. The modelling for these "predictions" is just that, modelling. It is not, nor should it be mistaken with, reality. Yet this modelling is at the centre of contemporary policy activity. Today, we observe a 0.6C degree increase in temperature (averaged) over a 120 year period, and an increase in carbon dioxide, and assume that the source is us. But previous temperature increases within climate history have often had corresponding increases in carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is too often referred to as a pollutant, but it is actually essential to life, and it is produced and used by organisms ranging from us, to plantlife, to bacteria in the ocean. If C02 is available, it will be utilized. It does not get publicized that much, but the planet is quite green, and additional C02 actually allows plants to become more resilient. Please note, I don't raise this point as some superficial argument for the production of GHG's; it is simply a fact worth mentioning.

As for rational reasons to do something about "unnatural" GHG's, the difficulty is that if you do follow the worst-case scenarios of GHG's and their supposed impact on climate, policies such as Kyoto do virtually nothing to mitigate those supposed future impacts. Moreover, present accords do virtually nothing for many developing nations which are going to be allowed to adopt large-scale energy production that will emit GHG's. To be short, there is not all that much rationality with respect to present plans for future scenarios.

 

[cdl42]

About 12,000 years ago the city was under a kilometre of ice. About 7,000 years ago it was under water. Some 2,500 years ago it probably was considerably warmer than today. Four-hundred years ago it was probably colder than most winters we ever experienced in our lifetimes. Climate is variable and always has been.

Ah yes, the classic Ralph Klein joke. But you seem to have forgotten the punchline about these changes being caused by dinosaur farts.

 

[bizorky]

I was not aware that I was quoting a Ralph Klein joke. Are you suggesting the climate is not variable? That was my point in case you missed it. Otherwise I could not care less about what Ralph has to say.

 

[BrianHawkins1]

bizorky:

Thank you for elaborating on your position.

SD2 wrote:

"The science supporting global warming due to man made GHGs is quite compelling. As you pointed out, there is also convincing evidence it might be due to the sun. But why take that chance? What benefit can there possibly be from the unnatural release of large quantities of GHGs into the atmosphere? There could be negative consequences we can't even forsee. With rapid development in countries around the world the release of such gases is going to get worse. I don't see any rational reason why we shouldn't be trying to reduce the unnatural release of these gases into the atmosphere."

I'm not sure anymore whether or not you even realize it, but you still simply have not addressed this core question, which several people have now posed in different ways. Thanks anyway.

 

[bizorky]

BrianHawkins, you've stated that:

I'm not sure anymore whether or not you even realize it, but you still simply have not addressed this core question, which several people have now posed in different ways. Thanks anyway.

I am assuming that by "core question" you are alluding to your underlined statement: "why take the chance?"

If this is so, you are invoking the "precautionary principle" which is essentially a "better safe than sorry" approach. It is an attempt to create a moral argument (or position) for action in the absence of clear evidence for action. A fundamental presupposition for this approach is that uncertainty itself is dangerous, and as a result, becomes a focus for pre-emptive action such as avoidance. The difficulty with such an approach is that uncertainty is not proof, it is uncertainty, and pre-emptive actions founded upon this uncertainty can end up responding to nothing in particular.

Clearly, with respect to climate change, there remains a demand for more evidence free from assumptions and prejudices as possible. Suppositions about what may happen in the future are just that: suppositions. They are not to be confused with proof. These suppositions are derived from incomplete evidence and selected facts because understanding is, as of yet, simply not clear.

don't see any rational reason why we shouldn't be trying to reduce the unnatural release of these gases into the atmosphere."

This quote is based upon the belief that only GHG's originating from human activity are the cause of climate change. I have pointed out that there are multiple causes for climate change, that climate change is the norm of the global environment, and has always been. I have suggested that amid the uncertainty there is a clear requirement to distinguish this present change from all other changes that have occured in the past. My reponse appears unsatisfactory insofar as it does not address the supposed veracity of the stated belief: that human-sourced GHG's are the cause of climate change.

So you demand an addressing of the "question," and my response is that it appears to be a false dilemma. As for operating upon the precautionary principle, Kyoto does very little to address the worst-case scenarios that are derived from the incomplete evidence. This is something already pointed out by those accepting the premise that human-sourced GHG's are the sole cause of climate change. However, if the source of climate change is based upon "natural" sources for such environmental variability, then GHG reduction efforts will do nothing for this "problem." What such efforts could end up doing is to direct crucial resources away from adapting to natural shifts in climate. Of course, what the end-point of those "natural" shifts might be also remain unknown (as climate is variable).

I am quite sure you will find this answer unsatisfactory. That would largely be the result that we see this issue from different perspectives.


A while back, afransen wrote that:

"...the changes in climate we are facing will and already do have significant repurcussions for humanity in terms of suffering, famine, and economic loss. Given the potential downside, I'm willing to gamble that GHG does cause climate change by endeavouring to have the use of fossil fuels reduced. We can use alternate forms of energy, and if I'm wrong, we'll have new forms of energy to rely on that won't be depleted. If I'm right, we'll avert monumental catastrophe. Doubting the science is not really an argument iin favour of status quo. The stakes are high enough that acting as if we had established a causal relationship is the most prudent course of action."

Presently, what evidence is there that human suffering from climate change is directly attributable to human-sourced GHG's? Can you directly link human-sourced GHG's to one famine, to one flood, to one hurricane? What evidence is there that climate change will do any of these things in the future? Do you have special knowledge about the future? Nowhere in the scientific literature does it state that future disasters are going to absolutely happen. There is a concern that future disasters might happen if temperatures continue to increase - and there is no hard evidence that they will continue upward. That is why the IPCC refers to these things as "scenarios." They do not constitute scientific proof. Details of the future remain unknown at this time.

Good that you are willing to gamble, but it would appear that you are gambling more on feelings than on evidence. You are entitled to your own feelings, but operating on something more constructive might be helpful - particularly when coming up with a realistic alternate source of energy. It's fine to make such a glib statement, but it does not constitute a plan.

 

[BrianHawkins1]

OK, then.

"we see this issue from different perspectives"

Indeed.

 

[doady]

This quote is based upon the belief that only GHG's originating from human activity are the cause of climate change. I have pointed out that there are multiple causes for climate change, that climate change is the norm of the global environment, and has always been.

If you look back in millions of year into Earth's history you will see that Earth's current temperatures and CO2 levels are much higher now than they have ever peaked in the past. Global warming is not a theory, it is science; scientists know exactly how it works and they know that this global warming period is a lot different from the past periods of global warming. It is sad that so people still live in denial of this and there nothing that can change their minds.

 

[SD2]

This quote is based upon the belief that only GHG's originating from human activity are the cause of climate change. I have pointed out that there are multiple causes for climate change, that climate change is the norm of the global environment, and has always been. I have suggested that amid the uncertainty there is a clear requirement to distinguish this present change from all other changes that have occured in the past. My reponse appears unsatisfactory insofar as it does not address the supposed veracity of the stated belief: that human-sourced GHG's are the cause of climate change.

I don't think anybody has argued nor believes that GHG's originating from human activity is the only cause of global warming.

The problem is that even if human activity causes only a small percentage (with GHG emissions constantly on the rise), it's still significant.

The environment exists in a very delicate balance. I fail to see how increasing GHG levels, which at the current rate of increase will be higher than they've ever been in the planet's history, makes any sense.

Presently, what evidence is there that human suffering from climate change is directly attributable to human-sourced GHG's? Can you directly link human-sourced GHG's to one famine, to one flood, to one hurricane? What evidence is there that climate change will do any of these things in the future? Do you have special knowledge about the future? Nowhere in the scientific literature does it state that future disasters are going to absolutely happen. There is a concern that future disasters might happen if temperatures continue to increase - and there is no hard evidence that they will continue upward. That is why the IPCC refers to these things as "scenarios." They do not constitute scientific proof. Details of the future remain unknown at this time.

We're talking about the entire planet. Once we've reached a point of no return, there's no guarantee the problem can be fixed.

This kind of reminds me of asbestos, a material that was found to be dangerous for decades before it was finally banned. The difference in this case is that waiting for concrete evidence may not just result in cancer cases, litigation or the death of a small percentage of the population - the fate of the planet is at stake.

Let's look at it from this perspective - can you offer any concrete evidence that the release of man-made GHG's into the atmosphere is a good thing? How does it benefit the planet?

 

[bizorky]

I don't think anybody has argued nor believes that GHG's originating from human activity is the only cause of global warming.

I don't know which people you are speaking of in particular, but some people have most certainly attributed present warming to GHG's originating from human activity.

The problem is that even if human activity causes only a small percentage (with GHG emissions constantly on the rise), it's still significant.

Significant to what degree? Then again, what do you mean by significant? If one can't clearly differentiate between what is a "natural" fluctuation and a supposed human contribution to that natural fluctuation, then can one know if it is significant contribution? Would the non-human causes somehow be rendered as insignificant?

The environment exists in a very delicate balance. I fail to see how increasing GHG levels, which at the current rate of increase will be higher than they've ever been in the planet's history, makes any sense.

Actually, the climate is quite dynamic and ever-changing, prone to fluctations due to multiple causes. The idea that climate operates in some straight-line balance is not supported by the evidence. Climate fluctuates and always has. Many of these changes are small, others are quite striking. It is a figment of contemporary thinking to believe that what we would consider as today's norms are, and have always been, the past norms with respect to climate.

This artifact is born out by the idea that there is some normal, standard temperature for the world, and that any change to that temperature is a deviation from this norm. What actually has happened is that a past lower temperature has been chosen as a starting point to illustrate an increase in temperature over time, in this case over a 120 year period. However, within that 120 year period, the temperature increase is not a smooth curve; it has fluctuated in ways that don't always match emissions of C02. The early increases in temperature (1880 to 1930's) do not correspond particularly well with human emissions of GHG's, which were then a fraction of what they are today. Yet about half the apparent increase in temperature takes place during this time period.

As for the increasing of GHG's to levels higher than they have ever been in earth's history, there have been many times when C02 levels were higher than they are today. There is even some evidence to suggest that C02 levels once reached 3,000 times what they are today. It is simply incorrect to suggest that present levels of carbon dioxide are the highest they have ever been in planetary history.

Also, the effect of C02 is logarithmic. A doubling of C02 will not result in a doubling of temperature.

As for C02 being some kind of global villian, it is worth remembering that you depend on C02 to live. Every green plant requires carbon dioxide, and since animals consume those plants, there is no "life as we know it" without C02. Considering how important this molecule is, and how essential it is to life, what is amazing is how little of it there actually is in the atmosphere. It's an idea worth thinking about.

We're talking about the entire planet. Once we've reached a point of no return, there's no guarantee the problem can be fixed.

How do you know that a point of no return is about to be reached? What special knowledge do you have to make such an assertion? The carbon cycle on the planet is well established. Carbon dioxide is produced naturally (breathing, for example). Atmospheric C02 is taken up by plants and phytoplankton, and washed out of the air by rainfall, dissolved by rocks and taken into the oceans. In times of plenty C02 is taken up at a quicker rate producing more hearty plants with larger roots that park carbon in the ground, roots for bacteria, fungi and other forms of life to eventually consume once the plant dies (producing some C02 in the process).

As for no return, no return from what exactly?

This kind of reminds me of asbestos, a material that was found to be dangerous for decades before it was finally banned. The difference in this case is that waiting for concrete evidence may not just result in cancer cases, litigation or the death of a small percentage of the population - the fate of the planet is at stake

Carbon dioxide is not asbestos. Also, asbestos is not banned, its use in certain types of manufacturing is. You can't "ban" a mineral, can you? Asbestos is in no way putting the fate of the planet at stake. If it did, we would never have existed. As for carbon dioxide, reread what I have posted above: without any C02 you would be dead, or never have come to exist. So much for carbon dioxide being a dangerous pollutant. If you think it is, you should be much more worried about oxygen.

As for the fate of the planet being at stake, maybe it's time to put aside the excessive emotional response. Carbon dioxide will not kill the planet. The fear of it, however, can kill reasoned thinking. If people wish to construct useful and worthwhile environmental policies, then clear thought and accurate knowledge must be paramount. Fear-mongering is the real danger here.

 

[SD2]

Carbon dioxide is not asbestos. Also, asbestos is not banned, its use in certain types of manufacturing is. You can't "ban" a mineral, can you? Asbestos is in no way putting the fate of the planet at stake. If it did, we would never have existed.

Well, I meant banned as insulation.

There are many things that aren't banned, but that doesn't mean they're safe in excess or certified safe for every use.

As for C02 being some kind of global villian, it is worth remembering that you depend on C02 to live. Every green plant requires carbon dioxide, and since animals consume those plants, there is no "life as we know it" without C02. Considering how important this molecule is, and how essential it is to life, what is amazing is how little of it there actually is in the atmosphere. It's an idea worth thinking about.

I don't find this line of reasoning very convincing. Everybody knows we need CO2 (and a number of other
chemicals, gases and minerals). That doesn't mean pumping the atmosphere/environment with them in ever increasing amounts is beneficial or safe.

"As for the fate of the planet being at stake, maybe it's time to put aside the excessive emotional response. Carbon dioxide will not kill the planet. The fear of it, however, can kill reasoned thinking. If people wish to construct useful and worthwhile environmental policies, then clear thought and accurate knowledge must be paramount. Fear-mongering is the real danger here."

Again, I'll ask, what concrete evidence is there that the increasing release of man-made GHGs into the atmosphere is beneficial or safe?

 

[bizorky]

I don't find this line of reasoning very convincing. Everybody knows we need CO2 (and a number of other chemicals, gases and minerals). That doesn't mean pumping the atmosphere/environment with them in ever increasing amounts is beneficial or safe.

Just as an aside, by "safe" do you mean safe as according to you? Safe is a rather subjective notion.

C02 is not dangerous at the levels in which it appears in the atmosphere. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that higher levels of C02 could benefit plant life and cyanobacteria, which produce oxygen for us. Since C02 is an aid to plant life, it may very well increase farm yields.

I doubt these answers are the ones you are looking for. But then...

Again, I'll ask, what concrete evidence is there that the increasing release of man-made GHGs into the atmosphere is beneficial or safe?

This might come as a surprise to you, but no one has been putting out GHG's in an effort to create specific beneficial results. As such, asking such a question is a bit meaningless.

 

[SD2]

Just as an aside, by "safe" do you mean safe as according to you? Safe is a rather subjective notion.

Safe as in undamaging to the environment.

C02 is not dangerous at the levels in which it appears in the atmosphere.

Not dangerous yet. The question is whether a constant, unnatural increase will result in undesirable effects.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that higher levels of C02 could benefit plant life and cyanobacteria, which produce oxygen for us. Since C02 is an aid to plant life, it may very well increase farm yields.

There is also plenty of evidence that ever increasing levels of man-made GHGs, including CO2 are contributing to global warming.

I asked for concrete, incontroverible evidence.

"This might come as a surprise to you, but no one has been putting out GHG's in an effort to create specific beneficial results. As such, asking such a question is a bit meaningless."

What they've been putting them out for is irrelevant.

You are arguing that curbing the emissions man-made GHGs is uncalled for since there isn't sufficient evidence that it's contributing to global warming.

That is entirely the wrong approach.

What we should be asking is whether or not such emissions do contribute to global warming or whether or not they will have a detrimental effect to the environment.

They should only be allowed when it has been determined they won't have a negative effect on the environment.

Instead of allowing them based on incomplete evidence they don't do any harm, we should be restricting them until we've proven they're safe.

 

[bizorky]

Safe as in undamaging to the environment.

As I have pointed out C02 has beneficial effects for plant life, so it does not damage the environment. Again, it appears that you are operating on the assumption that the environment as a whole operates in a steady-state, straight-line manner. Over biological history, 99% of species have become extinct due to a host of "natural causes."

Carbon Dioxide is natural, life depends on it, so it does not "damage" the environment. It is part of the environment. The "damage" you speak of is based on your subjective judgements. Presenty, how has C02 damaged the environment?

Not dangerous yet. The question is whether a constant, unnatural increase will result in undesirable effects.

Again, what undesirable effects are you speaking of with respect to carbon dioxide? How are you assessing the danger? What danger?

There is also plenty of evidence that ever increasing levels of man-made GHGs, including CO2 are contributing to global warming.

I asked for concrete, incontroverible evidence.

There is a correlation, but as of yet, no direct causation. As I have pointed out earlier, there is also evidence that there is a natural increase in atmospheric C02 following warming events. Both assertions must be investigated. As for your request of concrete, incontrovertible evidence for human-sourced GHG's causing global warming, no such thing exists as of yet.

What they've been putting them out for is irrelevant.

It is a relevant point with respect to the assertion you originally made.

You are arguing that curbing the emissions man-made GHGs is uncalled for since there isn't sufficient evidence that it's contributing to global warming.

I have made no such argument. That is just your assumption. You are the one making the arguments, I am questioning the basis for them.

What we should be asking is whether or not such emissions do contribute to global warming or whether or not they will have a detrimental effect to the environment.

They should only be allowed when it has been determined they won't have a negative effect on the environment.

Instead of allowing them based on incomplete evidence they don't do any harm, we should be restricting them until we've proven they're safe.

First, the question is already being asked. That is what this whole debate is about.

I assume by "they" you mean GHG's. As I have pointed out the debate is still in place concerning their role in the recent warming. There are a number of alternate scenarios that possess strong evidence for other causes of warming. As for "safe," good luck with trying to define that as a measure. Also, do you have a plan for regulating natural outputs of GHG's? Those are variable as well.

Your entire point operates on the assumption that carbon dioxide causes harm. You have yet to support this point. You wish to operate on the assumption that it might be dangerous (though it C02 is natural, part of the atmosphere, essential to life, and variable in nature regardless of what we do), and wish to regulate it until it is proven that it is safe.

Are you being harmed by C02 presently? Or have you mean sensitized to be afraid of it?

 

[SD2]

As I have pointed out C02 has beneficial effects for plant life, so it does not damage the environment. Again, it appears that you are operating on the assumption that the environment as a whole operates in a steady-state, straight-line manner. Over biological history, 99% of species have become extinct due to a host of "natural causes."

Carbon Dioxide is natural, life depends on it, so it does not "damage" the environment. It is part of the environment. The "damage" you speak of is based on your subjective judgements. Presenty, how has C02 damaged the environment?

I'm well aware that Carbon Dioxide is natural and essential for life. That doesn't mean it's safe to pump the atmosphere full of it.

I assume by "they" you mean GHG's. As I have pointed out the debate is still in place concerning their role in the recent warming.

Exactly. Then why allow it until we've confirmed it's safe (ie. won't contribute to global warming)?

 

[bizorky]

hat doesn't mean it's safe to pump the atmosphere full of it.

With respect to the word "safe," may I make reference to questions about what constitutes "safe."

Pumping the atmosphere full? At 0.035% of the contemporary atmosphere, we would have a very, very long way to go to do that.

Exactly. Then why allow it until we've confirmed it's safe (ie. won't contribute to global warming)?

And what if warming continues regardless of human production of carbon dioxide?

What makes you think a warmer environment would be unsafe?

Would there be a preference for a return to the Little Ice Age? That did a real number on Europe. Some people even recorded aspects of that uninvited climate change. It's the one follows the Medieval warm period - a period which was probably warmer than today. Warm enough for the Vikings to farm on Greenland, something you can't do today.