Monday, January 29, 2007
Do you believe the science of climate change?
Liberal leader Stephane Dion had one question for the Prime Minister today: do you believe in the science of climate change?
I found this a most provocative question. Not in the sense Mr. Dion wants, but in the ridiculous premises you must accept to find Mr. Dion's question sensible.
Do you believe in the science of climate change?
Science is most definitely not something to believe in. It has been the struggle of the last centuries in our civilization to separate the two and develop what we call "the scientific method" which is about scrubbing our knowledge of beliefs.
In the 21st century, this fundamental of western progress is being eroded. Whereas in the United States, the attack comes from fundamentalists trying to remove evolution theory from school curriculums; in Canada, it is coming from the Liberal Party, its lobbyist allies and its leader - hysterical dogmatists who "believe" science.
reader intervention: Oh Chuckercanuck, you can't predict the coming dark ages based on a single question by some passing Liberal leader.
No, you're right. Except Jane Jacobs predicted the coming dark ages, I'm just noticing she was right.
Do you believe in the science of climate change?
Even after ignoring the corrosive implications mentioned above, this question is overpacked, stuffed till the stitches burst, overloaded with a thousand key and excluding decisions that to ask the question is to commit a crime of simplification.
Calling it a crime is for giggles, of course, but to pretend there is a binary position on climate change, believe or no, threatens the public's ability to make wise decisions. David Suzuki, Stephane Dion and the other hystericists would say, "we have no time for wisdom".
The ice age, Mr. Dion, truly did happen. Its beyond belief, or better yet, before belief. Climates have changed. Inuit walked from Asia to North America. Hot-blooded and giant dinosaurs roamed Calgary. Londoners skated on the river Thames.
Climates will change, Mr. Dion, whether you believe in it or not. How it will change? What will that change do to us? Can we stop it from changing? Better to know then believe.
I found this a most provocative question. Not in the sense Mr. Dion wants, but in the ridiculous premises you must accept to find Mr. Dion's question sensible.
Do you believe in the science of climate change?
Science is most definitely not something to believe in. It has been the struggle of the last centuries in our civilization to separate the two and develop what we call "the scientific method" which is about scrubbing our knowledge of beliefs.
In the 21st century, this fundamental of western progress is being eroded. Whereas in the United States, the attack comes from fundamentalists trying to remove evolution theory from school curriculums; in Canada, it is coming from the Liberal Party, its lobbyist allies and its leader - hysterical dogmatists who "believe" science.
reader intervention: Oh Chuckercanuck, you can't predict the coming dark ages based on a single question by some passing Liberal leader.
No, you're right. Except Jane Jacobs predicted the coming dark ages, I'm just noticing she was right.
Do you believe in the science of climate change?
Even after ignoring the corrosive implications mentioned above, this question is overpacked, stuffed till the stitches burst, overloaded with a thousand key and excluding decisions that to ask the question is to commit a crime of simplification.
Calling it a crime is for giggles, of course, but to pretend there is a binary position on climate change, believe or no, threatens the public's ability to make wise decisions. David Suzuki, Stephane Dion and the other hystericists would say, "we have no time for wisdom".
The ice age, Mr. Dion, truly did happen. Its beyond belief, or better yet, before belief. Climates have changed. Inuit walked from Asia to North America. Hot-blooded and giant dinosaurs roamed Calgary. Londoners skated on the river Thames.
Climates will change, Mr. Dion, whether you believe in it or not. How it will change? What will that change do to us? Can we stop it from changing? Better to know then believe.
Comments:
<< Home
I know I'm beating my head against a wall here, but - what the heck.
It's time to drop all this rhetoric (which I really honestly believed Dion was above) and have a serious sit-down to talk honestly about the environment and climate change without trying to score a knock-out punch.
It is acceptable and respectable to believe that fossil fuel burning is heating up the earth or to believe that climate change is natural. When these politicians (whom we for some reason continue to pay) can mutually respect those opposing views and talk fearlessly, without anxiety of not "winning" the debate, but with a determination to understand where the opposing side is coming from, we'll make some progress in allowing the public to make informed choices about who they wish to follow and support.
That's what I really expected we'd see out of a Dion v. Harper match-up. But I think it's just going to be posturing all over again.
It's time to drop all this rhetoric (which I really honestly believed Dion was above) and have a serious sit-down to talk honestly about the environment and climate change without trying to score a knock-out punch.
It is acceptable and respectable to believe that fossil fuel burning is heating up the earth or to believe that climate change is natural. When these politicians (whom we for some reason continue to pay) can mutually respect those opposing views and talk fearlessly, without anxiety of not "winning" the debate, but with a determination to understand where the opposing side is coming from, we'll make some progress in allowing the public to make informed choices about who they wish to follow and support.
That's what I really expected we'd see out of a Dion v. Harper match-up. But I think it's just going to be posturing all over again.
Dion owns this issue which is of vital concern to Canadians, and Conservatives know it. Harper is more interested in protecting the stock portfolios of a handful of Halliburton oil barons than in ensuring a reasonable cool temperature for future generations of our children and grand-children.
Elizabeth May and Jack Layton can bluster, but Dion is the only green option for Canadians who want to maintain Canada's proud place as a northern nation.
Elizabeth May and Jack Layton can bluster, but Dion is the only green option for Canadians who want to maintain Canada's proud place as a northern nation.
What sad times we live in when these fellows are the best we can come up with to lead our country into the future. Hopefully the next generation will do better....
Jason:
I've watched the Liberals put the country at risk(the quebec question)whenever it was required politically. Without remorse. The environment is,was and will be a political football, until something better comes along. When you have no principles, you are only left with tactics.
I've watched the Liberals put the country at risk(the quebec question)whenever it was required politically. Without remorse. The environment is,was and will be a political football, until something better comes along. When you have no principles, you are only left with tactics.
# posted by 
: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:26:00 PM
: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:26:00 PM
Red:
Welcome. And how about sharing some of that great weed you're smoking. Dion owns the environment like the Liberal Party owns the Accountability file. Can you give me a list of the Liberal Party's environmental successes in their 13 years of power? And the accomplishments(excluding the Razzy) of Citoyen Dion during his 2 year tenure as Environment minister? Particularly the ones you feel allow you to state he owns the environment file.
Welcome. And how about sharing some of that great weed you're smoking. Dion owns the environment like the Liberal Party owns the Accountability file. Can you give me a list of the Liberal Party's environmental successes in their 13 years of power? And the accomplishments(excluding the Razzy) of Citoyen Dion during his 2 year tenure as Environment minister? Particularly the ones you feel allow you to state he owns the environment file.
# posted by : Monday, January 29, 2007 11:33:00 PM
: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:33:00 PM
Chuck I love your article. I also believe that the climate is changing, however, I am not convinced that it is due to human activity. I do want to see a reduction in pollution of air, water and land. Clean up our environment in Canada. I do not support my tax dollars being sent to Saudi Arabia (the wealthiest country in the world) because they are a developing country. Spend my money HERE. I hear the tar sands will finally be cleaned up. That is what I like to see happening!
# posted by : Monday, January 29, 2007 11:54:00 PM
: Monday, January 29, 2007 11:54:00 PM
Talk about suspense. what was Harper's answer to Dion's question? --do you believe in the science of climate change?
I am waiting with anticipation.
oh, and I like the way you omitted the word "republican" from the United States fundamentalists, which funny enough, harpercrites identify with.
I am waiting with anticipation.
oh, and I like the way you omitted the word "republican" from the United States fundamentalists, which funny enough, harpercrites identify with.
Asking someone if 'they believe in the science of climate change' these days is like asking them if they believe in God - what 'science'? The climate changes, like it always has, and scientists study these changes.
The BS that has been produced from the 'environmentalist' industry is the belief that The Dion is actually asking the PM. And we should hope he's not falling for it.
The BS that has been produced from the 'environmentalist' industry is the belief that The Dion is actually asking the PM. And we should hope he's not falling for it.
# posted by : Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:52:00 AM
: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:52:00 AM
"Better to know then believe."
"Than", or did you leave out a comma?
Once you know, it's irresponsible to not then believe. Most Canadians may not have the education to know, so all we can do to convince them is to get them to believe instead. It's not an ideal solution, and it's risky in that they may carry the crusade in a direction that doesn't address the problem of air pollution. But I think it's the only shot we have if we want to fix things within a decade.
"Than", or did you leave out a comma?
Once you know, it's irresponsible to not then believe. Most Canadians may not have the education to know, so all we can do to convince them is to get them to believe instead. It's not an ideal solution, and it's risky in that they may carry the crusade in a direction that doesn't address the problem of air pollution. But I think it's the only shot we have if we want to fix things within a decade.
Lorne Gunter has an article in the Post, siting the religion of global warming, the shunning of those who speak of indicators against it, and then sums up some "inconvenient truths."
Like:
the south pole ice cap is expanding,
a leading oceanographic group in England has noted no material change in ocean levels in the last five years,
that the last month of the past year was excluded in a recent notation that the past year was "the warmest of the last five", and that when the last month was included (gee big surprise that excluding DECEMBER would skew it warmer) the last year was the coolest.
There were other examples.
Funny how the truth of a single one of those facts would render catastrophic theories nothing more than "sky is falling" hysteria.
That's the kicker with predictions of cataclysm. They are easily, disproven. Eventually the sky doesn't fall.
Here's another I heard lately (not in the article), that more greenhouse gasses were emitted from Mt.St.Helens, than what was produced by man, in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF MAN'S EXISTENCE.
Another inconvenient truth.
My call: in 25 years there will be an entire field studying how, and why, a purportedly scientific body of knowlege was allowed to be so politicized and manipulated such that a politician could literally say with a straight face: "vote for me or the world will end".
Like:
the south pole ice cap is expanding,
a leading oceanographic group in England has noted no material change in ocean levels in the last five years,
that the last month of the past year was excluded in a recent notation that the past year was "the warmest of the last five", and that when the last month was included (gee big surprise that excluding DECEMBER would skew it warmer) the last year was the coolest.
There were other examples.
Funny how the truth of a single one of those facts would render catastrophic theories nothing more than "sky is falling" hysteria.
That's the kicker with predictions of cataclysm. They are easily, disproven. Eventually the sky doesn't fall.
Here's another I heard lately (not in the article), that more greenhouse gasses were emitted from Mt.St.Helens, than what was produced by man, in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF MAN'S EXISTENCE.
Another inconvenient truth.
My call: in 25 years there will be an entire field studying how, and why, a purportedly scientific body of knowlege was allowed to be so politicized and manipulated such that a politician could literally say with a straight face: "vote for me or the world will end".
# posted by : Tuesday, January 30, 2007 4:46:00 AM
: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 4:46:00 AM
And don't forget that the road to hell was paved with good intentions:
we're so obsessed with "global warming" that other efforts at reducing pollution are scoffed at, ridiculed.
So while the folks sit comfortably in thier cafes sipping thier capuccino, feeling superior in denouncing the failure to "save the planet from global warming", elsewhere children's asthma continues on the rise.
But helping the breathing of local asthmatic kids isn't really condusive to spreading massive international governance.
we're so obsessed with "global warming" that other efforts at reducing pollution are scoffed at, ridiculed.
So while the folks sit comfortably in thier cafes sipping thier capuccino, feeling superior in denouncing the failure to "save the planet from global warming", elsewhere children's asthma continues on the rise.
But helping the breathing of local asthmatic kids isn't really condusive to spreading massive international governance.
# posted by : Tuesday, January 30, 2007 4:56:00 AM
: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 4:56:00 AM
Before Dion starts accusing Harper of being a Kyoto heathen he might want to ask the guy next to him a question or two.
http://www.stopiggy.com/index.html
He has come out swinging against the Kyoto Accord, posting in his online blog that the Accord is ineffective, and that he has better ideas for reducing pollution in Canada
http://www.stopiggy.com/index.html
He has come out swinging against the Kyoto Accord, posting in his online blog that the Accord is ineffective, and that he has better ideas for reducing pollution in Canada
jaco,
I am a Harpercrite, remember? And I don't identify with people who want to remove evolution from school curriculums.
I know that makes your worldview strain to the point of collapse, but just find an inflatable Mullah Omar to snuggle with and all will be well.
I am a Harpercrite, remember? And I don't identify with people who want to remove evolution from school curriculums.
I know that makes your worldview strain to the point of collapse, but just find an inflatable Mullah Omar to snuggle with and all will be well.
I hear you Saskboy.
However, the concensus action to take doesn't exist. So, we are most certainly going to do a whole lot of stupid.
My worry is the lack of adaptation in the conversation. I think ignoring that is a recipe for disaster.
However, the concensus action to take doesn't exist. So, we are most certainly going to do a whole lot of stupid.
My worry is the lack of adaptation in the conversation. I think ignoring that is a recipe for disaster.
The interviewee in Wente's column Saturday puts it best. The "science" behind climate change has eliminated the extremes of the question (no, we won't be submerged in ten years and yes, it is logical to assume sea levels will rise if ice shelves melt) but past that, the extent and impacts are anyone's guess.
Common sense says we should all use our common sense. Use less resources and we lower the probability the outcomes of climate change will be problematic. There is no action A leads to outcome B here. The politician who follows a reasonable and common sense approach without sounding the warning alarms with worst-case scenarios that get debunked an hour later will be the political winner on this issue
Common sense says we should all use our common sense. Use less resources and we lower the probability the outcomes of climate change will be problematic. There is no action A leads to outcome B here. The politician who follows a reasonable and common sense approach without sounding the warning alarms with worst-case scenarios that get debunked an hour later will be the political winner on this issue
Gol maybe if you take the Connie blinders off you will see a bit more clearly.
If Harper hadn't forced a Christmas election that Canadians didn't even want or ask for or need, Dion as environment minister would have Canada attaining Kyoto goals right now, today, with wind turbine energy, efficient transit for all Canadians, and alternative fuels being pumped all across the nation. Without Harper creating an unwanted election, Canada would have the world talking today about our example.
Conservatives make me sick. Canadians look around at the crazy unnatural weather we are experiencing all of this winter, and wondering WHY?? The answer is right on Parliament Hill - Stephen Harper in the PMO. Thank you, Conservatives, for a frightening winter season of grass and flowers in Ontario and Quebec, and haywire blizzards in Vancouver.
Dion is the ONLY solution available to Canadians to repair our fragile climate.
If Harper hadn't forced a Christmas election that Canadians didn't even want or ask for or need, Dion as environment minister would have Canada attaining Kyoto goals right now, today, with wind turbine energy, efficient transit for all Canadians, and alternative fuels being pumped all across the nation. Without Harper creating an unwanted election, Canada would have the world talking today about our example.
Conservatives make me sick. Canadians look around at the crazy unnatural weather we are experiencing all of this winter, and wondering WHY?? The answer is right on Parliament Hill - Stephen Harper in the PMO. Thank you, Conservatives, for a frightening winter season of grass and flowers in Ontario and Quebec, and haywire blizzards in Vancouver.
Dion is the ONLY solution available to Canadians to repair our fragile climate.
Do you believe in the science of climate change?
Great catch, Chucker. There was something bothering me about that when I first heard it. You have nailed it. It's almost an oxymoron.
Now at this point, I could say something about M. Dion being an oxygen-moron, but I won't because that could be construed to be an "attack ad".
Great catch, Chucker. There was something bothering me about that when I first heard it. You have nailed it. It's almost an oxymoron.
Now at this point, I could say something about M. Dion being an oxygen-moron, but I won't because that could be construed to be an "attack ad".
LOL. Thanks for the laugh Red Butler. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is responsible for the El Nino that is causing odd weather patterns in Canada this winter. That is funny!
"Do you believe in the science of climate change?"
This is an interesting question more in what it implies than what it asks. Let's play supreme court. If you read into it that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming then it is indeed a belief. If it is simply about the fact that climate changes, then that is a given and no belief is required.
"Do you believe in the science of climate change?"
This is an interesting question more in what it implies than what it asks. Let's play supreme court. If you read into it that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming then it is indeed a belief. If it is simply about the fact that climate changes, then that is a given and no belief is required.
RB, Thank you, Thank you thank you.
That noise you heard earlier was me, breathing a huge sigh of relief thata long last, I'm no longer responsible for the weather in Toronto.
That noise you heard earlier was me, breathing a huge sigh of relief thata long last, I'm no longer responsible for the weather in Toronto.
# posted by : Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:44:00 AM
: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:44:00 AM
"Dion as environment minister would have Canada attaining Kyoto goals right now, today, with wind turbine energy, efficient transit for all Canadians, and alternative fuels being pumped all across the nation."
Other than bluster and naming his dog, what actions did Dion make that would lead you to believe this? What concrete steps did the man take?
Other than bluster and naming his dog, what actions did Dion make that would lead you to believe this? What concrete steps did the man take?
Red:
"Dion is the ONLY solution available to Canadians to repair our fragile climate"
I assume a paid Liberal staffer is the only person who could say something soooo stupid. But that's good, cause that kind of comedy deserves remuneration.
"Dion is the ONLY solution available to Canadians to repair our fragile climate"
I assume a paid Liberal staffer is the only person who could say something soooo stupid. But that's good, cause that kind of comedy deserves remuneration.
# posted by : Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:41:00 AM
: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:41:00 AM
Deaner:
I asked Red all those questions. And we all know the answers. Hence Red Buttons and his comedy routine. Liberals are a laugh a minute.(when they are out of govt and my pocket)
I asked Red all those questions. And we all know the answers. Hence Red Buttons and his comedy routine. Liberals are a laugh a minute.(when they are out of govt and my pocket)
# posted by : Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:45:00 AM
: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:45:00 AM
Dion's question smacks all too readily of a 14th century Dominican Inquisitor demanding a confession from a heretic.
All that's missing is a rack and a goon in with a black hood.
Welcome to the 21st century, eh? Where education and information have lifted civilization and the human condition to unprecedented heights.
Yeah, right.
Yeeeeeeeeeesh!
All that's missing is a rack and a goon in with a black hood.
Welcome to the 21st century, eh? Where education and information have lifted civilization and the human condition to unprecedented heights.
Yeah, right.
Yeeeeeeeeeesh!
# posted by : Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:38:00 AM
: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:38:00 AM
"Dion as environment minister would have Canada attaining Kyoto goals right now, today"
That seems to be working well for others....
That seems to be working well for others....
The City of Ottawa Environment Department had a showing for staff of Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth". Currently, they are not to be exposed to any counter opinion.
In the interest of fairness re an opposing viewpoint,here is CFRA's John Counsell's interview with Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Patterson. (Careful - Counsell is rather exuberant).
"Friday, January 05, 2007
Late Night Counsell - Global Warming pt 1-8
Possibly your last chance to hear it! John Counsell spends two hours uncovering all the fiction and some of the facts surrounding the earth's climate change. . ."
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/GLOBAL1.mp3
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/GLOBAL2.mp3
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/GLOBAL3.mp3
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/GLOBAL4.mp3
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/GLOBAL5.mp3
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/GLOBAL6.mp3
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/GLOBAL7.mp3
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/GLOBAL8.mp3
In the interest of fairness re an opposing viewpoint,here is CFRA's John Counsell's interview with Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Patterson. (Careful - Counsell is rather exuberant).
"Friday, January 05, 2007
Late Night Counsell - Global Warming pt 1-8
Possibly your last chance to hear it! John Counsell spends two hours uncovering all the fiction and some of the facts surrounding the earth's climate change. . ."
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/GLOBAL1.mp3
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/GLOBAL2.mp3
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/GLOBAL3.mp3
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/GLOBAL4.mp3
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/GLOBAL5.mp3
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/GLOBAL6.mp3
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/GLOBAL7.mp3
http://www.cfra.com/chum_audio/GLOBAL8.mp3
# posted by : Tuesday, January 30, 2007 1:10:00 PM
: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 1:10:00 PM
This is easily one of the best reads on climate change and the science behind it and how extremists on both sides of the issue are idiots.
http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html
Very balanced and fair, imho.
http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html
Very balanced and fair, imho.
My question for Dion would be "Do believe you believe it's okay to depopulate the world supply of Frogs Legs all to satisfy the needs of well-heeled Frenchmen everywhere, or do you deny that white wine goes best with the every decreasing supply of Frogs legs?" Do you? Huh? Huh? Answer me that Dion.
Eugene's Kyoto article is great, and I've emailed it out, and Dodo's Boston Review link on climate change is a jaw-dropper. Staggeringly good, and must-read material. If Stephen Harper is as smart as I suspect he can be, he'd have that Kerry Emanuel up to give a slideshow to Canada. It's probably the most fascinating reading on climate science, and on the possible history of our planet, that I have ever done.
Amazing link, Dodos.
Amazing link, Dodos.
Amazing link, Dodos.
I can't take credit for finding it, I got it off the boys at Real Climate.
It is by far the most even-handed article out there.
I can't take credit for finding it, I got it off the boys at Real Climate.
It is by far the most even-handed article out there.
I think the impression that Dion was trying to get across in his interrogation of my hero, the Prime Minister, is that Harper is another one of these anachronistic Christo-sauruses that use faith as the sole path to knowledge, as opposed to reason. It's another lame Liberal attempt to redraw the lines along the secular and the religious. It's so true, CC, that Dion and all these self-proclaimed environmentalists are just zealots of another stripe. Float or burn.
# posted by : Tuesday, January 30, 2007 4:46:00 PM
: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 4:46:00 PM
Dodos, did you know that I once had the writer-director of About Schmidt over to my house for a visit?
It's the only interesting thing I have to offer back in exchange for that link...
It's the only interesting thing I have to offer back in exchange for that link...
It's so true, CC, that Dion and all these self-proclaimed environmentalists are just zealots of another stripe.
Except there is more evidence for climate change than God. Other than that, yeah, we're the same.
Dodos, did you know that I once had the writer-director of About Schmidt over to my house for a visit?
Great movie. I think people disliked it so much because it struck too close to home for them. It was a little too real.
Except there is more evidence for climate change than God. Other than that, yeah, we're the same.
Dodos, did you know that I once had the writer-director of About Schmidt over to my house for a visit?
Great movie. I think people disliked it so much because it struck too close to home for them. It was a little too real.
Look if Jessica Simpson isn't all the proof you need of the existence of God, then you're beyond all help.
# posted by : Tuesday, January 30, 2007 5:26:00 PM
: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 5:26:00 PM
"Except there is more evidence for climate change than God. Other than that, yeah, we're the same."
Depends, though, on what you mean by "climate change." If you mean "the climate is always changing" then that is a truism. If you mean "the climate is getting warmer" then there is adequate proof of that, although little things like manipulating the medieval warm period out of the record present a bit of a problem. If you mean "the climate is getting wamer than ever before seen on Earth" - well, that's even more tenuous. If you mean "the current climate warming is caused anthropogenically" then you are looking at a matter of considerable conjecture.
If you mean that "the climate warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions can be reversed by changes in current practices and economic activity" you are starting to get into the faith-based territory. If you mean that such change (or reversal of change) can be accomplished without significant economic dislocation, or that such dislocation and consequent reduction of aggregate wealth will necessarily be less than that caused by the "climate change" you are worried about... I think that has become a theological argument
Depends, though, on what you mean by "climate change." If you mean "the climate is always changing" then that is a truism. If you mean "the climate is getting warmer" then there is adequate proof of that, although little things like manipulating the medieval warm period out of the record present a bit of a problem. If you mean "the climate is getting wamer than ever before seen on Earth" - well, that's even more tenuous. If you mean "the current climate warming is caused anthropogenically" then you are looking at a matter of considerable conjecture.
If you mean that "the climate warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions can be reversed by changes in current practices and economic activity" you are starting to get into the faith-based territory. If you mean that such change (or reversal of change) can be accomplished without significant economic dislocation, or that such dislocation and consequent reduction of aggregate wealth will necessarily be less than that caused by the "climate change" you are worried about... I think that has become a theological argument
If you mean "the current climate warming is caused anthropogenically" then you are looking at a matter of considerable conjecture.
There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that we are doing this. The question is whether you accept it or not. Yes, the climate has always changed. Yes, in the past that change was natural. Today, that change is being heightened/driven by human action in the form of ghg production. As I posted above, the Emanuel article does a great job of giving a balanced look at the issue.
If you mean that "the climate warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions can be reversed by changes in current practices and economic activity" you are starting to get into the faith-based territory.
If you accept the argument that the current warming is caused by human action in the name of ghg emissions, than if you cut the amount you spew out into the atmosphere wouldn't that, at the very least, you would have to think that pumping less out will result in less warming. Don't you?
If you mean that such change (or reversal of change) can be accomplished without significant economic dislocation, or that such dislocation and consequent reduction of aggregate wealth will necessarily be less than that caused by the "climate change" you are worried about... I think that has become a theological argument
I understand that the changes we need to make will cost us money. But environmentally speaking, we can't continue to live as though the earth were our toilet bowl. I'm OK with less stuff. Really.
There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that we are doing this. The question is whether you accept it or not. Yes, the climate has always changed. Yes, in the past that change was natural. Today, that change is being heightened/driven by human action in the form of ghg production. As I posted above, the Emanuel article does a great job of giving a balanced look at the issue.
If you mean that "the climate warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions can be reversed by changes in current practices and economic activity" you are starting to get into the faith-based territory.
If you accept the argument that the current warming is caused by human action in the name of ghg emissions, than if you cut the amount you spew out into the atmosphere wouldn't that, at the very least, you would have to think that pumping less out will result in less warming. Don't you?
If you mean that such change (or reversal of change) can be accomplished without significant economic dislocation, or that such dislocation and consequent reduction of aggregate wealth will necessarily be less than that caused by the "climate change" you are worried about... I think that has become a theological argument
I understand that the changes we need to make will cost us money. But environmentally speaking, we can't continue to live as though the earth were our toilet bowl. I'm OK with less stuff. Really.
" Eugene said...
The interviewee in Wente's column Saturday puts it best."
If you invoke that name, especially on the topic of science or the environment, I'm inclined to believe you're wrong too. Wente is all about not having to sort trash because it might ruin the day doing work like that.
"The "science" behind climate change has eliminated the extremes of the question (no, we won't be submerged in ten years and yes, it is logical to assume sea levels will rise if ice shelves melt) but past that, the extent and impacts are anyone's guess."
The science hasn't eliminated the potential for a flood in 10 years, it just suggests that the probability isn't as high as a sure thing.
The interviewee in Wente's column Saturday puts it best."
If you invoke that name, especially on the topic of science or the environment, I'm inclined to believe you're wrong too. Wente is all about not having to sort trash because it might ruin the day doing work like that.
"The "science" behind climate change has eliminated the extremes of the question (no, we won't be submerged in ten years and yes, it is logical to assume sea levels will rise if ice shelves melt) but past that, the extent and impacts are anyone's guess."
The science hasn't eliminated the potential for a flood in 10 years, it just suggests that the probability isn't as high as a sure thing.
Yet none of us, even most scientists, can "know" a particular piece of science.
But we are daily called upon to believe, have faith in, the science unknown experts know and apply. The huge science behind cell phones and computers comes to mind, whose manifold users must accept but can never completely understand.
Dion's question has a certain fragile legitimacy.
The test is in the perceived appeal to one's common sense, which like the science in question
But we are daily called upon to believe, have faith in, the science unknown experts know and apply. The huge science behind cell phones and computers comes to mind, whose manifold users must accept but can never completely understand.
Dion's question has a certain fragile legitimacy.
The test is in the perceived appeal to one's common sense, which like the science in question
# posted by : Wednesday, January 31, 2007 8:34:00 AM
: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 8:34:00 AM
About the Boston Review article, a few things should be pointed out:
- We are in an ice age now and likely will be until Antarctica moves away from the south pole.
- the ice core data is neat, but samples that are taken within close proximity are wildly different.
- The ice core data can provide clues, but the NIS graphs of ice core data, that people use to prove global warming due to high CO2 concentrations, actually disprove the theory.
- It looks at Venus, but ignores Mars that has its water trapped in glaciers that are covered in dust.
- if their description of how CO2 absorbs and emits radiation is true, then why is Mars not warmed by its 95% CO2 concentration?
While this article does make a good first attempt and could be used as a primer for a debate, it is no where near balanced and is missing much detail and lacks common sense in several key areas.
Since this has nothing to do with Dion's question, I did not post the whole comment here. If you are interested, you check my full commentary on my blog:
http://greycanada.blogspot.com/2007/01/not-fair-and-balanced.html
- We are in an ice age now and likely will be until Antarctica moves away from the south pole.
- the ice core data is neat, but samples that are taken within close proximity are wildly different.
- The ice core data can provide clues, but the NIS graphs of ice core data, that people use to prove global warming due to high CO2 concentrations, actually disprove the theory.
- It looks at Venus, but ignores Mars that has its water trapped in glaciers that are covered in dust.
- if their description of how CO2 absorbs and emits radiation is true, then why is Mars not warmed by its 95% CO2 concentration?
While this article does make a good first attempt and could be used as a primer for a debate, it is no where near balanced and is missing much detail and lacks common sense in several key areas.
Since this has nothing to do with Dion's question, I did not post the whole comment here. If you are interested, you check my full commentary on my blog:
http://greycanada.blogspot.com/2007/01/not-fair-and-balanced.html
Old Man,
then answer the question:
Do you believe in the science of climate change?
And see if you can say 'yes' or 'no' without feeling like something between a bafoon and a fraud.
then answer the question:
Do you believe in the science of climate change?
And see if you can say 'yes' or 'no' without feeling like something between a bafoon and a fraud.
Believe in the science...
Dion's question, poorly phrased, deserves to remain unanswered.
"Do I have faith the science is right?": a better question.
The science surrounding the debate
may be right but until it evolves to the point where specific, quantitive and verifiable near-term predictables result, it remains largely speculative.
That doesn't mean the Bush initiative is misguided, however.
Dion's question, poorly phrased, deserves to remain unanswered.
"Do I have faith the science is right?": a better question.
The science surrounding the debate
may be right but until it evolves to the point where specific, quantitive and verifiable near-term predictables result, it remains largely speculative.
That doesn't mean the Bush initiative is misguided, however.
# posted by : Thursday, February 01, 2007 8:51:00 AM
: Thursday, February 01, 2007 8:51:00 AM
old man,
we're 100% agreed.
Do I have faith in the science? In general, yes. The modelling however, as you point out, is so crazy that we have no clue what the impact is, or if its too late, or if, if, if.
So when Harper worries about it being a communist coup by disguise, he ain't out to lunch. Plans are best laid with some expectation of what the plans will achieve.
Post a Comment
we're 100% agreed.
Do I have faith in the science? In general, yes. The modelling however, as you point out, is so crazy that we have no clue what the impact is, or if its too late, or if, if, if.
So when Harper worries about it being a communist coup by disguise, he ain't out to lunch. Plans are best laid with some expectation of what the plans will achieve.
<< Home
