Jump to content


Member Since 19 May 2005
Offline Last Active Jun 15 2010 03:56 PM

Topics I've Started

What would you pay to 'do something' about AGW

29 November 2009 - 12:24 PM

I have the impression that the majority of people telling us to 'do something' about global warming are also unwilling to make sacrifices themselves and if they even acknowledge that the cost of 'doing something' will be astronomical they will insist that someone other than them should be forced to pay for it.

Well the draft Copenhagen treaty that the warmists are pushing includes a requirement that rich countries contribute 0.5 to 1.0% of their GDP to a fund to pay off their 'climate debt' to the rest of the world. This makes it possible to put a specific quantity on the cost of 'doing something'.

For reference spending 0.7% of GDP ($10 billion) could be paid for by making one of the following cuts to spending:

1) End of all programs for federal children (eg family tax credit)
2) 33% reduction in health and social transfers to provinces
3) 33% reduction in OAS/GIS benefits.
4) 66% reduction in EI benefits

There are obviously other options for cuts, however, I would like people to think about what they would 'sacrifice' - i.e. you can't say 'cut military spending' if you are a person that does not support the military and want to cut it no matter what. Tells us what government spending programs which you actually care about and you would sacrifice in the name of this AGW threat.

UPDATE: The cost is intended to capture all possible climate related spending. i.e. if you oppose spending $10 billion/year in blood money but support that much being spent on renewable energy subdies then please state that along with the government programs you would cut to pay for it.

ClimateGate and the Climatati

21 November 2009 - 01:49 PM

The University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit in the UK was hacked and about 150BM of documents and emails were posted online this week. This emails include correspondence between several leading climate scientists and talk about things like:

- Obstructing FOI requests by deleting data;
- Getting editors at peer reviewed journals fired for accepting sceptical papers;
- Manipulating data to 'hide' features which would undermine the political message;

The entire collection demonstrates that these scientists are a pretty unethical bunch that are more concerned about promoting the IPCC political agenda than with finding the scientific truth. So far the only response from alarmists has been that such talk is nothing but 'boys being boys' and whingeing about the fact that someone committed a crime to steal the emails (aside: I think it was and inside job made to look like a hack and that would mean we have whistleblowers - not criminals).

However, such excuse making does not negate the fact that we now have concrete evidence the sceptical papers are being kept out of the peer reviewed literature for no reason other than the fact that they are sceptical. We also have concrete evidence that the scientists responsible for maintaining one of the major global temperature datasets deliberately deleted data to make sure that it could not be analyzed by people that might find problems.

None of this surprises me because I have been researching this topic for years and it was painfully clear that the stuff revealed in the e-mails was going on even if there was no proof.

I realize that the AGW true believers in this forum will try to insist that none of this proves that AGW is wrong and they would be technically correct. However, all of our understanding of the science comes from data that has been collected, adjusted and interpreted by scientists - some of whom have been exposed in these e-mails. These interpretations have a signicant effect on what policies, if any, we may want to adopt to deal with the AGW issue and it would be crazy to make radical policy changes until we fully understand how much the corruption has affected the results.

Here are some links covering the issue:

Sacrificing Healthcare to Pay for Carbon

11 June 2009 - 02:46 PM

My concern about AGW policies is the cost of doing anything will be astronomical and will require sacrifices that cannot be justified given the uncertain scientific basis for the AGW claims. Unfortunately, too many people seem to think that reducing emissions will cost them nothing and continue to support politicians who pander to the AGW lobby.

This story is a sign of things to come unless people come to their senses before Canada gets sucked in another international treaty:

The Lower Mainland's health authorities will have to dig more than $4 million a year out of their already stretched budgets to pay B.C.'s carbon tax and offset their carbon footprints.
Fraser Health officials are grappling with a budget shortfall of more than $100 million and potential cuts to patient services, while low on their list, have not been ruled out.

Now I realize that $4 million out of budget shortfall of $100 million may sound like a small to some but something has to be sacrificed to pay the $4 million and it will have to come from patient services when these services are already stretched to their limit.

This last point is worth highlighting because it illustrates how cutting services is ultimately the only practical option if carbon reductions are mandated:

Dix warned that some of the potential cuts such as closing the ER at Mission Memorial Hospital would actually increase carbon emissions by sending patients further afield.

I am curious how many people are willing to sacrifice their access to healthcare, their job or even the life of someone they care about in order to do something that may have no effect on a problem that might not really exists. I suspect the number is very small yet governments seem to be comitted to introducing policies that will have those effects because people have be told that going CO2 free is pain free.