Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Paris Climate Summit


Recommended Posts

Oh FFS. Canada has never been more than a middling power with little influence.

Canada was instrumental in the establishment of the UN and also solving the Suez Crisis. Our charter and constitution are a model for developing states.

We had influence. We don't anymore.

Edited by cybercoma
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 383
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We had influence. We don't anymore.

That's a bit over the top I would say - Canada has the same influence that it did before. Harper didn't suddenly change that in most areas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

I would not like that. Unlike CO2, that would be potentially harmful to me.

If I increased the oxygen concentration enough if your home enough, you would die. Ergo O2 is bad?

There is no evidence that increasing CO2 will do anything significantly bad to us. Even if does warm the planet. Regardless of the fact that the models favoured by the IPCC overestimate warming, there is no way to know if the warming will even be a net positive or net negative.

What am I being asked to do, by the IPCC and posters such as Waldo, is trust predictions made for future decades, based on models that cannot even reliably predict temperatures today when data points from decades past are inputted. Why would I do that? I'm a physician, my whole professional life is about making rational decisions.

Edited by hitops
Link to post
Share on other sites

We had influence. We don't anymore.

Canada has dropped from the 7th largest economy to the 15th largest and many of the new players don't care much about the old Eurocentric power structures which Canada played in. It was inevitable that Canada's relevance would decline relative to others over the last 50 years no matter who was in charge. Edited by TimG
Link to post
Share on other sites

Influence, not reputation.

I find it bizarre that you think saying what other people want to you say means you have "influence". Influence means changing people's minds and if Justin does nothing but parrot the CAGW party line he has no influence - he is just a sheep.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it bizarre that you think saying what other people want to you say means you have "influence". Influence means changing people's minds and if Justin does nothing but parrot the CAGW party line he has no influence - he is just a sheep.

Trudeau hasn't even been sworn in yet and look at you falling all over yourself. Do you ever consider your credibility when you make arguments like this?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of the fact that the models favoured by the IPCC overestimate warming, there is no way to know if the warming will even be a net positive or net negative.

There are ways. It's just that uncertainty is large enough that one cannot know with 100% certainty if warming is a net positive. However, it is still possible to make decisions under uncertainty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then what is your position?

That's very complicated to explain, I invite you to read the other threads in the science section. Essentially, I think that the issue of what to do about global warming is a prior indeterminate and that one cannot have a reasonable basis for policy without appealing to empirical evidence. Decisions should be made to maximize expected social welfare (I'll probably do a blog post for Judith Curry in the next week or two on this topic). Based on the evidence I have seen, I think a global pigouvian tax of about $15 per metric ton of CO2 (2015 US dollars), which increases by about 3% per year in real value would be reasonable; although my position changes as new evidence is presented.

Edited by -1=e^ipi
Link to post
Share on other sites

Trudeau hasn't even been sworn in yet and look at you falling all over yourself.

You are the one claiming that there Harper caused Canada to lose influence which implies it would not have happened under another government (e.g. Liberal). I simply pointed out the sillyness of the premise that saying what others want you to say means you "have influence". It does not. Edited by TimG
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not like that. Unlike CO2, that would be potentially harmful to me.

So, your contention is that there is no potential for large atmospheric increases in CO2 (doubling, tripling) to be harmful? Fine. Same as I asked -1=e, provide the scientific proof.

If I increased the oxygen concentration enough if your home enough, you would die. Ergo O2 is bad?

I don't think oxygen is bad. I never said CO2 was bad. I don't think mercury is bad. But they will all kill you quickly in high enough concentrations. And they will have long term effects on the environment in lower concentrations. The question is what right do you have to change the atmospheric makeup before you can provide proof it's safe to do so?

There is no evidence that increasing CO2 will do anything significantly bad to us. Even if does warm the planet. Regardless of the fact that the models favoured by the IPCC overestimate warming, there is no way to know if the warming will even be a net positive or net negative.

No evidence of harm. That's wrong but let's say for the minute it's true.

I've just invented a drug that will make you smart. I haven't tested it on anyone so, at the moment, there is no evidence of harm. Will Health Canada allow me to sell it? Of course not - I'll have to go through years of testing starting with rats to prove it's safe.

So, why do you think you should be able change the atmosphere just because you claim there is "no evidence of harm"?

What am I being asked to do, by the IPCC and posters such as Waldo, is trust predictions made for future decades, based on models that cannot even reliably predict temperatures today when data points from decades past are inputted. Why would I do that? I'm a physician, my whole professional life is about making rational decisions.

Forget about the IPCC. No doubt they're a bunch of grant-seeking rabble rousing socialists trying to bring capitalism to its knees.

Clearly, the oil companies know best what's good for us and they should just bring all their proof that the drastic increases in atmospheric CO2 are not only safe, they'll turn the earth into paradise. You go and bring back the proof. Let us know when you have it.

Oh, and while you're at it, could you also prove that all of the other activities in producing fossil fuels are turning the earth into a wonderful paradise as well? Fracking. Deepwater drilling. Supertankers hauling massive amounts of hydrocarbons through ecologically sensitive areas. Refining.

Show us the proof so we can all sing the praises of fossil fuels.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Same as I asked -1=e, provide the scientific proof.

In the scientific method, preference is given to the null hypothesis. One cannot prove a negative and as scientific philosopher Karl Popper explains preference should be given to simpler models of reality because simpler models of reality have more explanatory power. With respect to CO2 having harmful effects, the null hypothesis is no harmful effects. The burden of proof should be on demonstrating these harmful effects.

I've just invented a drug that will make you smart. I haven't tested it on anyone so, at the moment, there is no evidence of harm. Will Health Canada allow me to sell it? Of course not - I'll have to go through years of testing starting with rats to prove it's safe.

These tests don't actually demonstrate that the drug is safe. Rather, they show that they are safe up to a reasonable confidence level.

With respect to drugs, based on passed experience we can infer that there is a non-trivial probability that untested drugs will have harmful effects. So it makes sense based on empirical evidence to assume that a new drug will have this probability of harmful effects until demonstrated otherwise. As a result, risk aversion suggests that some tests should be made with a new drug before allowing it on the market; this is expected social welfare maximizing. Just because the strong precautionary principle appears to result in roughly the same criteria for drugs as expected social welfare maximization, doesn't make the strong precautionary principle valid. That's like having a random number generator accurately predict winning lottery numbers and then conclude that a random number generator will always predict winning lottery numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's very complicated to explain, I invite you to read the other threads in the science section. Essentially, I think that the issue of what to do about global warming is a prior indeterminate and that one cannot have a reasonable basis for policy without appealing to empirical evidence. Decisions should be made to maximize expected social welfare (I'll probably do a blog post for Judith Curry in the next week or two on this topic). Based on the evidence I have seen, I think a global pigouvian tax of about $15 per metric ton of CO2 (2015 US dollars), which increases by about 3% per year in real value would be reasonable; although my position changes as new evidence is presented.

CO2 is a chemical with a very long life and atmospheric changes can cause climate changes that take decades to manifest. Waiting for a perfect forecasting model is risky and pointless. Also, climate change is only one of many harmful effects of burning fossil fuels.

The carbon tax is a good idea but $15 is too low to drive behavior. It should be at least double that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CO2 is a chemical with a very long life and atmospheric changes can cause climate changes that take decades to manifest. Also, climate change is only one of many harmful effects of burning fossil fuels.

Yes. Are you suggesting I don't take these things into account?

Waiting for a perfect forecasting model is risky and pointless.

Good thing I don't advocate such a position.

The carbon tax is a good idea but $15 is too low to drive behavior. It should be at least double that.

Based on what? I can give a basis for $15 (go see the other threads), can you give a basis for $30? I doubt it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are the one claiming that there Harper caused Canada to lose influence which implies it would not have happened under another government (e.g. Liberal). I simply pointed out the sillyness of the premise that saying what others want you to say means you "have influence". It does not.

Well it did happen under Harper. You're just making up that it would happen under another government. So while I'm dealing with reality, you can deal with made up stuff.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Are you suggesting I don't take these things into account?

Good thing I don't advocate such a position.

Based on what? I can give a basis for $15 (go see the other threads), can you give a basis for $30? I doubt it.

$30/ton works good in BC. Dropped our per capita consumption 9%, with no slowdown in the economy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it did happen under Harper. You're just making up that it would happen under another government. So while I'm dealing with reality, you can deal with made up stuff.

I am not making up stuff. I am simply pointing out that your definition of "influence" is makes no sense. Do you really think another leader could have convinced the other COP parties that their plans are waste of time? I doubt it. The only thing another leader could have done is agree with them which is the exact opposite of "influence". Edited by TimG
Link to post
Share on other sites

The burden of proof should be on demonstrating these harmful effects.

That's a ridiculous premise that has brought us to a point where hundreds of thousands of people die prematurely due to atmospheric pollution, where our oceans are polluted with PCB's and flame retardants and plastics, where many of the ocean's top predators are so toxic we can't safely eat them. As technology continues to evolve, our ability to produce harmful effects continues to grow. It's idiotic to take the position that we can do whatever we want to the environment and the burden of proof is on someone else to demonstrate it isn't safe.

These tests don't actually demonstrate that the drug is safe. Rather, they show that they are safe up to a reasonable confidence level.

You're right. Even with millions spent testing, there are still a lot of unsafe products that are allowed on the market. Primarily, this is a result of a broken economic system that provides almost unimaginably huge greed incentives for corporations to get new drugs on to the marketplace. Secondarily, it's a result of a system of medical science that hasn't learned to treat people as individuals and instead studies populations.

So, let's agree that before corporations are allowed to sell products that will significantly alter the chemistry of the atmosphere, at a bare minimum, they should be required to perform the same level of testing as the pharmaceutical industry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

$30/ton works good in BC. Dropped our per capita consumption 9%, with no slowdown in the economy.

Except BC will still miss the silly targets because politicians don't have magic wands no matter how much they wish they did.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Primarily, this is a result of a broken economic system that provides almost unimaginably huge greed incentives for corporations to get new drugs on to the marketplace.

Yes, and should you or anyone you know ever suffer from a disease that can only be treated by one of these drugs, you'll be damn thankful that that drug exists. Without an incentive to spend billions of dollars on drug development, no one would do it, and medicine would not progress.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, your contention is that there is no potential for large atmospheric increases in CO2 (doubling, tripling) to be harmful? Fine. Same as I asked -1=e, provide the scientific proof.

I don't think oxygen is bad. I never said CO2 was bad. I don't think mercury is bad. But they will all kill you quickly in high enough concentrations. And they will have long term effects on the environment in lower concentrations. The question is what right do you have to change the atmospheric makeup before you can provide proof it's safe to do so?

No evidence of harm. That's wrong but let's say for the minute it's true.

I've just invented a drug that will make you smart. I haven't tested it on anyone so, at the moment, there is no evidence of harm. Will Health Canada allow me to sell it? Of course not - I'll have to go through years of testing starting with rats to prove it's safe.

So, why do you think you should be able change the atmosphere just because you claim there is "no evidence of harm"?

Forget about the IPCC. No doubt they're a bunch of grant-seeking rabble rousing socialists trying to bring capitalism to its knees.

Clearly, the oil companies know best what's good for us and they should just bring all their proof that the drastic increases in atmospheric CO2 are not only safe, they'll turn the earth into paradise. You go and bring back the proof. Let us know when you have it.

Oh, and while you're at it, could you also prove that all of the other activities in producing fossil fuels are turning the earth into a wonderful paradise as well? Fracking. Deepwater drilling. Supertankers hauling massive amounts of hydrocarbons through ecologically sensitive areas. Refining.

Show us the proof so we can all sing the praises of fossil fuels.

There are people who work in actual greenhouses for hours at a time - at CO2 levels that are 2 to 4 times (or more) as much as today's atmosphere - and yet no health implications have been reported (and you can bet that the alarmists would be all over that tidbit)....and of course crops have higher yields with increased CO2. So.....no harm for humans, great for food production. Those are facts. So it's not the CO2 itself - it's the still imprecise understanding of what effect CO2 has on Earth's temperature - and whether that increase is, on balance, a good thing or a bad thing.

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to post
Share on other sites

$30/ton works good in BC. Dropped our per capita consumption 9%, with no slowdown in the economy.

Of course there was an economic impact. The existence of no slowdown doesn't imply no economic impact. If economic growth is reduced from say 2.0% to 1.9%, there is no slowdown, but there is clearly an impact.

Look, you can't just look at BC's economy before the tax, then look at it after the tax and ignore alternate explanations that explain what could have caused changes in BC's economic output over time.

Edited by -1=e^ipi
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, your contention is that there is no potential for large atmospheric increases in CO2 (doubling, tripling) to be harmful? Fine. Same as I asked -1=e, provide the scientific proof.

The burden of proof is on the one asserting the affirmative, in this case saying that something harmful will happen. I can no better prove a negative than I can prove that unicorns do not exist.

I don't think oxygen is bad. I never said CO2 was bad. I don't think mercury is bad. But they will all kill you quickly in high enough concentrations. And they will have long term effects on the environment in lower concentrations. The question is what right do you have to change the atmospheric makeup before you can provide proof it's safe to do so?

No evidence of harm. That's wrong but let's say for the minute it's true.

Are you under the impression that the concern over CO2 is in any way related to humans breathing it? Please say no.

What right does the natural environment have to change the atmospheric makeup? It has done so many times before. During the most comparable of those times such as the roman and medieval, things were actually better for humans rather than worse. That is pretty good evidence that we are not doomed from it.

Regarding proposed long term effects, there is simply have no evidence to support them. Not only do we not know the degree of effect, we don't even know if it is positive or negative.

I've just invented a drug that will make you smart. I haven't tested it on anyone so, at the moment, there is no evidence of harm. Will Health Canada allow me to sell it? Of course not - I'll have to go through years of testing starting with rats to prove it's safe.

So, why do you think you should be able change the atmosphere just because you claim there is "no evidence of harm"?

Forget about the IPCC. No doubt they're a bunch of grant-seeking rabble rousing socialists trying to bring capitalism to its knees.

Many problems with this analogy, the most important of which are:

- Your drug was not around a thousand of years ago, demonstrating no negative effect on humanity. CO2 increases were.

- Your drug can be tested in trials, it's claims are falsifiable. The claims regarding increased CO2 are not.

- Nothing gets worse by not using your drug. There is no cost. There is an enormous cost to reducing CO2 in any meaningful way.

A better analogy from the medical world would be cutting off your arm today to prevent the possibility of a cancer growing there one day.

Clearly, the oil companies know best what's good for us and they should just bring all their proof that the drastic increases in atmospheric CO2 are not only safe, they'll turn the earth into paradise. You go and bring back the proof. Let us know when you have it.

One cannot prove a negative. Not sure what oil companies have to do with anything.

Oh, and while you're at it, could you also prove that all of the other activities in producing fossil fuels are turning the earth into a wonderful paradise as well? Fracking. Deepwater drilling. Supertankers hauling massive amounts of hydrocarbons through ecologically sensitive areas. Refining.

Show us the proof so we can all sing the praises of fossil fuels.

Can you prove that when you walk outside, a piano will not fall on you? No? Well obviously you should not leave your house.

I'm not sure why you are obsessed with fossil fuels. They have no moral quality, they are simply a means to energy production. They happen to be the only viable means we have today to sustain anything close to what we consider a decent standard of living, in particular for the poorest areas of the world.

Edited by hitops
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...