"Climate Change - Doubts, Denials, Scepticism, and Politics"

[Reverend Blair]

And here's a song about the Harper government.

[Luis Dias]

The analysis reviewed the impact of a new federal communications policy at Environment Canada, which required senior federal scientists to seek permission from the government prior to giving interviews.

This is outright censorship fascism. It reminds me the old days of Salazarism in my country.

[Reverend Blair]

Yes it is, Luis. It's also a tactic that denialist governments use on a regular basis.

[JimC]

Yes it is, Luis. It's also a tactic that denialist governments use on a regular basis.

Our liberal opposition are mostly denialists.

Our labour government pays lipservice to climate change, but want to do just enough to convince people they are doing something.

Our Greens want to do more, but have so many weird and loopy policies on other issues they are effectively unelectable.

[ginckgo]

Yes it is, Luis. It's also a tactic that denialist governments use on a regular basis.

Our liberal opposition are mostly denialists.

Our labour government pays lipservice to climate change, but want to do just enough to convince people they are doing something.

Our Greens want to do more, but have so many weird and loopy policies on other issues they are effectively unelectable.

But of course, despite the antagonism of the Liberals, the apathy of Labour, and the incompetence of the Greens, the Climate Change Conspiracy has had full government support for the past 20 years, and consistently bullied the skeptics, right?

[JimC]

Yes it is, Luis. It's also a tactic that denialist governments use on a regular basis.

Our liberal opposition are mostly denialists.

Our labour government pays lipservice to climate change, but want to do just enough to convince people they are doing something.

Our Greens want to do more, but have so many weird and loopy policies on other issues they are effectively unelectable.

But of course, despite the antagonism of the Liberals, the apathy of Labour, and the incompetence of the Greens, the Climate Change Conspiracy has had full government support for the past 20 years, and consistently bullied the skeptics, right?

Your'e channeling Andrew Bolt, right?

[ginckgo]

Yes it is, Luis. It's also a tactic that denialist governments use on a regular basis.

Our liberal opposition are mostly denialists.

Our labour government pays lipservice to climate change, but want to do just enough to convince people they are doing something.

Our Greens want to do more, but have so many weird and loopy policies on other issues they are effectively unelectable.

But of course, despite the antagonism of the Liberals, the apathy of Labour, and the incompetence of the Greens, the Climate Change Conspiracy has had full government support for the past 20 years, and consistently bullied the skeptics, right?

Your'e channeling Andrew Bolt, right?

I can't get the bitter aftertaste out of my brain now.

[Reverend Blair]

I can't get the bitter aftertaste out of my brain now

Try a pilsner. One or two will clear the bitter aftertaste from your mouth, 14 will cleanse your brain. At least that's the formula that I keep hoping will work for me. Maybe I need to up the dosage....

[macdoc]

Glad to see some science supporting my detestation of cap and trade

Urban CO2 Domes Increase Deaths, Poke Hole in Cap-and-Trade Proposal
enlarge

Researcher Mark Jacobson's study contradicts the cap-and-trade proposal's assumption that there is no difference in the impact of carbon dioxide, regardless of where it originates. (Credit: L.A. Cicero)

ScienceDaily (Mar. 19, 2010) — Everyone knows that carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas driving climate change, is a global problem. Now a Stanford study has shown it is also a local problem, hurting city dwellers' health much more than rural residents', because of the carbon dioxide "domes" that develop over urban areas.

That finding, said researcher Mark Z. Jacobson, exposes a serious oversight in current cap-and-trade proposals for reducing emissions of heat-trapping gases, which make no distinction based on a pollutant's point of origin. The finding also provides the first scientific basis for controlling local carbon dioxide emissions based on their local health impacts.

"Not all carbon dioxide emissions are equal," said Jacobson, professor of civil and environmental engineering. "As in real estate, location matters."

His results also support the case that California presented to the Environmental Protection Agency in March, 2009, asking that the state be allowed to establish its own CO2 emission standards for vehicles.

Jacobson, director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford, testified on behalf of California's waiver application in March, 2009. The waiver had previously been denied, but was reconsidered and granted subsequently. The waiver is currently being challenged in court by industry interests seeking to overturn it.

Jacobson found that domes of increased carbon dioxide concentrations -- discovered to form above cities more than a decade ago -- cause local temperature increases that in turn increase the amounts of local air pollutants, raising concentrations of health-damaging ground-level ozone, as well as particles in urban air.

In modeling the health impacts for the contiguous 48 states, for California and for the Los Angeles area, he determined an increase in the death rate from air pollution for all three regions compared to what the rate would be if no local carbon dioxide were being emitted.

The results of Jacobson's study are presented in a paper published online by Environmental Science and Technology.

The cap-and-trade proposal passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in June 2009 puts a limit on the amount of greenhouse gases that each type of utility, manufacturer or other emitter is allowed to produce. It also puts a price tag on each ton of emissions, which emitters will have to pay to the federal government.

If the bill passes the Senate intact, it will allow emitters to freely trade or sell their allowances among themselves, regardless of where the pollution is emitted.

With that logic, the proposal prices a ton of CO2 emitted in the middle of the sparsely populated Great Plains, for example, the same as a ton emitted in Los Angeles, where the population is dense and the air quality already poor.

"The cap-and-trade proposal assumes there is no difference in the impact of carbon dioxide, regardless of where it originates," Jacobson said. "This study contradicts that assumption."

"It doesn't mean you can never do something like cap and trade," he added. "It just means that you need to consider where the CO2 emissions are occurring."

Jacobson's study is the first to look at the health impacts of carbon dioxide domes over cities and his results are relevant to future air pollution regulations. Current regulations do not address the local impacts of local carbon dioxide emissions. For example, no regulation considers the local air pollution effects of CO2 that would be emitted by a new natural gas power plant. But those effects should be considered, he said.

"There has been no control of carbon dioxide because it has always been thought that CO2 is a global problem, that it is only its global impacts that might feed back to air pollution," Jacobson said.

In addition to the changes he observed in local air pollutants, Jacobson found that there was increased stability of the air column over a city, which slowed the dispersal of pollutants, further adding to the increased pollutant concentrations.

Jacobson estimated an increase in premature mortality of 50 to 100 deaths per year in California and 300 to 1,000 for the contiguous 48 states.

"This study establishes a basis for controlling CO2 based on local health impacts," he said.

Current estimates of the annual air pollution-related death toll in the U.S. is 50-100,000.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 101705.htm

Hansen on the same page as well

Climate pioneer backs tax on carbon, nuclear power
March 4, 2010. THE scientist who first convinced the world that climate change ... He supported the Greens' plan of an interim carbon tax starting at $23 ... Dr Hansen said the answer to climate change must be a rising carbon tax and ...

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/cl ... -pjaw.html

[Mysturji]

Again with the misrepresentations.
Top Tip: When you're trying to convince people about the truth of your claims, dishonesty doesn't help.
Neither does an air of smug superiority.

I was going to say more, but the more I think about that , the more I think what's the point?
I'm certain that I will be misrepresented as "that kind of kaffir", and that arguments I never made - and have denied making time and again - will be thoroughly debunked, so I just hope the audience has been paying attention.
I wanted to present my argument. I have done so, and it has not been trounced. There was one polite disagreement regarding my interpretation of some of the evidence, but the complete lack of debunking of what I actually said indicates to me that my argument has merit. I have got some food for thought out of this, and I will chew it. I hope I have provided some as well.
So fine, put words in my mouth. I've said my bit. I'm feral OT, and there are entendres lying around, un-doubled. I'm off to the pub.

from your OP [emphasis mine]:

Could that perhaps be because - besides the fact that the weather has always and (for the foreseeable future) WILL always be beyond our control - if we (as a species) were able to do anything to stop it (if indeed it needs stopping

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9094



sorry to be so dishonest, cruel and unrepresentative of your words Mysturji, perhaps i was mistaken when i thought you were talking about weather?

See what I mean?

Yes, you were mistaken.
I'm sorry but no, I wasn't talking about the weather. I've been talking about Human nature.
"You can't save the planet because people are selfish bastards and they won't let you." Ring any bells?

Just one ludicrous example:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... andle.html
Which is apparantly being given serious consideration:
http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/new ... 5982215.jp
If they weren't serious, it would be laughable.

You seem to be obsessing about minutae. When I said that the weather was beyond our control, that was not my argument. It was a simple statement of fact. A starting point from which to proceed.
I had thought - given the nature of the relationship between "weather" and "climate" (so succinctly put by Fact-Man), and the obvious difference between the concepts of "control" and "influence" - that no further clarification of this simple statement of fact would be needed... but hey, this is Rationalia: I'm used to a certain amount of pedantry, so I was quite happy to clarify - and clarify I did:

"We cannot control the weather (or the climate).
We influence the weather (and the climate).
We affect the weather (and the climate)."

The essential meaning of the original statement has not changed. I have just made explicit what I had considered to be implicit in the original version: I made the statement explicitly more inclusive about what we cannot control (try controlling the climate without first controlling the weather), and more specific about what we actually are doing.

I notice you quoted that same clarification in one of your earlier posts. Did you read it, or was it just so much copypasta? If you read it, did you understand it, or did your eyes glaze over as you read the first sentence, and you thought "Pfffft! He's a denialist. He doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate. I know what he's going to say"?
You quoted the clarified version once, yet you continue to quote the earlier, unclarified version, apparently for the specific purpose of picking that particular nit (again). Unless of course, it is your intention to assert (again) that we can control the weather and the climate, in which case I believe the traditional response is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

I'm sorry that Fact-Man's definition of climate - upon which we both agree - contains the word "weather", and that you have failed to challenge him over this "non sequitur" (presumably because you don't consider him such an easy target). Pity. That could have been fun to watch.

I'm sorry that you feel the need to keep on nit-picking my OP, which was written in anger as a response to what I perceived as arrogance on someone else's part (You can't just march in and take over. where do you think we are, Poland?), rather than addressing any of the subsequent posts in which my position was clarified and the nature of, and the reason for my scepticism were explained - presumably because you considered the OP an easier target for your derision than my actual argument.
There seems to be a lot of it about:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8571347.stm
Apparently, some people are arrogant, and some other people don't like it.
That's Human nature for you.

I'm sorry, but I'm not disputing the science. The climate is changing and Human activities are making a significant contribution to that change.
I'm sorry that you apparently find this such a difficult concept to understand: That someone could be sceptical about certain aspects of the whole climate change issue without disputing the science: without being a "denialist".
That must be terribly confusing for you. Please feel free to go have a lie down.

@Fact-Man: Earlier, the word "denialosphere" was being thrown about and nobody batted an eyelid, including myself. We all know that there are liars who deny the evidence.
But when I made an offhand suggestion for a name for the liars on the other side of the fence, you pretty much accused me of trolling. I think that comment was misunderstood. I was not trolling, and I was certainly not casting dispersions on anyone in particular. I was referring to this sort of thing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8571353.stm
(Not the first time we've seen that sort of thing, is it?)
I hope that clears up that particular point.

[Reverend Blair]

Ya know, if you put this song on your I-Pod you can listen to it while horses step on you.



The thing is that everyone listened to the song, or got stepped on by horses a bit more, we might get more shit done.

I'd also like to note that if you limp on both legs in different ways, eventually your back starts to hurt.

[piscator]

I'm sorry, but I'm not disputing the science. The climate is changing and Human activities are making a significant contribution to that change.

thank you

[Mysturji]

...and...?

[piscator]

...and...?

and have a nice day!

[SPMaximus]

Dont mind me, just here to derail the 'serious' discussions with a video that is sort of related to the subject