Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[Bruce Monkhouse]

More deep thought......

 

[cld617]

You do understand that it can be warm in some places, cold in others, and the planet can still be warming right?

Ignorance is often mistaken as the strongest weapon in the denier arsenal, no sense arguing against it.

 

[MJP]

Ignorance is often mistaken as the strongest weapon in the denier arsenal, no sense arguing against it.

It is part and parcel of any toolbox for any side on any argument.....

 

[Loachman]

People with much smaller bank accounts who are not a part of the single largest industry on the planet.

Greedy governments, drooling over more excuses to levy more taxes.

 

[cavalryman]

You do understand that it can be warm in some places, cold in others, and the planet can still be warming right?

Or cooling for that matter.... And to paraphrase Sigmund Freud, sometimes weather is just....weather.

 

[Sub_Guy]

There is where you lose me. What government would want to "promote" global climate change? What politician actually wants to tell voters "Hey look I know you've been used to cheap gas, travelling where ever and whenever you want, consuming all you want, but we're going to have to make major changes. And we're probably going to have to tax you more to do it."? I know you seem to think this is a conspiracy to justify more government, but no politician is willing to pay a political price for this. We're going to have mount a project akin to the space race to get ourselves off of fossil fuels. This is a daunting task. No one wants to do the work, and no one would invent something like this.

Isn't it more likely that politicians have been leery of acting on this, because they know it will cost them politically? And that inaction is convenient only to a point?



Just going to leave this here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/12/iceland-storm-melt-north-pole-climate-change/422166/

Just going  to leave this here

http://globalnews.ca/news/2426030/north-pole-to-see-unseasonably-warm-temperatures-but-dont-panic/

 

[Good2Golf]

There is where you lose me. What government would want to "promote" global climate change? What politician actually wants to tell voters "Hey look I know you've been used to cheap gas, travelling where ever and whenever you want, consuming all you want, but we're going to have to make major changes. And we're probably going to have to tax you more to do it."?...

Ontario's, to start.  Governments love one thing the most -- staying in power.  Second to that, they love collecting taxes and spending it as they wish. 

The Global Warming narrative perfectly fits Governments' skills at leveraging naively supported initiatives such as help curb the Earth's cyclical temperature variations, into raw cash.  It's pretty much that simple.  Some folks can feel good about peeing in their dark suit, but most of the world will pass on by without giving the dude wearing the dark, but imperceptibly wet suit a second look.

So how many people here have ticked off the "use my air miles to help offset carbon tax" last time they bought airline tickets?  Yup, thought so...

Honestly, the best thing mankind did was outlawing chlorofluorocarbons in the late 80's, and the ongoing recovery of the Ozone Layer to shield against UV B rays' contribution to global warming.  Trivia question:  What was the first United Nations protocol ever unanimously ratified by 100% of the UN members?  Hint: the meeting where the Protocol was written is in a Canadian city, where another rather figurative international organization is headquartered.

Regards
G2G

 

[Kilo_302]

So if anthropomorphic climate change is somehow a "government conspiracy" designed to "levy more taxes" (the holes in this argument are big enough to drive a bus through as I've outlined above), why did several petroleum producers begin to prepare for its effects?

http://graphics.latimes.com/oil-operations/#nt=outfit

A few weeks before seminal climate change talks in Kyoto back in 1997, Mobil Oil took out a bluntly worded advertisement in the New York Times and Washington Post.

“Let’s face it: The science of climate change is too uncertain to mandate a plan of action that could plunge economies into turmoil,” the ad said. “Scientists cannot predict with certainty if temperatures will increase, by how much and where changes will occur.”

One year earlier, though, engineers at Mobil Oil were concerned enough about climate change to design and build a collection of exploration and production facilities along the Nova Scotia coast that made structural allowances for rising temperatures and sea levels.

“An estimated rise in water level, due to global warming, of 0.5 meters may be assumed” for the 25-year life of the Sable gas field project, Mobil engineers wrote in their design specifications. The project, owned jointly by Mobil, Shell and Imperial Oil (a Canadian subsidiary of Exxon), went online in 1999; it is expected to close in 2017.

The United States has never ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse emissions.

A joint investigation by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism’s Energy and Environmental Reporting Project and the Los Angeles Times earlier detailed how one company, Exxon, made a strategic decision in the late 1980s to publicly emphasize doubt and uncertainty regarding climate change science even as its internal research embraced the growing scientific consensus.

An examination of oil industry records and interviews with current and former executives shows that Exxon’s two-pronged strategy was widespread within the industry during the 1990s and early 2000s.

As many of the world’s major oil companies — including Exxon, Mobil and Shell — joined a multimillion-dollar industry effort to stave off new regulations to address climate change, they were quietly safeguarding billion-dollar infrastructure projects from rising sea levels, warming temperatures and increasing storm severity.

From the North Sea to the Canadian Arctic, the companies were raising the decks of offshore platforms, protecting pipelines from increasing coastal erosion, and designing helipads, pipelines and roads in a warming and buckling Arctic.

The industry contends that the difference between its public relations effort and its internal decision-making was not a contradiction, but a strategy to protect its business from misguided federal regulations while taking into account the possibility that the climate change predictions were valid.

“During planning and construction of major engineering and infrastructure projects, it is standard practice to take into account many types of risks both short-term and long-term, likely and unlikely,” said Alan Jeffers, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil, which merged in 1999. “These risks would naturally include a range of environmental conditions, some of which could be associated with climate change.”
The gas platform "Troll" is the world's largest concrete construction, standing 1,548.6 feet high. In this 1995 photo, a boat tows the platform from Stavanger in Western Norway to its position in the North Sea. (Associated Press)

By the late 1980s, calls by scientists and environmentalists to limit fossil fuel emissions were gaining traction. A growing scientific consensus was emerging, suggesting a link between climate change and carbon dioxide emissions, and a concern that those changes could cause global upheaval — from warming temperatures to rising sea levels and melting glaciers.

Governments across the globe took heed.

In 1988, Democratic Sen. Timothy Wirth of Colorado called a congressional hearing on the topic, and James Hansen, a NASA scientist, asserted “with 99% confidence” that global warming was occurring. That same year, the United Nations formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to examine its future impact.

Facing a growing environmental and political movement, a collection of energy companies, primarily from the coal sector, created the Global Climate Coalition to fight impending climate change regulations.

The group approached the American Petroleum Institute for funding and support in the early 1990s.

William O’Keefe, executive vice president of the Petroleum Institute at the time, delivered. The major oil companies, he recalled, decided “something has to be done.”

By 1993, he was sitting on the board, and within a few years, he was chairman. He brought with him support from the trade group, as well as individual trade group members, including Exxon, Mobil, Shell and others.

For the next 10 years, the coalition, whose annual revenue peaked at about $1.5 million before Kyoto, spent heavily on lobbying and public relations campaigns. As part of the effort, it distributed a video to hundreds of journalists, the White House and several Middle Eastern oil-producing countries suggesting that higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were beneficial for crop production, and could be the solution to world hunger.

The coalition’s campaign emphasized the uncertainty surrounding climate change science, and warned of dire economic consequences for consumers should regulations on the industry be enacted.

Two recent papers published in the journal Nature Climate Change and in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggest that the coalition effort helped polarize public discourse on climate change.

“The ramifications of this multiyear effort by these funders are immensely important,” said Justin Farrell, a sociologist at Yale University and author of the studies, which looked at how the industry’s messaging affected the public debate. Their influence explains, he added, why the issue went from being bipartisan to polarizing.

O’Keefe said no one in the coalition denied the existence of global warming, but there was uncertainty about how well the models could project its future impact.

What coalition members felt certain about, he said, was that any government-mandated emission reductions would have “a clear negative impact,” including unemployment, higher energy prices and a drop in the U.S. standard of living.

When it came to their own investments, though, coalition members relied on scientific projections — from rising sea levels to thawing permafrost — to design and protect multibillion-dollar investments in pipelines, gas developments and offshore oil rigs.

O’Keefe, who is now chief executive of the George C. Marshall Institute, a conservative think tank that focuses on science and policy issues, contends that there was nothing inconsistent in the industry’s actions. “Companies always take into account a range of possible outcomes” before making billion-dollar investments, he said, and they didn’t “dismiss the potential of increased warming.”
Shell Oil announced in 1989 that it was raising its "Troll" North Sea natural gas platform a meter or two in anticipation of climbing sea levels caused by climate change. (Morten Hval / Associated Press)

In 1989, before Shell Oil joined the Global Climate Coalition, the company announced it was redesigning a $3-billion North Sea natural gas platform that it had been developing for years.

The reason it gave: Sea levels were going to rise as a result of global warming.

The original design called for the platform to sit 30 meters above the ocean’s surface, but the company decided to raise it by a meter or two.

The company’s then-chief offshore engineer, Chris Graham, said rising sea levels and increasing wave heights were “really showing” during the late 1980s and early 1990s, and the company was taking them seriously. A rash of storms and monster waves that had battered the North Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico during those years was particularly concerning, and engineers wondered whether climate change might be behind it.

“The tipoff to there being changes came from hurricanes,” said Bob Bea, another Shell offshore engineer at the time who also worked for the global engineering firm Bechtel. “Even back in those days ... hurricane intensities were changing.”

In 1994, representatives from the oil industry, insurance companies and several North American and European governments formed a quasi-governmental organization called Waves and Storms of the North Atlantic Group to determine whether climate change was behind the worsening weather.

The group concluded that if carbon dioxide levels continued to climb, there’d be “moderate increases of surges along the North Sea coast and of wave heights in the North Atlantic.”
“ "Even back in those days ... hurricane intensities were changing." ” — Bob Bea, former director of Shell research
Share this quote

That same year, industry engineers submitted a document to European authorities on the construction of the Europipe, a natural gas pipeline leading from a North Sea offshore platform to the German coastline, via the ecologically fragile Wadden Sea.

In it, the engineers noted that sea levels had risen over the last century, and suggested there could be a “considerable increase of the frequency of storms as a result of a climate change.” They concluded that although climate change was a “most uncertain parameter,” their pipeline designs should include protections against its impact.

The Europipe was jointly operated and owned by a group of companies, including Shell, Exxon, Conoco, Total and the biggest investor, Norway’s Statoil. They included climate change protections in their design specifications in part to convince German authorities to give them the go-ahead, according to Romke Bijker, a Dutch engineer who co-wrote the design specifications.

“We had to think at the time, what are the most important aspects we have to include if we look 50 years ahead,” he said.

By the mid-1990s, though, Shell had joined the Global Climate Coalition, and with its partners was publicly questioning the science behind climate change and casting doubt on its projected impact.

“There has been a great deal of speculation about a potential sea level rise,” the coalition said in a 1995 mission statement obtained by Greenpeace. But, the statement continued, “most scientists question the predictions of a dangerous melting of Greenland or Antarctic ice caps.”

In a section on the science of sea level projections, the document concluded that warmer air temperatures could actually “increase snowfall, decreasing the likelihood of sea level rise due to polar ice cap melting.”

Curtis Smith, a spokesman for Shell, declined recently to comment on the company’s actions two decades ago. However, he said Shell recognized the “importance of the climate challenge and the critical role energy has in determining quality of life for people across the world.”

Shell left the Global Climate Coalition in 1998 after the Kyoto agreement had been effectively derailed.



During this period, Mobil Oil (now part of Exxon Mobil) considered climate change when designing its Sable gas development off Nova Scotia.

Big storms, monster waves and sea level rise were “all part of the discussion,” said Bassem Eid, author of the report. Eid’s firm, Maclaren Plansearch, was hired by Mobil to conduct the company’s environmental assessment for the Canadian government.

“I used the engineering standards of the day to incorporate potential impacts of Global Warming on sea-level rise,” Eid said in an email. “It was a hot topic in the early 1990s.”

Regulators and engineers at the time were beginning to incorporate such planning into other large infrastructure projects, including a bridge designed to span Northumberland Strait from New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island. Climate change was discussed as project plans were assembled, according to regulators and contractors who worked on the project.

In public, though, the coalition partners, including Exxon’s CEO, Lee Raymond, said that the impact of climate change was uncertain, and that even if the models did prove to be accurate, the effects from warming were not imminent.

“It is highly unlikely that the temperature in the middle of the next century will be affected whether policies are enacted now or 20 years from now,” Raymond told a 1997 gathering of energy executives at the World Petroleum Congress in Beijing.

: :

By the early 2000s, the Canadian government explicitly required companies to consider climate change in their operations.

Exxon Mobil’s Canadian affiliate, Imperial, addressed the effect that climate warming could have on its plan to build pipelines, gas processing and separation facilities, airstrips, helipads and barge landings in the Northwest Territory’s Mackenzie Delta. Its conclusion: very little.

In a 28-page report examining the effects of climate change on the project, Imperial concluded that although “uncertainty exists” and “climate change could affect the northern environment,” those changes were unlikely to have any meaningful impact.

However, at a public hearing on the project, an Imperial engineer told an audience that “the project generally accepts that climate warming is occurring and that’s generally included in the design calculations.” At other hearings, company engineers noted that Imperial had incorporated climate change projections into its plans.

During this same period, Exxon Mobil provided money to organizations questioning that science, including more than $200,000 in 2004 to the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, which supported the work of Willie Soon, a well-known climate change skeptic. Between 1998 and 2005, Exxon Mobil’s foundation provided more than $15 million to similar organizations.

“There is nothing inconsistent about Exxon Mobil managing potential environmental risks while speaking publicly about the limits of scientific knowledge and advocating for effective public policy approaches,” said Exxon Mobil’s spokesman, Jeffers, referring to all of the company’s projects at the time, including those in Canada. “Any suggestion to the contrary would be inaccurate and a distortion of the company’s position.”

::

When Shell left the Global Climate Coalition in 1998, it was followed by Ford Motor Co., Daimler Chrysler, Texaco, Southern Co. and General Motors. The organization disbanded in 2002.

O’Keefe, the coalition’s former chairman, said he had recommended it be shut down because members were “taking a lot of heat” for a job they had already accomplished — effectively quashing any regulation that would have limited fossil fuel use.

Today, all of the major oil companies publicly acknowledge the risks of climate change.

In the mid-2000s, the American Petroleum Industry began funding a project by the National Center for Atmospheric Research to better understand the relationship between climate change and hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico.

In 2007, Exxon Mobil disclosed to shareholders — for the first time — the potential risks that climate change posed to its bottom line.

“What is most unfortunate,” said Farrell, the Yale sociologist, “is that polarization around climate change ... was manufactured by those whose financial and political interests were most threatened.” Even today, he added, that polarization has crippled any hopes for bipartisan policy solutions.

Meanwhile, the sea level along the Nova Scotia coast, as Mobil Oil’s engineers originally forecast, is indeed rising — and at rates higher than the global average.

Michael Phillis, Melissa Masako Hirsch, Elah Feder and Asaf Shalev contributed to this report.

Contact the reporters

About this story:

Over the last year, the Energy and Environmental Reporting Project at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, with the Los Angeles Times, has been researching the gap between Exxon Mobil’s public position and its internal planning on the issue of climate change. As part of that effort, reporters reviewed hundreds of documents housed in archives in Calgary’s Glenbow Museum and at the University of Texas. They also reviewed scientific journals and interviewed dozens of experts, including former Exxon Mobil employees. This is the third in a series of occasional articles.

The Energy and Environmental Reporting Project is supported by the Energy Foundation, Open Society Foundations, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Rockefeller Family Fund, Lorana Sullivan Foundation and the Tellus Mater Foundation. The funders have no involvement in or influence over the articles produced by project fellows in collaboration with The Times.

 

[Kilo_302]

Ontario's, to start.  Governments love one thing the most -- staying in power.  Second to that, they love collecting taxes and spending it as they wish. 

The Global Warming narrative perfectly fits Governments' skills at leveraging naively supported initiatives such as help curb the Earth's cyclical temperature variations, into raw cash.  It's pretty much that simple.  Some folks can feel good about peeing in their dark suit, but most of the world will pass on by without giving the dude wearing the dark, but imperceptibly wet suit a second look.

So how many people here have ticked off the "use my air miles to help offset carbon tax" last time they bought airline tickets?  Yup, thought so...

Honestly, the best thing mankind did was outlawing chlorofluorocarbons in the late 80's, and the ongoing recovery of the Ozone Layer to shield against UV B rays' contribution to global warming.  Trivia question:  What was the first United Nations protocol ever unanimously ratified by 100% of the UN members?  Hint: the meeting where the Protocol was written is in a Canadian city, where another rather figurative international organization is headquartered.

Regards
G2G

I disagree (big surprise there ). As I wrote above, what government, what politician relishes the thought of telling voters that they will have to raise taxes, that the way we live our lives will have to change? The broad trends in liberal democracies in the last few decades have been a lowering of taxes due to their increasing unpopularity combined with shrinking governments, and a shrinking role for government. I just don't see how any government as a strategy to hold power is going to rock the boat. You have it exactly backwards. Look at the reaction in Alberta to Notley raising taxes only ever so slightly. If you want to stay in power, you ply voters with meaningless consumer benefits. You don't take away their SUVs, raise taxes, and generally make life more expensive (in the short run). People don't like change, and if the science is any indicator, to actually achieve some positive change on the climate front we're talking about a major reorganization of society. Yeah, that's really a winning strategy for a leader to stay in power. :

This is exactly why nothing has been done. Because it would be so politically unpopular to tell Americans for example that they can no longer drive vehicles that have a certain level of emissions. Or how does the US government tell one of its biggest industries and employers "Hey turns out your entire business model will have to change if we're going to save the world." This is a tough conversation to have, in Canada as well, or for that matter many countries.

Think for a moment about what you're suggesting. You're suggesting that it's easier politically for governments to invest trillions the world over to prevent a problem that (while it's becoming serious now) will have severe effects on the next two generations. This is NOT how politics works. Politicians are in a short term game, so we are particularly ill-equipped to deal with a long term problem like climate change. Add to that the array of economic interests aligned against action and it's easy to see what is really happening here. You can't tell me that a few thousand scientists and universities have more power than the companies that literally power our entire world. These interests are deeply embedded.

This forum is going in circles, and the data is only mounting on one side of the discussion. The science keeps moving forward, so at what point do we all agree "We should probably something?"  As the article I posted above shows, the oil and insurance industries knew more about climate change than our governments did, because they knew if would affect their bottom line. This is capitalism at work. These companies were being responsible to their shareholders by forecasting future conditions in which they would be doing business. Science was working on behalf of the market,  it just turns out the market didn't like the message.

 

[Journeyman]

Just two quick points...

The broad trends in liberal democracies in the last few decades have been a lowering of taxes due to their increasing unpopularity combined with shrinking governments, and a shrinking role for government.

Do you honestly believe that Canadian governments have been lowering taxes and becoming smaller?  Do you have a credible source [preferably one that covers Federal and Ontario governments...where my money is being drained]?

Or how does the US government tell one of its biggest industries and employers ....

Again, why do some posters continually cite the US in attempting to somehow make a point -- regardless of relevance?  You do know that this is Canada, right?

 

[Good2Golf]

I disagree (big surprise there ). As I wrote above, what government, what politician relishes the thought of telling voters that they will have to raise taxes, that the way we live our lives will have to change? The broad trends in liberal democracies in the last few decades have been a lowering of taxes due to their increasing unpopularity combined with shrinking governments, and a shrinking role for government. I just don't see how any government as a strategy to hold power is going to rock the boat. You have it exactly backwards. Look at the reaction in Alberta to Notley raising taxes only ever so slightly. If you want to stay in power, you ply voters with meaningless consumer benefits. You don't take away their SUVs, raise taxes, and generally make life more expensive (in the short run). People don't like change, and if the science is any indicator, to actually achieve some positive change on the climate front we're talking about a major reorganization of society. Yeah, that's really a winning strategy for a leader to stay in power. :

I'll match your disagreement and raise you a point or two of GST/HST that Trudeau will inevitably have to raise within his mandate to keep the deficit anywhere near his "$10B a year for the next three years."

Road tax, fuel tax, tobacco tax, booze tax, pot tax (to come)...of course the Governments love to tax us...they just believe that we believe them when they tell us they aren't going to raise your taxes.  In March 2017, after I've done my 2016 taxes, I'll tell you if I'm paying less...or (more likely) more taxes. 

This one of yours bears repeating:

The broad trends in liberal democracies in the last few decades have been a lowering of taxes due to their increasing unpopularity combined with shrinking governments, and a shrinking role for government.

Do you actually believe that?  Seriously?  Oh, I see, you're including Harper's Conservatives as part of that trend for "liberal democracies"...

Wow... :not-again:

 

[Kilo_302]

I'll match your disagreement and raise you a point or two of GST/HST that Trudeau will inevitably have to raise within his mandate to keep the deficit anywhere near his "$10B a year for the next three years."

Road tax, fuel tax, tobacco tax, booze tax, pot tax (to come)...of course the Governments love to tax us...they just believe that we believe them when they tell us they aren't going to raise your taxes.  In March 2017, after I've done my 2016 taxes, I'll tell you if I'm paying less...or (more likely) more taxes. 

This one of yours bears repeating:

Do you actually believe that?  Seriously?  Oh, I see, you're including Harper's Conservatives as part of that trend for "liberal democracies"...

Wow... :not-again:

Our tax burden has decreased substantially since World War 2 overall. Now, it depends where you are in the tax bracket. The wealthy used to pay far more taxes, both as a group share of national revenue and as a percentage of their income. So did corporations. The tax burden IS now disproportionately carried by the lower and middle classes as a result of tax cuts for the aforementioned. But generally, unless you are in the lowest tax bracket, you were paying the same or more taxes in the 60s, the 70s and so on.

As for the other smaller taxes  you mentioned, it's true they have gone up. But for example, if we continue to provide subsidized healthcare, it would make sense as public policy to discourage habits like smoking/drinking, because those are costly to treat. Taxes are a tool of public policy. They don't exist just because governments love them.

Why wouldn't I include Harper's Conservatives in that trend? A "liberal democracy" is what Canada is, and they were our government. Unless you're confusing the term "liberal democracy" with the Liberal Party??

As for your point about the GST, most economists agree that cutting it was a major mistake. It looked good politically, but if you're middle class or lower income, it's not going to help as much as say, a reduction in income tax would. But the government couldn't do that in any meaningful way because of the aforementioned cuts to the highest tax brackets and corporations.

Look our system isn't perfect, but before we go too far into the weeds around taxes, let's remember that the wealthy used to pay 80% on income, and corporations quite recently paid as much as 40%. If you're feeling squeezed, I would suggest that it might make sense to raise those taxes again to relieve the pressure on middle and lower income Canadians.

This is a history of corporate income tax in Canada:

http://www5.agr.gc.ca/resources/prod/doc/pol/pub/itdat60-05/pdf/tax_e.pdf

I'm still trying to find the consolidated report that you asked for that includes provincial rates over a historical period.  But there are numerous public sources that have specific income tax information for specific provinces and tax brackets if you feel like googling for 5 hours.

Just two quick points...
Do you honestly believe that Canadian governments have been lowering taxes and becoming smaller?  Do you have a credible source [preferably one that covers Federal and Ontario governments...where my money is being drained]?

Again, why do some posters continually cite the US in attempting to somehow make a point -- regardless of relevance?  You do know that this is Canada, right?

Here's a report that shows Canada is 26th in the world for individual income tax burden (the US was 25th). So there is misconception that we are highly taxed when compared to other advanced countries.

http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/taxation/taxing-wages-2014/overview_tax_wages-2014-3-en#page1


At any rate, both of you are proving my point. The revenue required to wean ourselves off fossil fuels could only be gathered by taxes, and clearly that idea is very unpopular. So my initial point stands, no government's strategy to STAY IN POWER revolves around massive new taxes for everyone. It makes absolutely no sense.


As for your second point, climate change is a global issue. The big players (the UN, petroleum producers) are also multi-national, not to mention individual governments. Keeping our discussion limited to Canada makes little sense as well. The name of this thread is "Global" Warming/Climate Change after all.

 

[Loachman]

The broad trends in liberal democracies in the last few decades have been a lowering of taxes due to their increasing unpopularity combined with shrinking governments, and a shrinking role for government. I just don't see how any government as a strategy to hold power is going to rock the boat. You have it exactly backwards. Look at the reaction in Alberta to Notley raising taxes only ever so slightly. If you want to stay in power, you ply voters with meaningless consumer benefits. You don't take away their SUVs, raise taxes, and generally make life more expensive (in the short run). People don't like change, and if the science is any indicator, to actually achieve some positive change on the climate front we're talking about a major reorganization of society. Yeah, that's really a winning strategy for a leader to stay in power. :

Creating an artificial scare can cause many people to accept almost any negative action, including additional revenue for pet projects. There is nothing new in that tactic.

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/12/30/why-carbon-cash-grabs-fail

Why carbon cash grabs fail 

By Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun 

First posted:  Wednesday, December 30, 2015 06:22 PM EST  | Updated:  Wednesday, December 30, 2015 06:25 PM EST 

Any political leader - such as Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and Alberta Premier Rachel Notley - who imposes a carbon pricing scheme on Canadians that is not 100% revenue neutral, is not interested in reducing man-made global warming.

She, or he, is interested in a cash grab from the public, which isn’t surprising since both the Ontario and Alberta governments are deeply in the red.

A similar debate is underway in B.C., where Premier Christy Clark and NDP opposition leader John Horgan differ on what should be done with monies raised from any future increases to B.C.’s $30-per-tonne carbon tax.

Clark argues the money should be returned to the public as tax credits -- B.C.’s current policy.

Horgan told the Vancouver Sun the money should go to green infrastructure projects such as public transit.

This mirrors plans by Wynne and Notley to spend the revenues from their carbon pricing schemes (cap-and-trade for Wynne, carbon taxes for Notley) on so-called green initiatives like transit.

Simply put, Clark is right. Wynne, Notley and Horgan are wrong.

Any government serious about reducing industrial greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions linked to climate change, does not view carbon pricing as a generator of more government revenue, subject only to vague commitments of future “green” iinvestments.

Rather it seeks to change human behaviour through the tax system, the only effective way to lower emissions.

Truly revenue-neutral carbon pricing returns 100% of the money raised by increasing sales taxes or prices on goods and services that are created using fossil fuel energy, to the public in equivalent income tax cuts.

The purpose is not to grow government revenue but to encourage people to make less carbon-intensive choices in their consumption habits.

That doesn’t mean people stop buying things, causing a recession, but rather that they factor in the fossil fuel energy it takes to produce them in making their purchases.

The 100% return of these new revenues the government receives from carbon pricing as income tax cuts, encourages increased productivity and savings by allowing people to keep more of the money they earn.

The only federal leader to support a version of this policy -- known as carbon fee and dividend -- is the Green Party’s Elizabeth May.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has already made it clear that whatever national carbon pricing scheme he develops with the provinces will not be genuinely revenue neutral.

Thus, it will not lower emissions effectively.

First, building so-called “green” infrastructure such as public transit increases emissions over the short term because of the fossil fuel energy it takes to produce them.

Second, it may well increase them over the long term as well, since political rather than planning considerations often play into where transit is built. Three-quarter empty subways to nowhere don’t cut emissions.

Third, using new carbon pricing schemes to fund already planned infrastructure violates the principle of “additionality” when it comes to lowering emissions.

Additionality means any emission-reducing infrastructure project must be in addition to projects the government was going to build anyway, since we know from real-world experience that emissions will keep rising if governments do “business as usual”.

Simply renaming already planned public transit projects -- which used to be called capital spending and is something governments have done for generations -- as “green” infrastructure projects, is meaningless when it comes to cutting emissions.

It’s time our politicians stopped pretending otherwise.

You can't tell me that a few thousand scientists and universities have more power than the companies that literally power our entire world.

If it were just a "few thousand scientists" involved, then there would be many more thousand pushing the alternate side - the real truth. Once governments and people like Al Gore, who have become even richer from pushing this scam, that's become a little more of a challenge. Government research grants can buy a lot of official university compliance. Many scientists who attempt to get the truth out have been suppressed in a variety of methods, and many major organizations have been caught "adjusting" data to comply with the outcomes that they desire.

the data is only mounting on one side of the discussion.

And that is the non-AGW side. Expect that to increase even further over time.

 

[a_majoor]

While no doubt Kilo will claim these people are in the pay of the Illuminati, here's more debunking of science by "consensus". Fewer scientists believe in Global Warming than Canadians who voted for the Liberals on a percentage basis:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
James Taylor , CONTRIBUTOR

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”


The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

Recommended by Forbes
EYVoice: Maintaining The Entrepreneurial Spirit In A Family Business

Warmists Display Cowardice and Hypocrisy In Avoiding Global Warming Debate
TeradataVoice: More Dimensions, More Dollars: The Power Of Next-Generation Profitability

Is It Hollywood Or Washington? Global Warming Activists Control Government Climate...
The Overwhelming Judgment of Science Rejects Obama's Global Warming Claims
Fortified By Global Warming, Crop Production Keeps Breaking Records
MOST POPULAR Photos: The Richest Person In Every State
Go Ahead And Be Five Minutes Late (Humans Won't Mind)
MOST POPULAR Photos: The World’s Highest-Paid Actors 2015

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

 

[Loachman]

Well, it's settled then.

Happy New Year to all of my fellow deniers.

 

[Old Sweat]

And to start off 2016, here is a link to a post that discusses the emerging theory that global warming and global cooling are caused by volcanic activity affecting the ozone layer. It arose after a volcanologist noted a relationship between CFC use and warming, including the apparent halt after their use was banned. Rather than try to explain it, I instead suggest you read the paper and decide for yourselves.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/22/volcanoes-and-ozone-their-interactive-effect-on-climate-change/

 

[MJP]

Well, it's settled then.

Happy New Year to all of my fellow deniers.

Happy New Year to you as well.  I for one started the year off right with a good old tire burning, following by needlessly idling my vehicle while ensuring all lights in my house were on.  After all that strenuous activity I took a bath in my shillbucks from Big Oil!  Man I hope they keep paying me in 2016 with oil prices so low.

 

[TheHead]

While no doubt Kilo will claim these people are in the pay of the Illuminati, here's more debunking of science by "consensus". Fewer scientists believe in Global Warming than Canadians who voted for the Liberals on a percentage basis:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

This is a terribly misleading article.  This was a non-scientific survey done of engineers,geoscientists and even economists who work in Alberta`s petroleum industry. I believe none of them surveyed were climatologists or were in a field pertaining to climate change. If you take a look at the study itself right in the introduction claims that among climate scientists there is "broad consensus" even though skepticism remains.

This is typical Heartland institute cherry picking.  The same tactic used when they were trying to convince people smoking was not bad for your health. 

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Just to clear:

Heartland=junk

Greenpeace= beyond reproach

Not advocating. Just curious if you believe that certain messengers (as opposed to the info conveyed by the messengers) are inherently biased?

 

[Good2Golf]

This is a terribly misleading article.  This was a non-scientific survey done of engineers,geoscientists and even economists who work in Alberta`s petroleum industry. I believe none of them surveyed were climatologists or were in a field pertaining to climate change.  This is typical Heartland institute cherry picking.  The same tactic used when they were trying to convince people smoking was not bad for your health.

Okay, I'll play along.  How about a peer-reviewed paper by a Waterloo University professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B?

Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says
May 30, 2013

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to new research from the University of Waterloo published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week.

CFCs are already known to deplete ozone, but in-depth statistical analysis now shows that CFCs are also the key driver in global climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

"Conventional thinking says that the emission of human-made non-CFC gases such as carbon dioxide has mainly contributed to global warming. But we have observed data going back to the Industrial Revolution that convincingly shows that conventional understanding is wrong," said Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, biology and chemistry in Waterloo's Faculty of Science. "In fact, the data shows that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays caused both the polar ozone hole and global warming."

"Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined – matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere," Professor Lu said. "My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline."

The findings are based on in-depth statistical analyses of observed data from 1850 up to the present time, Professor Lu's cosmic-ray-driven electron-reaction (CRE) theory of ozone depletion and his previous research into Antarctic ozone depletion and global surface temperatures.

"It was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth's ozone layer was depleted by the sun's ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere," he said. "But in contrast, CRE theory says cosmic rays – energy particles originating in space – play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone."

Lu's theory has been confirmed by ongoing observations of cosmic ray, CFC, ozone and stratospheric temperature data over several 11-year solar cycles. "CRE is the only theory that provides us with an excellent reproduction of 11-year cyclic variations of both polar ozone loss and stratospheric cooling," said Professor Lu. "After removing the natural cosmic-ray effect, my new paper shows a pronounced recovery by ~20% of the Antarctic ozone hole, consistent with the decline of CFCs in the polar stratosphere."

By proving the link between CFCs, ozone depletion and temperature changes in the Antarctic, Professor Lu was able to draw almost perfect correlation between rising global surface temperatures and CFCs in the atmosphere.
"The climate in the Antarctic stratosphere has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact. The change in global surface temperature after the removal of the solar effect has shown zero correlation with CO2 but a nearly perfect linear correlation with CFCs - a correlation coefficient as high as 0.97."

Data recorded from 1850 to 1970, before any significant CFC emissions, show that CO2 levels increased significantly as a result of the Industrial Revolution, but the global temperature, excluding the solar effect, kept nearly constant. The conventional warming model of CO2, suggests the temperatures should have risen by 0.6°C over the same period, similar to the period of 1970-2002.

The analyses indicate the dominance of Lu's CRE theory and the success of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

"We've known for some time that CFCs have a really damaging effect on our atmosphere and we've taken measures to reduce their emissions," Professor Lu said. "We now know that international efforts such as the Montreal Protocol have also had a profound effect on global warming but they must be placed on firmer scientific ground."

"This study underlines the importance of understanding the basic science underlying ozone depletion and global climate change," said Terry McMahon, dean of the faculty of science. "This research is of particular importance not only to the research community, but to policy makers and the public alike as we look to the future of our climate."

Professor Lu's paper, Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change, also predicts that the global sea level will continue to rise for some years as the hole in the ozone recovers increasing ice melting in the polar regions.

"Only when the effect of the global temperature recovery dominates over that of the polar ozone hole recovery, will both temperature and polar ice melting drop concurrently," says Lu.

The peer-reviewed paper published this week not only provides new fundamental understanding of the ozone hole and global climate change but has superior predictive capabilities, compared with the conventional sunlight-driven ozone-depleting and CO2-warming models.