Just saw this on National Newswatch. Go. read. Enjoy. They published the story early when the Liberals threatened a libel suit.
Update: I probably should include the background. Mark Holland is suing over the story that he illegally held the Conservatives' files. His problem? Not that it was illegal, not that the Liberal Party was culpable. He said it was staffers who actually looked through the files and reported to him, so his name shouldn't be included.
Monday, April 23, 2007
The Science Behind Global Warming
Climate change 'science' is currently being led by political bodies, not scientists. Political science is quite simple; the more dire the prediction, the more funding they receive.
Over the past few years, I have been striving to understand the science behind climate change. As promised, I have prepared a post on what I've discovered so far. Brace yourselves, because this is a long post. Even by my standards.
I have found that the most useful data does not come from the UN or the media. In fact, their data is not useful at all. Almost all of their studies assume global warming exists, and the most extreme predictions will come true. Then they calculate the effects on their chosen specialty, such as on nature, the sea level, meteorology, etc. This is why we hear that vast majority of scientific papers predict the devastating effects of global warming. They are not about climate change at all.
This does not, however, mean that global warming does not exist. It does. It just does not do what politicians say it does.
Basic Science
First, a really simple version of the science. Our atmosphere holds in heat. Everyone knows that; it's the reason why the Earth is not as cold as the space around it. The composition of the atmosphere regulates how much of the heat gets trapped.
The reason scientists first looked at carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas is the ice age. By drilling ice in Antarctica, tree cores, sediment cores, they were able to track the average temperature and the levels of carbon in the past. Ice cores especially let them go back hundreds of thousands of years. By tracking the levels of carbon found in the samples and comparing them with the temperature, they theorized that carbon levels lead to increased temperature.
They found that the carbon increases naturally until it reaches a critical mass, then will suddenly be absorbed again and cause an ice age. Then the cycle starts over.
Man's Contribution
Global warming will exist with or without man. However, whenever we burn fuels (or pretty much anything) we are increasing the level of carbon in the atmosphere. Look at the very basic science of fire: Carbon in the fuel reacts with oxygen in the air, and carbon dioxide is released. Or: C + O2 = CO2. Very simple.
What is questioned is how much difference man's contribution makes to natures natural cycle. This cycle existed long before man. Some scientists point out that the average temperature on the Earth has decreased since we started increasing CO2 levels. That's at the very end of the graph.
However, look to the historical correlation of CO2 and temperature. When the CO2 changes drastically, it takes longer for the world's temperature to catch up. This is largely due to the stabilization effect of Earth's oceans. It takes a long time to change their temperature, and they will not allow the Earth's temperature to change rapidly. Seen in that light, the huge increase in CO2 levels is terrifying, because sooner or later the temperature will catch up.
Why Politicians Suck
Politicians love absolutes. They also love money and power. Stephane Dion and Jack Layton have a wonderful weapon. They're telling us that global warming's coming, and unless we elected them now we're all going to die. To make the weapon even more powerful, they are exaggerating the effects of Kyoto to scare us into voting for them.
They know that Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is a wild exaggeration with no scientific fact. (See example at end if you don't believe me). But they will constantly reference it in interviews. Why? It's scary and popular.
John Baird just came out with his dire predictions about following Kyoto. The opposition is challenging the specifics of the statement and using that to refute the obvious facts that meeting the 2008-2012 deadline will devastate us economically.
With politicians leading the climate change debate, no one has to prove anything scientific. You just have to disprove the points made by the opposition. This is easy because even they know they're full of it. Then the electorate gets divided into nice little camps and vote for the person who's telling them what they want to hear.
Conclusions:
1) Global warming is happening no matter what we do. However, we are probably speeding it up. How much is difficult to say, since everyone seems to disagree.
2) You cannot trust most of the climate change time lines because they use the exaggerated forecasts created by political bodies. On that note, we should make a concentrated effort to reduce emissions, but not at the expense of our economy. If we destroy our economy, we can't pay for those reduction plans.
3) The greatest threat posed by global warming is an earlier ice age.
4) Global warming is being blamed for everything. For example, the unusually warm December/January in Ontario was caused by a southern updraft, not global warming. If you don't believe me, note that February was the coldest in 28 years. Or as someone from Alberta or Saskatchewan - their entire winter was especially chilly. Ocean temperature will not allow the drastic temperature changes the politicians predict.
5) If man were to reduce our CO2 emissions to zero today, we would still feel the effects of the CO2 already in the atmosphere. They may reduce to their proper levels over several centuries, or they might hold where they are until the temperature catches up.
This is the result of my research so far. Over the past few years, I have gone from climate change denier to apocalyptic doomsayer and back again. There is an abundance of inaccurate information available on this issue. I learning a lot more when I ditched online research and opened an ancient relic called a textbook.
However, if you must gain some more information online, this website isn't bad.
Al Gore's bad science example:
Scientists are debating a rise in the ocean levels of between 3 inches and 3 feet over the next 300 years (I remember that one because of all the threes). Al Gore avoided that pesky science. His movie shows what will happen if the ice caps melt completely. The oceans will rise 20 feet! Then he has a wonderful computer graphic showing the effects, ignoring that fact that the next ice age will hit long before that happens. His movie is full of scare tactics like that. And he's made money, gained power, and grown popular. Everything a politician needs.
Update:
I forgot to include something. Trees turn CO2 back to oxygen. We also don't know how much of the CO2 increase is caused by deforestation.
Want to help global warming? Plant a tree.
Over the past few years, I have been striving to understand the science behind climate change. As promised, I have prepared a post on what I've discovered so far. Brace yourselves, because this is a long post. Even by my standards.
I have found that the most useful data does not come from the UN or the media. In fact, their data is not useful at all. Almost all of their studies assume global warming exists, and the most extreme predictions will come true. Then they calculate the effects on their chosen specialty, such as on nature, the sea level, meteorology, etc. This is why we hear that vast majority of scientific papers predict the devastating effects of global warming. They are not about climate change at all.
This does not, however, mean that global warming does not exist. It does. It just does not do what politicians say it does.
Basic Science
First, a really simple version of the science. Our atmosphere holds in heat. Everyone knows that; it's the reason why the Earth is not as cold as the space around it. The composition of the atmosphere regulates how much of the heat gets trapped.
The reason scientists first looked at carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas is the ice age. By drilling ice in Antarctica, tree cores, sediment cores, they were able to track the average temperature and the levels of carbon in the past. Ice cores especially let them go back hundreds of thousands of years. By tracking the levels of carbon found in the samples and comparing them with the temperature, they theorized that carbon levels lead to increased temperature.
They found that the carbon increases naturally until it reaches a critical mass, then will suddenly be absorbed again and cause an ice age. Then the cycle starts over.
Man's Contribution
Global warming will exist with or without man. However, whenever we burn fuels (or pretty much anything) we are increasing the level of carbon in the atmosphere. Look at the very basic science of fire: Carbon in the fuel reacts with oxygen in the air, and carbon dioxide is released. Or: C + O2 = CO2. Very simple.
What is questioned is how much difference man's contribution makes to natures natural cycle. This cycle existed long before man. Some scientists point out that the average temperature on the Earth has decreased since we started increasing CO2 levels. That's at the very end of the graph.
However, look to the historical correlation of CO2 and temperature. When the CO2 changes drastically, it takes longer for the world's temperature to catch up. This is largely due to the stabilization effect of Earth's oceans. It takes a long time to change their temperature, and they will not allow the Earth's temperature to change rapidly. Seen in that light, the huge increase in CO2 levels is terrifying, because sooner or later the temperature will catch up.
Why Politicians Suck
Politicians love absolutes. They also love money and power. Stephane Dion and Jack Layton have a wonderful weapon. They're telling us that global warming's coming, and unless we elected them now we're all going to die. To make the weapon even more powerful, they are exaggerating the effects of Kyoto to scare us into voting for them.
They know that Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is a wild exaggeration with no scientific fact. (See example at end if you don't believe me). But they will constantly reference it in interviews. Why? It's scary and popular.
John Baird just came out with his dire predictions about following Kyoto. The opposition is challenging the specifics of the statement and using that to refute the obvious facts that meeting the 2008-2012 deadline will devastate us economically.
With politicians leading the climate change debate, no one has to prove anything scientific. You just have to disprove the points made by the opposition. This is easy because even they know they're full of it. Then the electorate gets divided into nice little camps and vote for the person who's telling them what they want to hear.
Conclusions:
1) Global warming is happening no matter what we do. However, we are probably speeding it up. How much is difficult to say, since everyone seems to disagree.
2) You cannot trust most of the climate change time lines because they use the exaggerated forecasts created by political bodies. On that note, we should make a concentrated effort to reduce emissions, but not at the expense of our economy. If we destroy our economy, we can't pay for those reduction plans.
3) The greatest threat posed by global warming is an earlier ice age.
4) Global warming is being blamed for everything. For example, the unusually warm December/January in Ontario was caused by a southern updraft, not global warming. If you don't believe me, note that February was the coldest in 28 years. Or as someone from Alberta or Saskatchewan - their entire winter was especially chilly. Ocean temperature will not allow the drastic temperature changes the politicians predict.
5) If man were to reduce our CO2 emissions to zero today, we would still feel the effects of the CO2 already in the atmosphere. They may reduce to their proper levels over several centuries, or they might hold where they are until the temperature catches up.
This is the result of my research so far. Over the past few years, I have gone from climate change denier to apocalyptic doomsayer and back again. There is an abundance of inaccurate information available on this issue. I learning a lot more when I ditched online research and opened an ancient relic called a textbook.
However, if you must gain some more information online, this website isn't bad.
Al Gore's bad science example:
Scientists are debating a rise in the ocean levels of between 3 inches and 3 feet over the next 300 years (I remember that one because of all the threes). Al Gore avoided that pesky science. His movie shows what will happen if the ice caps melt completely. The oceans will rise 20 feet! Then he has a wonderful computer graphic showing the effects, ignoring that fact that the next ice age will hit long before that happens. His movie is full of scare tactics like that. And he's made money, gained power, and grown popular. Everything a politician needs.
Update:
I forgot to include something. Trees turn CO2 back to oxygen. We also don't know how much of the CO2 increase is caused by deforestation.
Want to help global warming? Plant a tree.
Implimenting Kyoto
Andrew Coyne's column on Kyoto reveals a few things the rest of the media doesn't seem to focus on. I strongly recommend reading it before continuing, although I will include a few points.
First and foremost, that the Kyoto deadline is not 2012. It is the average between 2008 and 2012. Meaning we would have to reduce CO2 emissions drastically by next year (not possible) or increase far past our targets by 2012 to achieve that average.
Furthermore, there are not enough CO2 credits available from developing countries for us to buy our way to freedom. We would have to bid for credits from countries like Russia, the great irony being that Russia didn't spend any money fixing their environmental problems. Their economy collapsed and they hadn't set ambitious targets.
However, facts never mattered with Kyoto. The left is correct when they say there is no debate on climate change; they don't allow any. Kyoto has served the Liberals well, and continues to do so. Signing Kyoto was all the Liberal government had to do to prove it was serious about the environment. And it was free, no less. Now that they're out of power, it is a weapon they can use against the new government.
It is clear that there was never any way that Harper could have met the 2008-2012 targets in Kyoto. It was already too late. If I were advising Harper, I would advise on one of two courses of action, although I would recommend the second.
1) Admit we cannot reach this target, but remind us that this does not put us in violation of the treaty. It simply adds a penalty for our next target. Instead of spending billions on CO2 credits to meet the current target (as Dion wants to), use those billions to reach the next target, including penalties.
2) Point out the fact that Canada's CO2 emissions are insigificant when compared to the rest of the world, then attack the environment where it counts for Canada; our water. We have some of the best freshwater resources on the planet, and we neet to protect them. I would hit the environment on three fronts; water, smog, and garbage disposal. We can achieve greater results with less money than it would take reaching the Kyoto target, and to me as a Canadian these are more important issues.
I like the second plan, because it provides a clear distinction between the styles of the two parties. You can vote Liberal or NDP and give Russia money, or you can vote Conservative and help Canada's environment.
Note: About plan 2, please do not try to tell me that Kyoto reduces smog. I've seen that a lot on the left side of the blogsphere and it's not true. Smog is mainly composed of tropospheric ozone, sulphur oxides, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides and ammonia gas. Kyoto does not account for any of these gases.
First and foremost, that the Kyoto deadline is not 2012. It is the average between 2008 and 2012. Meaning we would have to reduce CO2 emissions drastically by next year (not possible) or increase far past our targets by 2012 to achieve that average.
Furthermore, there are not enough CO2 credits available from developing countries for us to buy our way to freedom. We would have to bid for credits from countries like Russia, the great irony being that Russia didn't spend any money fixing their environmental problems. Their economy collapsed and they hadn't set ambitious targets.
However, facts never mattered with Kyoto. The left is correct when they say there is no debate on climate change; they don't allow any. Kyoto has served the Liberals well, and continues to do so. Signing Kyoto was all the Liberal government had to do to prove it was serious about the environment. And it was free, no less. Now that they're out of power, it is a weapon they can use against the new government.
It is clear that there was never any way that Harper could have met the 2008-2012 targets in Kyoto. It was already too late. If I were advising Harper, I would advise on one of two courses of action, although I would recommend the second.
1) Admit we cannot reach this target, but remind us that this does not put us in violation of the treaty. It simply adds a penalty for our next target. Instead of spending billions on CO2 credits to meet the current target (as Dion wants to), use those billions to reach the next target, including penalties.
2) Point out the fact that Canada's CO2 emissions are insigificant when compared to the rest of the world, then attack the environment where it counts for Canada; our water. We have some of the best freshwater resources on the planet, and we neet to protect them. I would hit the environment on three fronts; water, smog, and garbage disposal. We can achieve greater results with less money than it would take reaching the Kyoto target, and to me as a Canadian these are more important issues.
I like the second plan, because it provides a clear distinction between the styles of the two parties. You can vote Liberal or NDP and give Russia money, or you can vote Conservative and help Canada's environment.
Note: About plan 2, please do not try to tell me that Kyoto reduces smog. I've seen that a lot on the left side of the blogsphere and it's not true. Smog is mainly composed of tropospheric ozone, sulphur oxides, volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides and ammonia gas. Kyoto does not account for any of these gases.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Thoughts on the Geneva Convention
People cling to the Geneva convention as if it were holy writ. However, I wonder how many would hold their beliefs if they actually read the convention itself. They are largely designed for uniformed soldiers under governmental control.
When people insist we treat prisoners in our conflicts according to the tenants of the conventions, they do not realise that these prisoners would often be executed as war criminals.
Here's a quote from the convention:
Protocol 2, Article 13, Section 2
The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
If we were to absolve them of the war crimes committed, the Geneva convention would allow prisoners to be held until the end of the conflict, at which time they would be released unconditionally. Both of these are questionable inmodern conflicts.
These days, wars are rarely fought across borders by soldiers. We cannot negotitate with the Taliban, or even hold their leaders to account for individual war crimes, since they operate in independent cells. We need to expand the Geneva conventions to account for modern wars, or it is going to be useless.
Thoughts and debate are welcome.
When people insist we treat prisoners in our conflicts according to the tenants of the conventions, they do not realise that these prisoners would often be executed as war criminals.
Here's a quote from the convention:
Protocol 2, Article 13, Section 2
The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
If we were to absolve them of the war crimes committed, the Geneva convention would allow prisoners to be held until the end of the conflict, at which time they would be released unconditionally. Both of these are questionable inmodern conflicts.
These days, wars are rarely fought across borders by soldiers. We cannot negotitate with the Taliban, or even hold their leaders to account for individual war crimes, since they operate in independent cells. We need to expand the Geneva conventions to account for modern wars, or it is going to be useless.
Thoughts and debate are welcome.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Good call!
It seems the Conservative government has decided not to make the vote on the Afghanistan mission a matter of confidence. While I support the mission and would have no problem with an extension, that cannot and must not be the issue the government falls on.
Why not? Simple! Because for the 36 or 45 days of the election campaign, Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan will have a big bullseye on their backs. The Taliban will know that all they have to do is kill a few Canadians in that time and we will elect a government to pull them out.
So the government has to suck it up and accept this motion as is. They don't have to like it, just like I don't like the games the Liberals have been playing with the military for years, but in this case it is for the greater good.
Why not? Simple! Because for the 36 or 45 days of the election campaign, Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan will have a big bullseye on their backs. The Taliban will know that all they have to do is kill a few Canadians in that time and we will elect a government to pull them out.
So the government has to suck it up and accept this motion as is. They don't have to like it, just like I don't like the games the Liberals have been playing with the military for years, but in this case it is for the greater good.
In Defense of Mulroney
Brian Mulroney has always had my respect. Here is a man who saw what needed to be done, and did it, regardless of the opposition he faced. His larger initiatives include NAFTA, the GST, cancelling the National Energy Program and two attempts to 'fix' Trudeau's constitution to include Quebec. His lesser-known initiatives include supporting an independent Ukraine (before any western country) and opposing the South African aparthied (when the US and UK did not).
Later, he was forcibly evicted from caucus based on allegations which later proved to be completely untrue. (Granted, I get to feel superior on this point because when these accusations were broken, I was in Grade 2 and living overseas)
However, his record is not the only reason I write this post. There is also Trudeau.
Trudeau did a lot of good things in his tenure. His accomplisments include the Constitution, the Charter, the Canada Health Act and huge increases in social spending and foreign aid. However, he had no ways to pay for all this. Trudeau entered power with a debt of $18 billion. We could have paid that off in a year. He finally retired with a debt of $200 and a huge deficeit and a national recession. Mulroney spent 9 years trying to keep improve our economy to the point where slaying the deficit was possible.
Some would argue that the financial burden Trudeau left was necessary for the greater good. I can respect that argument, even if I will argue with the extremes Trudeau went to. However, most Liberals (capital L) seem to argue that Trudeau was perfect economical and all our finacial burdens can be laid at the feet of Mulroney. This is what happens when your primary source for historical information is the CBC.
Don't believe me? Can't blame you. I haven't referenced a single fact in this post. And I don't trust media to evaluate economic history. So I'll give you a proper study.
Here. (this is a nice one. It is also the only scholarly study I can find online)
I would like to include more, but it is surprisingly difficult to find good economic analyses online. Textbooks are great, but I'm a little far from Robart's (University of Toronto Library) right now, even if I wanted to take the time to scan it.
I welcome people to refute me on this post. It is quite easy to debate the tenures of Mulroney and Trudeau. But please, use facts and arguments, and try to avoid name calling and references to the CBC or the Liberal Party Website.
Later, he was forcibly evicted from caucus based on allegations which later proved to be completely untrue. (Granted, I get to feel superior on this point because when these accusations were broken, I was in Grade 2 and living overseas)
However, his record is not the only reason I write this post. There is also Trudeau.
Trudeau did a lot of good things in his tenure. His accomplisments include the Constitution, the Charter, the Canada Health Act and huge increases in social spending and foreign aid. However, he had no ways to pay for all this. Trudeau entered power with a debt of $18 billion. We could have paid that off in a year. He finally retired with a debt of $200 and a huge deficeit and a national recession. Mulroney spent 9 years trying to keep improve our economy to the point where slaying the deficit was possible.
Some would argue that the financial burden Trudeau left was necessary for the greater good. I can respect that argument, even if I will argue with the extremes Trudeau went to. However, most Liberals (capital L) seem to argue that Trudeau was perfect economical and all our finacial burdens can be laid at the feet of Mulroney. This is what happens when your primary source for historical information is the CBC.
Don't believe me? Can't blame you. I haven't referenced a single fact in this post. And I don't trust media to evaluate economic history. So I'll give you a proper study.
Here. (this is a nice one. It is also the only scholarly study I can find online)
I would like to include more, but it is surprisingly difficult to find good economic analyses online. Textbooks are great, but I'm a little far from Robart's (University of Toronto Library) right now, even if I wanted to take the time to scan it.
I welcome people to refute me on this post. It is quite easy to debate the tenures of Mulroney and Trudeau. But please, use facts and arguments, and try to avoid name calling and references to the CBC or the Liberal Party Website.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Busy week for democratic manipulation
It has begun. The Liberals have started
manipulating their nominations to increase female candidates. These past few days have also seen the Greens reject a candidate and, of course, Dion and May choosing not to field candidates in ridings.
Before I discuss Dion and the Liberals' creative approach to democracy, I'll deal with Potvin. If I don't, I'll have Liberals in here trying to equate the two. I will assume everyone is familiar with the comments he has made. Dumping his candidacy is expected, and should in fact be applauded. After all, why should the Green Party use their time and money to try to elect a candidate who contradicts their views?
Andrew Coyne has raised the point (although I suspect cynicism) "What about all those disenfranchised anti-imperialists and 9/11 conspiracy theorists in Vancouver Kingsway? Shouldn't they get the nutter they nominated?" Absolutely! He can run as an independent. He'll be one of the few candidates actively pursuing the paranoid-nutbar vote!
Dion, however, is not faced with candidates who contradict the Liberal platform. He is rejecting people based on their gender. We have laws against those things. Laws the Liberals claim they will defend to the ends of the Earth.
Dion's theme this week seems to be "the electorate is too stupid to do what we want, so we'll do it for them." It was the message behind withholding a candidate in Central Nova (I talk about that in my previous post). Now, it's the message forcing more women to be nominated. If you want more female candidates, send them professionals to support their nominations. But let them win democratically. Dion has just screwed every Liberal in Central Nova, and now he's screwing over the Liberals who have been campaigning for months to win nominations.
Currently, Dion has power over the Liberal Party and little more, and this is how he treats Liberals. This man wants us to make him be Prime Minister of Canada?
manipulating their nominations to increase female candidates. These past few days have also seen the Greens reject a candidate and, of course, Dion and May choosing not to field candidates in ridings.
Before I discuss Dion and the Liberals' creative approach to democracy, I'll deal with Potvin. If I don't, I'll have Liberals in here trying to equate the two. I will assume everyone is familiar with the comments he has made. Dumping his candidacy is expected, and should in fact be applauded. After all, why should the Green Party use their time and money to try to elect a candidate who contradicts their views?
Andrew Coyne has raised the point (although I suspect cynicism) "What about all those disenfranchised anti-imperialists and 9/11 conspiracy theorists in Vancouver Kingsway? Shouldn't they get the nutter they nominated?" Absolutely! He can run as an independent. He'll be one of the few candidates actively pursuing the paranoid-nutbar vote!
Dion, however, is not faced with candidates who contradict the Liberal platform. He is rejecting people based on their gender. We have laws against those things. Laws the Liberals claim they will defend to the ends of the Earth.
Dion's theme this week seems to be "the electorate is too stupid to do what we want, so we'll do it for them." It was the message behind withholding a candidate in Central Nova (I talk about that in my previous post). Now, it's the message forcing more women to be nominated. If you want more female candidates, send them professionals to support their nominations. But let them win democratically. Dion has just screwed every Liberal in Central Nova, and now he's screwing over the Liberals who have been campaigning for months to win nominations.
Currently, Dion has power over the Liberal Party and little more, and this is how he treats Liberals. This man wants us to make him be Prime Minister of Canada?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)