Is This a Canada Thing or Just a Quebec Thing?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Is This a Canada Thing or Just a Quebec Thing?

Sometimes I wonder about the perception of irony in our esteemed northern neighbors.

This happened in Quebec, so is this cluelessness relegated only to Quebec or is it nationwide?

Thousands March Through Snow Protesting Global Warming

(Yes, I know they now call it "climate change" instead of "global warming," but some of us still have the faculty of memory and we like to use it. As the saying goes, use it or dupe it. )

Michael

[Selene]

I get his/their e-mails every day and enjoy them.

“You can either protect our climate or you can develop the tar sands, but you cannot do both at the same time,” Karel Mayrand, Quebec head of the David Suzuki Foundation, told the Globe and Mail. U.S. and Canadian environmentalists have campaigned heavily against oil sands production in Canada, saying it unleashes more greenhouse gases than conventional oil production and is ruining tribal lands.

However, as you know, their argument is that snow is caused by global warming/climate change and that no snow is caused by global warming/climate change.

Now the can't have your cake and eat it never enters their messaging.

It is the Frans Kafka** school of argument.

A...

**""Kafka trained as a lawyer and after completing his legal education, obtained employment with an insurance company. He began to write short stories in his spare time. For the rest of his life, he complained about the little time he had to devote to what he came to regard as his calling. He regretted having to devote so much attention to his Brotberuf ("day job", literally "bread job"). Kafka preferred to communicate by letter; he wrote hundreds of letters to family and close female friends, including his father, his fiancée Felice Bauer, and his youngest sister Ottla. He had a complicated and troubled relationship with his father that had a major effect on his writing. He also suffered conflict over being Jewish, feeling that it had little to do with him, although critics argue that it influenced his writing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Kafka

[william.scherk]

Is This a Canada Thing or Just a Quebec Thing?

It's actually a Canada thing, with some slight regional variations. On the whole, Canadians are much more 'believers' than Americans in global warming/climate change. On the other hand, Conservatives in Canada show rates of belief comparable to US Democrats. See this table from a poll taken last year which illustrates the regional and language variation (click image to go to poll). All in all a thing shared across the country.

See also the results from earlier (2013) comparisons between US and Canadian attitudes and beliefs about climate change. Emphases added.

Climate change is a complex phenomenon. As a result, the issue may be perceived from various perspectives. An important place to start when exploring the distribution of opinions on climate change is with the fundamental beliefs people hold. Is the climate actually warming? If so, what accounts for this change? The survey results indicate solid majorities of individuals in both Canada and the United States believe there is strong evidence that the average temperature on Earth is warming. However, results also show that Canadians are considerably more likely than Americans to hold this position. As can be seen in Table One, 4 out of 5 residents in Canada believe that the climate is warming compared to only 3 out of 5 Americans in 2013. In addition, Americans are roughly twice as likely as Canadians (25% to 12%) to believe that there is no solid evidence of global warming or are not sure about their views (14% to 8%).

[...] Although these partisan differences in Canada and the United States are similar, Canadians who support the Conservative party are still more likely than the average American to believe that global warming is occurring (Table Three). However, consistent with partisan divide, Canadian Conservatives are slightly less likely to hold this belief than American Democrats (71% to 68%).

See also a 2011 comparative analysis by the Brookings Institute. It shows the same kind of national differences. I found this notable (emphases added):

• In the United States an individual’s partisan affiliation is the most important determinant of their views on the existence of global warming, with Democrats significantly more likely than Republicans to believe that the Earth is warming.

• Partisan affiliation is also associated with individual views on global warming in Canada, with Conservative Party supporters significantly less likely than supporters of all other parties to believe the Earth is warming.

• Among the cohort of Americans and Canadians who believe in climate change there is significant division on the root causes of global warming, with most believers pointing to both human activity and natural factors as contributing to increasing world temperatures.

• Americans remain highly divided on claims that scientists are manipulating climate research for their own interests, with most Canadians rejecting such claims.

This perhaps shouldn't be any surprise ... Canadians in general tack left in comparison to the USA, across the board. The major parties in Canada's Parliament -- including the ruling Conservatives -- hold the same basic climate consensus. The differences are in policy. The Conservatives are much more interested in 'adaptation' than mitigation, and show no interest in slowing down or otherwise limiting resource extraction in the oil-patch.

Sometimes I wonder about the perception of irony in our esteemed northern neighbors.

The irony is apparent perhaps to Americans ... snow on the ground and chilly temperatures in early April in Quebec City is a normal, expected seasonal thing. Quebec City has a particular climate characterized by harsh winters; the weather in that place today is expected.

And of course not immediately apparent in the Daily Caller article was the object of the demonstators' concerns -- a climate summit of first ministers held yesterday in Quebec City.

This happened in Quebec, so is this cluelessness relegated only to Quebec or is it nationwide?

Thousands March Through Snow Protesting Global Warming

I can interpret your question a few ways. The 'cluelessness' is of agitating for 'climate change action' by the governments assembled for the summit. The 'cluelessness' is of naive environmental activists in a general sense (anti-industry, anti-growth, anti-tar sands). The 'cluelessness' is in the belief that global warming will impact Canada negatively. In all these senses, the cluelessness is well rooted and nation-wide, for better or worse.

I think you probably mean more that it seems silly to march against 'global warming' on a chilly Quebec day. That the optics undercut any point the marchers meant to make. That snow on the ground on April 13 is a freaky thing, and that this chilliness in itself contradicts any claim or belief in anthropogenic global warming.

You may be entirely right about the cluelessness of a majority of Canadians on these issues. Where I think you (and the Daily Caller and Watts Up With That blog) are slightly off is that the weather in Quebec City at this time of year says something about the larger issues of concern to the demonstrators and the provinces and territories.

Edited April 15, 2015 by william.scherk

[Mikee]

You'd think Canada would welcome "Global Warming". Then they could broaden than ribbon of humanity at our northern border a few miles farther to the north...

Or...it could be just cabin fever.

[Brant Gaede]

I can't respect any discussion about "climate change." That climate changes is like saying "water is wet."

The subject per se is moronic. The real discussion is about AGW which is no longer factually defendable as absolute truth so the AGWers defend it by calling it "climate change"--the absolute truth--and smearing "climate change deniers" as idiots. Well, they would be except they aren't denying CC, they are denying AGW.

--Brant

bait and switch

[william.scherk]

I can't respect any discussion about "climate change." That climate changes is like saying "water is wet."

Nope. You have made a simple logical error.

Consider the 'climate' of Tucson; can you describe your city's climate by only speaking of temperature? I'd say no. It would be moronic to do so.

The subject per se is moronic.

Nope. An elementary confusion of terms is sending you down the wrong path, Brant. Temperature, seasonal variations, diurnal variation, vegetation cover and patterns, snowfall, precipitation, wind, humidity, etc -- these are climate attributes. If you said "It's hot" in answer to "what is Tucson's climate?" then the answer would be partial and essentially meaningless.

It is trivially true that climate changes over time. The non-trivial issue of the span of time and particular climatic changes over different time-scales is what is more interesting. This is what makes climate sciences meaningful and important for humans, and their findings (and disputes) of more than academic interest.

To make the same points more pithily: climate comprises temperature and much more. Climate change means much more than temperature change.

The real discussion is about AGW which is no longer factually defendable as absolute truth

Have you ever read a book on climate change? Have you given the subject a fair shake? It is very easy to make pronouncements from the easy-chair.

so the AGWers defend it by calling it "climate change"--the absolute truth--and smearing "climate change deniers" as idiots. Well, they would be except they aren't denying CC, they are denying AGW.

You seem to be claiming that there is no anthropogenic global warming. That would make you a skeptic, I guess. But since you have adduced no evidence for the claim it is mere assertion.

If you want to sit out every discussion on these subjects, that is fine with me. It seems to me that you are not equipped to discuss. Rather than denigrate discussants with a sweeping assertion, why not engage?

(I think I might have a rough answer to why OLers in particular and Objectivish folks more generally disdain any discussion of climate change. The disdain likely grows from a perception that humankind is simply not able to effect climate, that efforts to curb the emission of greenhouse gases will destroy economies and human potential.)

As for climate change 'denialism,' I've never used that term. It is needlessly emotive. The preferred term of those who take issue with anthropogenic climate change is skeptic. There are additional terms in play within the broader skeptical community -- lukewarmer, dragon-slayer. Maybe you could do a little research to more clearly express your own opinions. Maybe you are a lukewarmer or a dragonslayer. Maybe you deny the findings of climate-scientists across the board.

-- a challenge to you, Brant. In your own words, please lay out the atmospheric process that 'the AGWAers' suggest have increased global temperatures this century. If you do that, I will attempt to do the same thing from the other 'sides,' detailing what the different arguments are for lukewarmers, skeptics and dragon-slayers.

Edited April 15, 2015 by william.scherk

[Selene]

-- a challenge to you, Brant. .

[william.scherk]

You'd think Canada would welcome "Global Warming". Then they could broaden than ribbon of humanity at our northern border a few miles farther to the north...

Or...it could be just cabin fever.

I am fairly cynical about the issue as it plays out in Canadian politics. There are indeed economically-positive aspects of warming for the nation as a whole. One example would be the summertime opening of the Northwest Passage. Another would be the expansion of potential agricultural land. Another would be as you suggest, a lighter winter, with fewer costs of snow-removal, heating and so on.

There are also a few economic knocks. To give one small example -- far northern communities have a 'seasonal window' for ice-roads that has shrank and is shrinking. This necessitates air-supply to outposts, mines, exploration sites, Inuit communities. Another example of negative effects is increased likelihood of drought in our breadbasket prairie provinces.

Another effect that is not so easily mitigated can be seen in the boreal forest here in British Columbia (and portions of Alberta). We are in the tail end of a 'hundred year' warming of these forests in the wintertime -- not on average, but in absolute terms.

This has led to the devastating expansion of the forest areas affected by the mountain pine beetle. BC has diversified its economy since WWII, and so the gross effects on forestry have not translated to a grave general economic hit. At the same time, forestry has been decimated, and communities in the north have suffered serious dislocations. There is little dispute that warming of the BC climate in wintertime is mostly responsible for the spread of destruction. The beetle larvae are killed by a deep cold spell of at least several weeks of -35 degree weather. It has been many winters since that last occurred widely. Here's a depiction of what I mean. The brown areas are dead trees. There are an estimated 18 million hectares now under siege.

I'd venture that the problem with the projected warming in Canada is that many of the knock-on effects that could be adapted to over long time-periods -- say sea-level rise -- are difficult, costly and resource-sucking in a shorter term.

Back to cynicism: Canada has missed all of its legislated or treatied national targets for greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction, It signed then abrogated the Kyoto protocol, and is very likely to do the same with any other international CO₂ treaty. (BC has a carbon tax, Ontario will have cap and trade)

About the only thing that differentiates Canada from the US at the policy level is that there is not so much disputatiousness in the public sphere. Each party understands or accepts that climate change is occurring and will continue.

In the final analysis, I think we will continue on a kind of two-headed path. Reduce emissions in every way possible that does not affect economic growth and resource extraction. In other words, Tar Sands a-go-go, pipelines up the yin-yang and damn the torpedoes. The powers that be will simply not allow economic growth to be sacrificed to feel-good environmentalism, despite policy, despite scientific alarmism, despite a million marches in the snow!

Edited April 15, 2015 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In the final analysis, I think we will continue on a kind of two-headed path. Reduce emissions in every way possible that does not affect economic growth and resource extraction. In other words, Tar Sands a-go-go, pipelines up the yin-yang and damn the torpedoes. The powers that be will simply not allow economic growth to be sacrificed to feel-good environmentalism, despite policy, despite scientific alarmism, despite a million marches in the snow!

William,

You left out the spin.

The agenda-pushers will still keep acting like true believers and spinning.

If you add up all the caught-red-handed deceptions, ham-handed intimidation of normal people who ask innocent questions, worse and even heavier ham-handed intimidation of scientists who disagree with the conclusions of the cabal that pushes the man-made climate change agenda, the constant vicious snark against anyone who dares point to errors and wrong predictions and ask what's going on, the nonstop blatant attempts at power grabs, and so on, is it any wonder those who believe humans are bad for the earth are losing credibility?

The following comment is from a purely story-war standpoint, not the merits of the science. Supporters of man-made climate change are starting to be seen by the general public as a doomsday cult similar to the Jehovah's Witnesses--they announce the end of times, they wait, the date comes and goes and nothing happens, then they change the story so they can keep believing. Now it's a new date. And they keep preaching the end of times.

Global warming has morphed into "climate change," foul weather that was predicted but didn't happen has morphed into "weather has nothing to do with climate," foul weather that happened but not predicted has become proof that humans are causing it, and so on. The constant rationalizations are giving conspiracy theory thinking a real run for the money. And people are noticing.

Public relations-wise, man-made climate change is no longer an issue of science. It's a religion bordering on a cult. That's the public image. It has nothing to do with what the man-made climate change agenda people want, nothing to do with their doomsday storyline, nothing to do even with the science, and everything to do with the sleazy way they have behaved over decades.

The tactic of mocking this person or that for not believing, trying to cast such people as unscientific yahoos, will not work any longer to fix that image. Mention Al Gore in any large gathering and you can already see the eyes roll and the jokes start. The sleaze has gone into the decomposition phase and is stinking so bad even people without a position are smelling it. Yet scapegoat is all the agenda-supporters do so far.

Nathaniel Branden had a cute phrase for this kind of stuckness: "More of what doesn't work doesn't work."

I want to say, "Try honesty." But I fear that has no resonance with true believers. They want compliance, not objectivity.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I can't respect any discussion about "climate change." That climate changes is like saying "water is wet."

Nope. You have made a simple logical error.

Consider the 'climate' of Tucson; can you describe your city's climate by only speaking of temperature? I'd say no. It would be moronic to do so.

The subject per se is moronic.

Nope. An elementary confusion of terms is sending you down the wrong path, Brant. Temperature, seasonal variations, diurnal variation, vegetation cover and patterns, snowfall, precipitation, wind, humidity, etc -- these are climate attributes. If you said "It's hot" in answer to "what is Tucson's climate?" then the answer would be partial and essentially meaningless.

It is trivially true that climate changes over time. The non-trivial issue of the span of time and particular climatic changes over different time-scales is what is more interesting. This is what makes climate sciences meaningful and important for humans, and their findings (and disputes) of more than academic interest.

To make the same points more pithily: climate comprises temperature and much more. Climate change means much more than temperature change.

The real discussion is about AGW which is no longer factually defendable as absolute truth

Have you ever read a book on climate change? Have you given the subject a fair shake? It is very easy to make pronouncements from the easy-chair.

so the AGWers defend it by calling it "climate change"--the absolute truth--and smearing "climate change deniers" as idiots. Well, they would be except they aren't denying CC, they are denying AGW.

You seem to be claiming that there is no anthropogenic global warming. That would make you a skeptic, I guess. But since you have adduced no evidence for the claim it is mere assertion.

If you want to sit out every discussion on these subjects, that is fine with me. It seems to me that you are not equipped to discuss. Rather than denigrate discussants with a sweeping assertion, why not engage?

(I think I might have a rough answer to why OLers in particular and Objectivish folks more generally disdain any discussion of climate change. The disdain likely grows from a perception that humankind is simply not able to effect climate, that efforts to curb the emission of greenhouse gases will destroy economies and human potential.)

As for climate change 'denialism,' I've never used that term. It is needlessly emotive. The preferred term of those who take issue with anthropogenic climate change is skeptic. There are additional terms in play within the broader skeptical community -- lukewarmer, dragon-slayer. Maybe you could do a little research to more clearly express your own opinions. Maybe you are a lukewarmer or a dragonslayer. Maybe you deny the findings of climate-scientists across the board.

-- a challenge to you, Brant. In your own words, please lay out the atmospheric process that 'the AGWAers' suggest have increased global temperatures this century. If you do that, I will attempt to do the same thing from the other 'sides,' detailing what the different arguments are for lukewarmers, skeptics and dragon-slayers.

The simplicity of my position which you speciously decry merely reflects the simplicity of the target of my criticism.

I'm supposed to adduce evidence and the alternative position doesn't? Since they started it . . .

I note the gracious attempt to get me to fight play in your dojo.

--Brant

when anybody suggests ignorance for the possibility of not reading any book--well, I tried to read one by Bill McKibben(sp) my late mother had--she was into this--it was so bad I threw it into the garbage

[Selene]

Y'all don't have the new memo...we be changing da name to Ecomodernist...and Anthropocene, the Age of Humans...

An Ecomodernist Manifesto

To say that the Earth is a human planet becomes truer every day. Humans are made from the Earth, and the Earth is remade by human hands. Many earth scientists express this by stating that the Earth has entered a new geological epoch: the Anthropocene, the Age of Humans.

As scholars, scientists, campaigners, and citizens, we write with the conviction that knowledge and technology, applied with wisdom, might allow for a good, or even great, Anthropocene. A good Anthropocene demands that humans use their growing social, economic, and technological powers to make life better for people, stabilize the climate, and protect the natural world.

In this, we affirm one long-standing environmental ideal, that humanity must shrink its impacts on the environment to make more room for nature, while we reject another, that human societies must harmonize with nature to avoid economic and ecological collapse.

http://www.ecomodernism.org/manifesto/

[Brant Gaede]

Maybe Bill wants something like this, though I wonder.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/15/skeptical-climate-scientist-dismantles-dem-lawmakers-alarmism/

[Selene]

Is Bill's position that the state does issue laws/regulations that prohibit certain industries from operating?

I am not clear on where he stands.

For example, this "drought" that is present in California is being used to justify actions by the state to change/modify individual and business behavior.

However, when the state [federal] acts in this manner, it leads to these types of decisions:

http://www.wired.com/2015/04/california-spend-4-billion-gallons-water-fish/

It was the second such order in the past three weeks. The SSJID complied with the first. According to the Manteca Bulletin, a local paper that has been covering the standoff, this flushed out 15,000 acre feet of water and 23 steelhead trout. But this latest order, which would reportedly use another 12,000 acre feet to save only six fish, was too much for Shields. (Fisheries agencies haven’t yet confirmed that count.)

Is man more important to the "ecosystem?" Or, the number of steelhead trout?

I know this will sound harsh, unfeeling and a troglodyte, however, we have a quick fish fry, the humans use the water and we save the taxpayers tons of money in attorney fees.

Next case.

A...

[william.scherk]

The simplicity of my position which you speciously decry merely reflects the simplicity of the target of my criticism.

I'm supposed to adduce evidence and the alternative position doesn't? Since they started it . . .

I note the gracious attempt to get me to fight play in your dojo.

My apologies if my tone was too tart, Brant.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I corrected your notion that climate change is a meaningless tautology (since climate does, er, change). I explained as best I could in a short comment.

In my challenge to you, I offered quid pro quo. I hoped and still hope that you could give a 'standing on one foot' explanation of what 'the AGWers' hold to be true. I probably should have mentioned CO2 when I noted atmospheric processes.

Here's why I made that challenge: to reorient discussion. If you would lay out what you understand is the basic process (by which the foolish or corrupt scientists believe our atmosphere can warm from human emissions), then I would lay out, as best and simply as I could, the major objections that are part of the skeptical response to claims of AGW.

[Selene]

Can we set some factual points of reference first.

1. The planet [entire globe] has been warming since the little ice age....__Not Sure __Yes ___No.

A...

[Brant Gaede]

My position, Bill, is merely reflective of the scientist I linked to in post 12.

--Brant

the rest would be noise if from me so I don't make it, but thanks for the invite even though I have absolutely no intention of getting bogged down in my noise vs yours pretending we can somehow layman our way thereby to detailed scientifically valid conclusions any interested scientist would revel in--not!

[william.scherk]

Maybe Bill wants something like this, though I wonder.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/15/skeptical-climate-scientist-dismantles-dem-lawmakers-alarmism/

Maybe Bill will sit down at the bus stop and wait for a question.

How about, Whattaya think of Judith Curry's rebuke to Beyer? Do you want it? Do you like it? Do you need it, Bill? Maybe you are not onside with the right guys like me. I post hyperlinks too, big fella. So, whattaya say to the hyperlink?

I say, thanks for the href, Brant. I did some link-following and reading/watching (the exchange with Beyer on video). She is a perfectly fine example of skepticism, and her testimony was pointed and strongly argued. I read what she wrote on her blog and I read the transcript of her testimony. It stimulated some thought. I wonder if I should post an excerpt and my comments.

I am familiar with Curry and with her critics. She is a voice in a kind of pitched battle. I've been plowing through her contribution (of six experts) to the APS climate change statement review process. Her most pointed challenge to mainstream climatology is with uncertainties. There is a fascinating-to-me set of critiques applied to her stance and opinions. She is a big enough name to be a go-to guy for the skeptic side.

Besides that, I don't see why I should answer side-eye questions while my challenge was made in good faith, Brant. I'd like to know your position in the debate. I've made mine fairly clear. I would really rather talk about the mechanics of the basic arguments made by the skeptic and warmist science sides; it's an attempt at solving an epistemological puzzle for each 'side' -- how would you know you were wrong/what would convince you of the opposing opinion?

-- I've got a reply to Michael's comment above still in drydock. His overview too got me thinking and reading and organizing my thoughts and gaps in knowledge. Michael's comment was a strongly-argued almost 'meta' view that really made me consider the various levels of information flow, the spin factors, the influence machines, all the bad things he nailed.

Brant, I wish I'd see more of your thinking on those lines, something that is challenging, provocative, rather than dismissive. Michael's comments stood aside from scientific issues to address what he finds most important, the story wars, the spin, the high-charged ultra-PR machinations. Exciting stuff.

What do you got in ya, Brant?

Is Bill's position that the state does issue laws/regulations that prohibit certain industries from operating?

I am not clear on where he stands.

The question might be put, "hey William, the opening post and your comments were triggered by Canada's march in the snow. Is your position that the the state does issue laws/regulations that prohibit certain industries from operating?"

I think regulation has main and side effects. A particular law -- say an endangered species act -- will have effects on industry, for sure. Your example of a fish-man fight over some 12,000 acre feet of water is a case in point, yes. From my understanding, there is a bewildering welter of water agencies, federal/state fish and wildlife bureaux and such like that attend such a controversy -- with various mandates. In a drought year, there isn't enough water to pull down for all the water 'consumers.' As this fight in the San Joaquin valley shows, somebody gets 'punished.'

So, yes. It's accurate enough to say that state can and does take measures that directly harm industries, up to and including prohibitions on all or part of operations.

If you meant the question in a more general sense, asking if as I am a 'believer' or a 'warmist' do I support the fish over man in the water struggle in California, the fish being steelhead trout, delta smelt and chinook salmon ...

Here I say no. The smelt is functionally extinct, the steelhead looks like it is dying out anyway, and the chinook can be later populated with farm and lab fish if it dies out in this system. Does it matter if there are no more smelt, chinook and steelhead in the system? There will be a knock for Calfornia fishing industries, and some other effects (increased salinity in the delta's mid-reaches, reduced aquifer recharge, and a few boring others).

I am not convinced by ecological, sustainablility arguments that humankind has unleashed an extinction event unprecedented. In the California example, I take a ten-thousand years view. The state has had mega-drought before. We humans weren't then at a state to do anything for the fish but catch and eat them. Somehow those early Americans survived on the bounty of the river systems through droughts.

Those early Americans are no more. Humankind has engineered great works to slake its thirsts and we can't all of us together 'save' dwindling species. The imperative is for human growth and development. If we make a few mistakes here and there, ten thousand years will fix them.

For example, this "drought" that is present in California is being used to justify actions by the state to change/modify individual and business behavior.

Yes. Though I wouldn't put drought in quotes. Why do you do that? Are you not convinced there is a drought?

However, when the state [federal] acts in this manner, it leads to these types of decisions:

http://www.wired.com/2015/04/california-spend-4-billion-gallons-water-fish/

[...]

Is man more important to the "ecosystem?" Or, the number of steelhead trout?

That dispute over a 'pulse' of water is not over. I don't know how it will turn out.

In any case, my brother in research, my 'position' on California drought/fish kill/water fights has tried to be descriptive and informational in the other thread, and here in this thread about Canada's 'cluelessness.' I've tried not to lard it up with too many 'positions' or stances. I don't intend acrimony or contentiousness. I like to understand large and complicated issues. Sometimes that search for 'the way things are' doesn't pay off with 'the way things ought to be.' I mean, I don't always come to a conclusion strong enough to share.

Edited April 16, 2015 by william.scherk

[Selene]

Thanks.

The dispute over a 'pulse' of water is not over. I don't know how it will turn out.

In any case, my brother in research, my 'position' on California drought/fish kill/water fights has tried to be descriptive and informational in the other thread, and here in this thread about Canada's 'cluelessness.' I've tried not to lard it up with too many 'positions' or stances. I don't intend acrimony or contentiousness. I like to understand large and complicated issues. Sometimes that search for 'the way things are' doesn't pay off with 'the way things ought to be.' I mean, I don't always come to a conclusion strong enough to share.

Fair enough and I understand your thinking from a different perspective now.

I approach issues in a dual manner, as a debate and as rhetoric.

Additionally, I should have qualified my use of [ " ] marks. I mean them in the Korzybski general semantic sense:

Quotes

Sometimes we use words in ways that are not intended to be literal, but ironic, sarcastic, or facetious. Or we want to flag certain words as “so-called” or that we’re using them in an unconventional or unusual sense. The use of quote marks around such words alerts the reader (or viewer-listener if “air quotes” are used) to be careful in reacting to or evaluating this particular usage.

Semantic Reaction

Another critical term formulated by Korzybski that is often misunderstood; it does not refer to “reactions to words.” Rather, Korzybski employed the term to refer to the total response of an individual to any event, activity, situation, or personal interaction. By “total response” we refer to our thoughts, feelings, behaviors, attitudes, etc., from our non-verbal sensory reactions to our cognitive awarenesses.

http://www.generalsemantics.org/

A...

[Brant Gaede]

The simplicity of my position which you speciously decry merely reflects the simplicity of the target of my criticism.

I'm supposed to adduce evidence and the alternative position doesn't? Since they started it . . .

I note the gracious attempt to get me to fight play in your dojo.

My apologies if my tone was too tart, Brant.

I think you may have misunderstood me. I corrected your notion that climate change is a meaningless tautology (since climate does, er, change). I explained as best I could in a short comment.

In my challenge to you, I offered quid pro quo. I hoped and still hope that you could give a 'standing on one foot' explanation of what 'the AGWers' hold to be true. I probably should have mentioned CO2 when I noted atmospheric processes.

Here's why I made that challenge: to reorient discussion. If you would lay out what you understand is the basic process (by which the foolish or corrupt scientists believe our atmosphere can warm from human emissions), then I would lay out, as best and simply as I could, the major objections that are part of the skeptical response to claims of AGW.

Then you don't know now what you want me to relate or you do but expect more for what you do know isn't enough to counter your ostensible position?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

"Global warming" goes back to "global cooling" which it replaced.

'Will human error dissolve the ozone layer of the atmosphere at the edge of space and bring on us the destructive ultraviolet radiation of the sun? A six - or seven-degree change in the earth's climate, down or up, would produce a new ice age or melt the polar ice caps and flood great cities and lowlands. Will excessive burning of fossil fuels produce such a change of climate?" (Adventures In Conservation with Franklin Roosevelt, Irving Brant, 1988, p. 322)

Since my grandfather died in 1976, I don't know if these words were his or his daughters' who edited his final manuscript to publication.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I guess it's not a just Canada thing.

Great Britain's got it, too. And from the looks of it, a bad case.

The following tale of woe is not the fault of the Greenie Story War Warriors, but it makes for devilishly effective irony in the tale that the Humans Are Bad For The Earth Climate Change Folks are trying to spread.

Granted, it's a subplot, not the main plot.

(The subplot is a Sacred Quest to find the Holy Grail of Anything-But-Fossil Fuels--which is the prequel to the Epic Revolution Saga where the unwashed masses with torches and pitchforks storm the gates against the Fossil Fuel Tyranny. )

Bonfire Of Insanities: Solar Panels Start Fire At Green Party-run Hove Town Hall
By Donna Rachel Edmunds
21 Apr 2015
Breitbart

From the article:

A large fire occurred yesterday at Hove Town Hall caused by a faulty solar panel on the roof of the building. No-one was hurt. Locals have been quick to take aim at the Green party with jibes over their record in office at Brighton and Hove city council, which owns the building.

. . .

Meanwhile in Brighton, locals mocked the irony of the Green party’s only town hall being set alight by a solar panel just weeks before the next council elections.

Argus reader Martha Gunn commented “Didn’t think the Green Party would take scorched earth policy quite that far! Or did they leave the microwave on again?”

Benny Duncan-Jarrs said “Just typical of the greens. Probably created the most pollution over their tenure than any other party anywhere. Added to the fumes from congested traffic this makes for a perfect swansong for them as they exit Brighton once and for all – Roll on May.”

An anonymous reader joked “A Green party spokesman said ‘it was the wrong sort of sun’ today.”

While another mused “Greens burning the accounts before the next council takes over and alerts the fraud squad?”

Talk about audience participation.

This is quality stuff for the Interaction Age of the Internet.

It's like reality itself is taking a crack at counter-propaganda.



Michael

[william.scherk]

I guess it's not a just Canada thing.

Great Britain's got it, too. And from the looks of it, a bad case.

If I understand you correctly, Michael, Canada -- not just Quebec -- has a thing. And so too does the UK have a thing. The thing is an apparent irony. The irony in the Canadian case was that crowds of activists demonstrated for official federal-provincial 'action' on climage change on a spring day when there was snow on the ground. The funny thing is found in the contrast between the crowd's ideals and the facts of weather in that lovely city. Ideals -- from one point of view contemptible, silly, ill-grounded, baseless -- meet typical spring weather.

The Breitbart story about the so-called Climate March underlined the apparent irony. It is hilarious to some folks -- the juxtaposition of snow and chilly weather with demonstrator's demands for action to reduce CO2 emissions.

In my post following Michael's commentary, I tried to show the extent of 'belief' in climate change in Canada in comparison to the USA. The takehome was meant to show the differences, and to suggest some reasons why Canadians are typically more "green-minded" than Americans. In a post responding to Mike, I tried to answer his question -- why wouldn't Canadians welcome climate change -- giving some particulars and some generalities.

Now the UK thing -- irony -- is that a fire erupted on a local government building's roof due to an electrical fault in its solar panel array. The Breitbart article underlined the irony without spelling it out for literal-minded folks (like me in this instance). For those who want a bit more fun with the story, the 'climate skeptic' blog of Anthony Watts offers a comical riff on the story: Tuesday tee hee – Solar panels with added features. The contributor, talented cartoonist Josh cited a short post at the skeptic blog Bishop Hill: Solar heat. From Josh's post ...

The Bishop Hill entry explores the safety issue -- bringing to light problems and conflicting claims about solar arrays: are they as safe as touted?

For those who want to explore those issues, I recommend the two blog entries for the comments. The comments at Watt's WUWT are often a source of much fun -- for those who make fun of environmentalist claims and stances and general wackiness.

In this case, comments are a mix of pertinent technical points from solar-knowledgeable folks and less technical scoffing. One point raised to deepen the irony is that the council in Hove/Brighton is dominated by Green Party members (though I am not sure this is true). Another comment chided the 'tee-hee' cartoon by noting that Anthony Watts has a solar array on his home -- would they laugh at Watts if he had a fault and fire in his installation?

Continuing on the issue of solar array 'safety,' it is possible that the fire investigation will reveal in detail just where the fault was. This article on solar panel safety gives a frame for understanding how a solar installation can go wrong and result in electrical fault. It's not too technical. Here's a sample:

What Can We Do?

The solar industry has taken a multi-pronged approach to reduce these potential dangers:

• Equipment has been designed to minimize the chances of high voltage DC arc faults. Unfortunately, wear over time, animal damage, improper installation or other problems can still result in a high voltage DC arc fault even in the best designed system.
• Regular system checkups are being recommended for existing systems. These measures increase the likelihood that problems can be identified and resolved before they result in a fire.
• Additional safety devices are being installed. New codes are including multiple DC disconnect devices to protect the solar array, the conduit containing this high voltage wire, and the inverter itself. Automatic DC disconnect devices are also being considered. However, anytime there is high voltage DC in a system, arcing hazards exist.
• Solar panels are now available with micro-inverters so that they operate with safer AC current – the same as used in conventional household wiring. These panels completely eliminate any high DC voltage that can create an arcing hazard. Long ago the electric power industry transitioned from DC power to AC power; for safety and performance reasons it is very likely that the solar industry will make a similar transition.
• Arc-sensing high voltage DC inverters are on the drawing boards at several existing inverter companies. If and when these inverters become available they should be able to detect DC arc faults and automatically shut down before a fire occurs.

Edited April 22, 2015 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

If it continues to get hotter as it's been doing since the end of the Little Ice Age, Canadians might have to start worrying about the melting of the perma frost and even massive releases of methane from that and world-wide too.

--Brant

not sweating anything in Arizona--not earthquakes nor hurricanes nor tornadoes nor the cold of winter: it's bright skies and sunshine for moi and as for AGW, I've got central air and as the rest of the world burns or freezes, I'll be safe in the arms of Jesus--or just safe

[william.scherk]

If it continues to get hotter as it's been doing since the end of the Little Ice Age, Canadians might have to start worrying about the melting of the perma frost and even massive releases of methane from that and world-wide too.

Oh, melting of the permafrost in Canada is well underway, Brant. See this 2011 story from the CBC: Thawing permafrost sinks buildings, hikes costs in North. I also noted in my reply to Mike several ramifications for our North. A story from Scientific American last year describes some of the effects:

In 2006, reduced thickness of ice roads forced the Diavik Diamond Mine in Northern Canada to fly in fuel rather than try to transport cargo across melted pathways, at an extra cost of $11.25 million.

The mountain pine beetle outbreak in British Columbia—fueled by higher winter temperatures that allow insects to survive—expanded in recent years to be 10 times greater than any previously recorded outbreak in the province. Mortality rates of sockeye salmon, meanwhile, have increased because of higher water temperatures in the Fraser River.

[...]

Many of the report's climate statistics are stark. Between 1950 and 2010, Canada's average air temperature over land warmed about double the global average, or about 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The country as a whole has become wetter, while sea levels on the country's coasts rose about 21 centimeters between 1880 and 2012.

The impacts are apparent in Canada's north, the report says, where melting permafrost and glaciers are changing the landscape quickly. "Glaciers in Yukon have lost about 22% since the 1950s," the report notes. Lake ice—critical for activities such as ice hockey—may decrease in duration by roughly a month by midcentury, according to scientists.

-- there has been some recent scientific work concerning the so-called 'carbon bomb' expected from global melting of the permafrost. This work has undercut alarmist projections that methane would be released relatively instantaneously; see Permafrost 'carbon bomb' may be more of a slow burn, say scientists, from the Guardian:

To your other note -- there is a lot of material to explore on the Little Ice Age -- that period variously charted between the fourteenth and nineteenth century. From the Little Ice Age entry at Wikipedia --

Some skeptical stances suggest that the current warming has nothing (or very little) to do with CO2. This stance holds that any warming in the 20th and 21st centuries is not related to rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, but a 'return' or bounce-back of earth climate systems, related strongly to waxing and waning of solar energy outputs. This stance is examined and rebutted to some degree at the Skeptical Science site. I recommend this site, as it presents the argument made by those who hold to this stance, eg -- Richard Lindzen, emeritus professor and noted climate-change skeptic:

Climate Myth...

Climate's changed before

Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age.

What is at issue, what is debated between consensus/skeptic stances is the mechanics or physics of the 'return' to normal temperatures. See also What Ended the Little Ice Age? The interesting part of the skeptical stance is how solar energy variations are mapped to temperatures. For example, from Skeptical Science:

Another fairly balanced treatment of the issue is at the Carbon Brief site. The article Is climate change all just a recovery from the Little Ice Age? explores the varied claims and counter-claims, and cites some recent scientific work that can be used by both extremes of the larger debate. See especially the comment by John Russell that puts a find point on the underlying dispute. I think you can find there either a useful data point to support your stance -- or a useful point of data to help you understand the 'other side' and its arguments.**

not sweating anything in Arizona--not earthquakes nor hurricanes nor tornadoes nor the cold of winter: it's bright skies and sunshine for moi and as for AGW, I've got central air and as the rest of the world burns or freezes, I'll be safe in the arms of Jesus--or just safe

I will leave your relationship to the Christ to another time. But you raise an essential point: our lifespans are relatively short compared to the flux and flow of climate change posited by 'true believers.' We OLers of a certain age may not live long enough to see incontrovertible evidence of dangerous or abrupt climate regime change. So, it makes personal sense to set any problems aside as to be solved by future generations.

___________________________

** [emphasis added] No one who knows anything about climate change is suggesting that there are not -- and have always been -- both high and low frequency natural variations in the climate, experienced both locally and globally. At times AGW exaggerates the rate of warming, at other times AGW counters the cooling phase of a natural cycle.

Separating the natural from the man-made forcings is a lot of what climate science is about. If it wasn't for the natural short-term and long-term variability, the plot created on temperature graphs by anthropogenic warming would be unequivocal. Confusing the issue by pointing to the natural element is the main ploy of the climate sceptics, and those in denial. They come out with statements about natural variation as if they're they only people who've thought of them! What do they think climate scientists are; junior-school children?

Edited April 22, 2015 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If I understand you correctly, Michael, Canada -- not just Quebec -- has a thing.

William,

You're not understanding me.

I was understanding you.

It's actually a Canada thing, with some slight regional variations.

Michael