Is This a Canada Thing or Just a Quebec Thing?

[Brant Gaede]

William, I believe methane is considered a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.

I seriously doubt the validity of AGW regardless. Who doubts CC? No one I've ever heard of. So why all the animadversion upon these non-existent people as "Climate Change deniers"? It's code for AGW deniers. I hate this underhanded way to avoid contrary opinions while putting them down with ad hominem.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

You are a very quick read, Brant. Thanks for taking the time to explore the issues I illustrated above.

Michael, thanks for the note. I did not include any estimates or survey results of the 'thing' for the UK. I don't know if that would be interesting or not. I'm glad you appreciate the posts I have made in this thread. More to come!

[Mikee]

William,

"So, it makes personal sense to set any problems aside as to be solved by future generations."

What doesn't make sense is crippling our economy by severely limiting energy production and use so future generations find it much harder to respond to the unknown challenges of the future. Why don't GW advocates strongly support newer generation nuclear power plants to minimize the human carbon footprint? Cheap and plentiful energy solves all technical problems (even the drought here in California) and raises everyone's standard of living. Energy is everything.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You are a very quick read, Brant. Thanks for taking the time to explore the issues I illustrated above.

Michael, thanks for the note. I did not include any estimates or survey results of the 'thing' for the UK. I don't know if that would be interesting or not. I'm glad you appreciate the posts I have made in this thread. More to come!

William,

Just so we're talking about the same thing, by "thing," I am not referring to irony. I am referring to half-assed true-believer propagandists who are clueless about how ridiculous they are making themselves look. Irony is one of the results of their activity, not the thing itself.

Another result is what Brant referred to--half-assed true-believer propagandists constantly alienating independent people (even and especially ones who might be persuaded) by preemptively calling all questioners nasty names. Intimidation only works when you have the upper hand. When that slips, attempts at intimidation look like a sorry sight to see. And both Al Gore and the UN have spent their upper-hand wad in sleaze. On the PR level, they blew it. With what?

Sleaze I say. Pure sleaze.

So the group of half-assed true-believer propagandists is the "thing." The world is laughing at those folks now and the laughter is growing. Not in hilarity, but in mocking.

If these poor power-hungry souls want to lose their cause with the public at large, I say keep up the good work.

If they want to advance it, they need to study people like Kendall Haven fast, especially Story Smart. I mention him because he's deep into this global warming stuff. In fact, one of the reasons he started delving into the neuroscience of storytelling was to be able to tell better environmental stories. He, at least, knows the story has to be interesting, persuasive and emotional, not comedic.

Which is unlike the Klimate Khange Keystone Kop Klowns mentioned in this thread.

I don't mind them, though. I kinda like slapstick.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Even the kids are mocking--see this on Funny or Die:

#ClimateChangeIsReal And The Memes Are Spectacular

Note to that little tug in the back of the true believer's mind that says ignore this stuff and it will go away. No agenda-driven movement is encouraging the kids to do this all over the Internet. And I don't believe it is "trading up the chain" media manipulation. I don't see the signs.

Persuasion-wise, once you lose the kids, you lose the future.

Michael

[william.scherk]

Michael, thanks for the reminder to pay attention to Kendall Haven. To read him is a delight ... here's just a sample from one of his online PDFs: Story: The Language Of The Mind

Your Story Mind in Action

• You assume connection and storytelling structure.
• Incomplete is good enough.
• You assume its about characters (he, Fred & Sharon).
• You assume character relationships.
• You assume cause and effect sequencing.
• You assume goal and motive.
• You assume struggle (and obstacles)
• You assume emotional reactions and states.

It's interesting how you frame the Story Warring from the side of AGW proponents**: nasty names, half-assed true-believer propagandists, sleaze, power-hungry souls. It makes for a strongly emotive narrative pulse and a mechanism for marking out suspect, untrustworthy character. I am reminded of opinion you shared in a very disputatious discussion almost eight years ago:

But to tell the truth, the issue is so acrimonious, and it gets that way by merely typing his [Richard Lindzen's] name, that I have practically thrown in the towel. Any pleasure I got out of researching this and trying to discuss it has evaporated.

There was a time I thought some of the things I learned about climatology from both the Gore film and the Swindle film were cool. Now I just think that there is nothing but a bunch of overly-sensitive people around the subject and they make learning anything at all about it very unpleasant.

I should mention I saw neither the Inconvenient Truth nor Swindle documentaries. I hate advocacy films -- especially ones that are promoted relentlessly a là Hollyweird. I was actually warned off both by the taint of exaggeration in the first and belligerence in the second. It seemed to me then and it seems to me now that there are better ways to become informed on the issues. Like Adam, I wasn't impressed with Shermer's conversion to proponent of AGW upon a single movie-viewing (that is not to deny the power of a well-produced cinematic confection; I just did not want to be manipulated by that power. I intended to form some independent opinions).

in those eight years, I have kept a watching brief, trying to take lessons from the tone and tenor and depth of discussion at OL, SOLO, RoR, OO, and other online Objectivish communities -- as well as educating myself elsewhere. I feel like I understand the best arguments of the skeptic sides and can make an intelligent response. Moronic as it may seem to some folks, this confrontation (between mainstream scientific proponents and mainstream skeptical inquirers) on all its levels fascinates me and has motivated extensive intellectual work. Like Michael seemed in those two paragraphs, I am wistful at times. I know that a Randian framework of inquiry, a rational, objective, systematic approach can bear fruit on the contested issues. I've always sought understanding of the skeptics and the proponents. My political opinions are Cynic and besides the point.

In reviewing that old thread recently, I was struck again by a comment from Brant that had puzzled me:

It has been established by general consent on this list that AGW is "essentially BS." End of story, unless Michael takes that back in a credible way.

Here's a video recommended by Ba'al in that same earlier thread, Part 1 of a 31-video sequence: Climate Change -- the scientific debate. The Youtube channel for Hadfield's videos has upward of seven million views, and the comments are in the many thousands. I took a screen-capture from the introductory remarks for those who want the gist of the lesson I took from the episode (I hope to Gawd that I don't invoke the curse of Jerry):



_____________________

**I think I will take a leaf from Peter Hadfield's video and stop using "believer/s" ... in favour of proponent/s.

The curse of Jerry is when he posts a video and gets only a slap from Brant. Can also mean sheer thread-killing power. Since I have two posts for this thread in drydock, and the issues have been simmering for eight years, I figure I can return later to some thorny points even if this thread goes into coma.

RE drydock, it is a semi-accurate description of what I do with thorny issues that deeply engage me. Michael's passionate post upthread a week or so ago engaged me enough to want to give a dispassionate response -- his was a many-layered, compelling argument and deserves a thoughtful, non-polemical reply. These types of drydocked comments are "launched" with half-trepidation/half-satisfaction. Sometimes they sink due to the curse or to their enormous dead weight, sometimes they float away, sometimes their freight is useful to others reading here. Mine are modest goals. I write for my own pleasure in capturing thought. Of course, I hope I help 'pay the rent' by filling the information space for our host.

Three cheers for Michael. His passion is just as bright and focused as when he launched this enterprise. Many long years seem short. It pleases me that without any tweaking,OL is outperforming the sister sites on all important measures.

Edited April 23, 2015 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

The PDF is from a pre-DARPA webinar Kendall Havens gave. You can't find the video online anymore, but I have it. Along with some other webinars/lectures he gave with enticing titles for someone of your persuasion. How does "Climate Article Writing" sound to you? Or "Telling the Story of Climate Change"?

Hmmmm?...

Since it looks like he took all that stuff down (or got it out of the search engines somehow), I don't think he would appreciate it if I put it up. But I could send you a copy privately if you are interested.

He might have taken it all down because he revised some of his thinking due to his DARPA investigations. Still, I found this material extremely interesting.

As to the one-sidedness of my criticism, I have Climate Change fatigue. (Believe me, the general public is like this, too.) The most tedious argument in the world for me to ponder right now is another pile of scientific papers. Who gives a crap? They never end and there are always other scientific papers that conflict with them. Talk about boring that becomes tedious and ends up moth-eaten humdrum fizzling...

But why my bias? Well, the anti folks are winning, so nowadays they do not do nearly the clueless shenanigans the pro side does. That's why I don't bash them. But they have come out with some crazy shit at times.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

He might have taken it all down because he revised some of his thinking due to his DARPA investigations.

It later occurred to me that this statement could be interpreted to mean I thought Haven might have changed his views on climate change. That's not what I meant.

I think he might have changed his views on a few aspects of story. As I was on a Kendall Haven kick for awhile, getting my hands on anything I could and actually reading it or listening to it or viewing it, I know his thinking about story has evolved a little over time.

Michael

[Jules Troy]

Bill is right about the warmer winters causing pine Beatle devastation. Warmer winters also end up killing a lot of moose. How? Winter ticks. A cold snap will reduce the number of ticks infesting a moose by up to 90%. I have personally witnessed during warm winters moose literally dropping dead from blood loss. Most of their hair has fallen off from secondary infections and it looks like it is covered in dark grapes from end to end. A couple thousand engorged ticks. Ick.

Bill on a side topic that is environmentally related have you payed any attention to the BC governments wolf slaughter to "protect" the dwindling caribou populations of the Selkirk area and peace river districts?

[Selene]

Nature/reality is constantly in flux.

It still functions independently from our senses.

Climate is.

Climate is also changing as we type.

It is the story and the actions that flow from being convinced by the story where man errs at times and engages in policies that reduce the individual freedoms of the citizen.

A...

[william.scherk]

Bill on a side topic that is environmentally related have you payed any attention to the BC governments wolf slaughter to "protect" the dwindling caribou populations of the Selkirk area and peace river districts?

I was aware of the wolf-cull programme. I know they haven't reached the targets this year. I wonder if the actions will have the intended result. The worst that could happen is that the caribou disappear from the two areas while the wolf population itself plunges in the same places.

I note that the only Green Party member in the BC provincial legislature has come out in favour of the cull. His reasoning: that the caribou will die out of those two habitats without a cull of excess wolves.

There is not enough plausible opposition to the cull to make the government abandon its efforts, in my opinion. What do you think, Jules?

[Jules Troy]

The wolf cull will have absolutely zero impact on Caribou populations. While wolves will kill a caribou or two they are not the wolves main prey. Wolverines actually target Caribou. They hamstring them then run it down until it drops from exhaustion. The main culprit is actually the logging industry. The caribou eat exclusively lichen that only grows in old growth forest. So with opening up roads for that and even with reforestation it is not the same. They COULD have done something 50 years ago but logging and oil/gas industry are the culprits, wolves are the scapegoat. Wolves actually increase the health and biodiversity of an area more than any other factor.

I have spoken with Brad Hill on this very subject, he is a world renounced wildlife photographer and biologist. I asked him about the feasability of turning these sensitive areas into national parks. This was his reply.

There would be NO chance in turning these areas into National Parks - the ultimate problem with the caribou decline is resource exploitation (in AB its oil and gas exploration, in BC its mainly timber in the south selkirks, and oil and gas in the south peace) and shutting that down (as it would be if it was a national park) is neigh-on impossible. A group out of U of A did a triage study looking at costs to government of:

1. Preservation of caribou habitat (hands off like a national park)

2. Restoration of caribou habitat

3. Killing wolves.

The costs? About 130 billion for option 1 (in lost opportunity costs of resource exploitation); just under 200 million for option 2, and only about 7 million to kill wolves for 50 years. Sothe govt kills wolves (even if it makes no ecological sense and it wont help).

In a nutshell you could kill every single predator in those areas and the Caribou are still doomed.

[Brant Gaede]

If the caribou are doomed they are doomed.

[william.scherk]

Well done, Jules. Thanks for the report, it helps to deepen my cynicism.

On a unrelated topic, what the hell is going on in Alberta provincial politics and how much do the polls lie about actual intent? If they lie only a little bit, looks like a bloodbath for the Tories. If so, where did they go wrong after forty-odd years as the party in power?

Edited May 4, 2015 by william.scherk

[Jules Troy]

People are sick of the Tory abuse of mandate, the reckless spending, the crappiest service the F u take our leadership up the ass and like it "mentality". Also the PC's did something really stupid. They basically are blaming Albertans for THEIR mismanagement (look in the mirror for who to blame they tell us). With the collapse in oil prices they brought in this new budget and THEN call an election a year early which in my opinion was a really stupid move...That really stirred up a hornets nest...

Tomorrow will be interesting. We may have an NDP government even if a minority one.

[william.scherk]

For those who did not follow the Alberta election link above, and for those who are not bored stiff with the subject of Canadian politics, a couple things to consider: the party in power in Alberta, the Progressive Conservative party, has held office for more than four decades. Previous to the PC, the government was held by the Social Credit party for thirty years.

In Canada, natural resources are owned by the provinces, put simply -- so the petrochemical wealth of Alberta is exploited by Alberta, for Albertans.

Polling in Alberta can be off significantly -- in the last election the Tories were heading to defeat according to the polls -- but the last 72 hours of the campaign saw the real intentions emerge, and the Tories took a majority of seats.

Now, after seventy-odd years of 'right wing' governments, polls show the Tories might lose to the provincial New Democratic Party. This party is of the left.

People are sick of the Tory abuse of mandate, the reckless spending, the crappiest service the F u take our leadership up the ass and like it "mentality". Also the PC's did something really stupid. They basically are blaming Albertans for THEIR mismanagement (look in the mirror for who to blame they tell us). With the collapse in oil prices they brought in this new budget and THEN call an election a year early which in my opinion was a really stupid move...That really stirred up a hornets nest...

Tomorrow will be interesting. We may have an NDP government even if a minority one.

Good brief points, thanks. I will believe a NDP win when I see it. Interesting times.

Seven polls were published between Thursday and Sunday, and all of them told the same remarkable story. The New Democrats were awarded between 37 per cent and 44 per cent support across these surveys, with Wildrose scoring between 21 and 27 per cent and the Progressive Conservatives between 20 and 30 per cent.

Edited May 4, 2015 by william.scherk

[Selene]

Ya gotta love it...

a PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE

is that like a Regressive Futurist?

A...

[william.scherk]

Ya gotta love it...

a PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE

is that like a Regressive Futurist?

A...

Wikipedia has a fairly brief article on the Progressive Conservatives of Alberta. should you wish to see for yourself how the name came to be grafted ... (short version: federal Conservatives added 'progressive' in 1942 to signal support of free trade, opposed to the then mercantilist, high-tariff Liberals, and to benefit from the fortunes of the then 'progressive' Farmers and agricultural labour parties). And of course, the Progressive Conservatives (now the plain old Conservatives) were a 'centrist' party in social terms ... despite being led the last dozen years by Christian fundamentalists (under the PC, the Canadian Alliance, the Reform Party of Canada, the Conservative-Reform Alliance party).

Perhaps the American experience with 'Progress' suggests any party with Progressive in its name must by definition be leftist in nature. Since Canada as a whole is several shade pinker than America, it makes sense.

Adam, being a political junkie, you would likely have a ball following the fortunes of the Social Credit government in Alberta, or the United Farmers of Alberta, or the Cooperative Commonwealth Confederation, or the Liberal-Conservatives or the Liberal-Progressives! In the broader scheme of things, you should note that parties tend to be more fluid and extensible than the strict two-party system that constrains American politics. We have six parties in the House of Commons: Liberal, Conservative, Bloc Quebecois, New Democratic Party, Green Party, Forces et Démocratie. In BC we have the Liberal party (which has no ties to the federal Liberal party) in power as the 'right' party, while the opposition is the socialist 'labour' party, the NDP.

.

In any case, the point I was trying to make is that there could be a surprise in store for Alberta. The province has had only two parties in power since 1935 -- the first Social Credit premier in Alberta was in office for twenty-five years.

Progress!

[Jules Troy]

For a time when I lived up north I lived in Grant Notley's house outside of Fairview! (Rachel's father who used to be Alberta's head of the NDP party).

Bill yes the province owns the resources but the rest of Canada sees benefits through transfer payments.

[Selene]

Bill, I understood your point, just having fun with the semantics.

Yours is a Parliamentary system, some similarities, however structurally different which makes all the difference.

A...

[william.scherk]

Bill, I understood your point, just having fun with the semantics.

Yours is a Parliamentary system, some similarities, however structurally different which makes all the difference.

I am always glad to provide fun -- the varied stripes of politics up north may seem silly and almost fantastic, as with Progressive Conservatives. I was happy to provide ever more odd details. It seems to me that a few jurisdictions in America have parties not named Democrat or Republican which win state office (Minnesota, New York?)

The Westminster system might appear to give more 'voice' to minority political groups, have a more fluid construct of parties -- but this may be an artifact of history rather than a strict difference between the systems. France has a strong Presidential system, but there too the parties are relatively fluid over time.. It isn't that the US doesn't have secondary parties on the ballots, but that the secondary parties are no-hopers, rarely attracting enough votes to gain a seat,

Another structural difference is that you don't send your executive to represent the government in Parliament as you must in the Westminster system. Beyond that essential difference, I think the encrusted parties of your system now have overwhelming incumbent advantage, one that is hard to beat on campaign spending alone. You guys raise what would be psychotic amounts of money in a Canucki context.

An interesting set of issues for another time, perhaps, though most Americans I know find Canadian politics just slightly more boring and repellent than death.

Back partly to the Quebec thing topic, Adam, see what you think of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, especially the revealing map-based representations of opinion. You can drill and zoom down to state, county, district level to track data across a number of survey questions, where some of the answers are surprising. On some measures at least, the thing it is not found only in the UK, Quebec, Canada: Here's a snapshot of several maps which do not always show an expected Red State/Blue State pattern;

Edited May 5, 2015 by william.scherk

[Selene]

Minnesota - Jesse Ventura

John Lindsay and Fiorello La Guardia were "fusion" Mayors

La Guardia in 1933 ran and won on the R-Fusion line; 1937 Fusion-Progressive; and 1941 R-ALP [American Labor Party].

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

Vincent Impellitteri won in 1950 on the Experience Party:

When Mayor William O'Dwyer resigned in 1950, he became acting mayor. He lost the Democratic primary but was selected mayor on a new ticket, the Experience Party. His reputation among historians is negative, for he never could quite shake off the accusations of incompetence, corruption, and links to organized crime. He lost the Democratic primary 1953, and became a judge in 1954. [2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_R._Impellitteri

Lindsay 1965 Republican-Liberal-Independent Citizens; 1969 Liberal.

Buckley was elected to the NY Senate as a Conservative in 1970.

A...

[Jules Troy]

My thoughts are:

Stop organized crime, elect no one...

[Jules Troy]

Bill

Good brief points, thanks. I will believe a NDP win when I see it. Interesting times.

I feel a little less free tonight....might consider moving..looks like they are formed a Majority...surprise suprise.

Great we got rid of the PC's however this is going to be a case of "Careful what you wish for.."

Edited.

[william.scherk]

Alberta changes governing party. The Liberals once swept away by the United Farmers, who were then crushed by Social Credit, in turn crushed by the Progressive Conservatives, who were then swept away by the NDP.