The Newmarket-Aurora Conservative candidate, Lois Brown, continued to spread the misinformation campaign of the Harper government at an all-candidates debate last week. This is no surprise, but I felt it necessary to make the point. Again…
The Harper government is misleading the Canadian public regarding Climate Change in two important ways:
- While the Green Party, the Liberals, the NDP, the Bloc Quebecois, and most of the rest of the world are using 1990 as the baseline year from which to set targets for cuts in emissions, the Conservatives are insistent on using 2006 as the baseline. In itself, this would not be a problem so long as they always state the baseline year and people always understand the difference, but neither of these is true. The Conservatives claim a target of 20% cuts by 2020 but they fail to mention the baseline year. Converted to a 1990 baseline, their target is actually at only 3% below 1990 levels.For clarity, here are the actual targets for 2020 of each party…-> 1990 baseline = 608 Megatonnes (source: Vision Green)
-> 2006 baseline = 736 Megatonnes (estimated: I’ve seen from 721 to 800)
-> Green Party = 30% below 1990 = 425 MT
-> NDP = 25% below 1990 = 456 MT
-> Liberal Party = 20% below 1990 = 486 MT
-> Conservative Party = 20% below 2006 = 3% below 1990 = 589 MT
And yet they make the claim to have the most aggressive targets? Huh? - While the Green Party, the Liberals, the NDP, the Bloc Quebecois and most of the rest of the world are committed to actual cuts in emissions, with the targets as stated above, the Conservatives insist on so-called “intensity targets” which is the emissions per GDP or per unit of production. This is misleading math, and could still allow overall emissions to rise.For example, consider a tar sands project extracting 100 units of oil and emitting 100 units of CO2. Assume the production rises by 50% (which both the Conservative Party and the Alberta government support) while the per unit emissions are cut 20%, the result will be 150 units of production and 120 units of CO2. This would be an increase in actual emission levels by 20%.Intensity targets do not work for actual emission cuts unless they are stated in the context of the expected growth in output. The only intensity targets that are at all meaningful are per capita emissions, and even these can be skewed if you fail to account for population growth.
Based on these two points, the Conservative Party is either willfully misleading the Canadian public, or they are really bad at math.
Take your pick.
If you choose the former, ask yourself about the honesty and integrity of our Prime Minister.
If you choose the latter, ask yourself about his supposed credentials as an economist.
show hide 13 comments
I would think to say climate change is the end of the world and we need to meet certain targets would be misleading. Whether canada meets those proposed targets or not doesn’t even matter; the rest of the world and our neighbors to the south will likely keep polluting.
One mathematicians opinion Im sure their are many more who also disagree but are afraid to come forward.
Dr David Evans “has a background in mathematics, computing, and electrical engineering. He also researches mathematics, in the areas of Fourier analysis, calculus, the number system, and multivariable polynomials”
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Evans-CO2DoesNotCauseGW.pdf
his credentials: http://www.sciencespeak.com/DavidEvans.doc
I dont disagree that our air quality needs to be managed I just feel too many people have seen “an inconvenient..” lie or believe everything their told. I also do not doubt that global warming is possible however to say that CO2 is the culprite is misinformation.
well… my comment never posted so i’ll assume the spam filters kicked in.
Unfortunately I don’t think this is a question of mathematics or science for that matter. Global warming is and will remain a theory. Traditional models concluded co2 as the culprit which has been proven by some leading scientists in the respective field to not be the case . So which person do you believe? This is simply a case of argument by authority. For the green folk reading
Wikipedia : Appeal to authority
“
* evidence is available to back up the point (it is better to use the evidence as argument rather than the authority, but sometimes this is not an option) and is known to the authority being referenced
* the authority is an expert, specifically in the field being discussed, and not merely popular, high-ranking or famous
* the authority is not obviously biased. It is important to note that if the authority is heavily biased, that does not make their claims false, only unreliable. See Circumstantial Ad Hominem.
* the authority is interpreted correctly, and not quoted out of context
* the authority is representative of the majority of experts the field. It is better to have at least a second opinion from another expert, than to go on what could be an unrepresentative sample.
* most importantly, the argument does not try to claim absolute truth based on authority”
That rules out the IPCC and Al gore.
A future/ current prime minister must make this distinction: the sky is falling, or its a natural cycle. So which is it? Swaying public opinion to believe that its true doesn’t make it true. I dont doubt that global warming exists but the models are flawed. A good google for this topic would be: David Evans
If changing the base line year to 2006 was an attempt to mislead Canadians, it was a poor one. I’m sure the real reason he changed it was to make it look like that he was on the same page as the Europeans when they talked about below 20% below 1990 emission levels. Quite frankly if I was Harper I would of left it at 1990. It would of scared Canadians more if we had to cut emissions 55% below 1990 levels.
I’m not sure why Harper is not taking the whole climate change threat seriously. He either does not believe in the science of climate change or is afraid of losing his political base in Alberta if he did do something.
Sorry I meant 55% below existing levels.
and then what? With emissions cut and the temperature continuing to rise what will be the next misleading cause of global warming? I like my air clean and I am happy to abide by any restriction on my own emissions but to assume it will stop the natural cycle of the earth and sun is a long shot. I’d like to hear/read unbiased Climatologists and Paleoclimatologist on what they think cutting our emissions will do. Perhaps harper and his posse already have.
I’m not sure what your point is Hutch. Are you suggesting we do business as usual? I’m not a climatologist but I am an engineer. I understand the science behind the science. I have also worked with similar models in transportation engineering. While the models don’t predict a precise outcome, they do show the impact of changes due to your input parameters. GHG are input parameters in climate models and clearly alter the predictive outcomes when the amounts change.
the “fact” remains that climate change is a theory. I dont doubt its existance but the models are flawed the culprit is not co2 if you look at the medieval age temperatures (from the polar ice deposits) you’ll notice the co2 levels were extremely low yet the temperature remained high. THEN we actually had a drop in temperature before the industraial age why is that? No offense KPK but I use logic the same as any engineer would, the data disproves the c02 theory in most cases and more or less strengthens the theory its a natural cycle of the earth and sun.
Here’s something for you to read Hutch:
http://www.greenparty.ca/en/releases/07.10.2008
“TOP Canadian scientists share Green Party’s climate concern”
“A group of 120 top Canadians scientists published a letter reinforcing the Green Party’s focus on global warming in this federal election. In the open letter published today top climate change scientists explain that “There is only one way to deal with global warming. And that is to put a price on emissions.”
“The letter emphasizes the significant threats to Canadians from global warming. The Green Party understands that this is the largest issue facing our planet and is dedicated to making actual reductions in CO2 emissions.”
“The Green Party tells Canadians the truth about the actions needed to address global warming while the Conservatives try to hide inaction behind a veil of doublespeak.”
120 top Canadian scientists…is that enough of an “authority” for you?
Hutch ,
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/13/221054/33
ok and how many of these so called scientists are climatologists or in a related field.. Where the letter I would like to check the bibliographies .
I hope you did that checking yourself.
and nothing about either of the links you posted confirms the theory of global warming being a result of mankind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png
this should do the trick.. Cheers
PS no degree for me
ice core data of cO2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
http://www.centrumodzywek.net/“ rel=”nofollow”>Suplementy
ActivLab Whey Protein 70 to odżywka wysokobiałkowa zawierająca najwyższej jakości koncentrat białka serwatki i węglowodany (mono i polisacharydy). Wzbogacona dodatkowo w kreatynę, taurynę, lecytynę, laktazę, witaminy i składniki mineralne.
Kreatyna zwiększa produkcję energii (ATP), stymuluje wzrost mięśni, potęguje siłę skurczu mięśni oraz zwiększa nawodnienie komórek mięśniowych. Posiada silne właściwości antykataboliczne, wydatnie przyspiesza okres regeneracji potreningowej.
Tauryna transportuje kreatynę do mięśni, co powoduje jej bardziej efektywne wykorzystanie, a także przyspiesza wzrost komórek mięśniowych.
Lecytyna jest źródłem choliny i inozytolu – aktywatorów metabolicznych.
Laktaza jest enzymem rozkładającym laktozę (cukier mleczny), zapobiega występowaniu nietolerancji laktozy i ułatwia trawienie mleka.
Witaminy i składniki mineralne są niezbędne do prawidłowych przemian metabolicznych w organizmie.
Preparat polecany dla wszystkich, którzy chcą w sposób szybki i efektywny zwiększyć swą masę mięśniową i siłę, a także przy nadmiernym wysiłku fizycznym oraz jako wspomaganie treningu rekreacyjnego i wyczynowego.