Friday, May 11, 2007

OHMYGAWD! Deniers Make Sense!

When the NRSP (The Natural Resources Stewardship Project), a front group for the oil-patch designed to spread confusion over the issue of Global warming, launched its "Science AuditCentre" in April, I have to admit I rolled my eyes until they hurt. And reading Uber denier Tim Ball claim that

Tax dollars must not be squandered on feel-good 'green' plans that have little basis in real science. This approach only hurts the economy by diverting tax dollars away from important environmental issues where attention is needed.

...was almost enough to induce vomiting.

However, like a stopped clock that is nevertheless right twice a day, I find that their recent letter to John Baird, questioning his decision to ban incandescent bulbs (link to it from here), makes a certain amount of sense:

Earlier today, I sent you an e-mail, a copy of which is attached to this cover letter. I am forwarding that communication to you today via courier to ensure that it is not lost in the large volume of e-mail submissions you undoubtedly receive.

As part of our newly launched "Science Audit Centre" campaign, the Natural Resources Stewardship Project certainly look forward to hearing back from you concerning the process that was employed to come to the decision to ban incandescent light bulbs. As explained in my e-mail, NRSP believes that a major government intervention into the lives of Canadians such as that represented by the incandescent light bulb ban should have a clear and demonstrable environmental benefit; otherwise it is not worth the financial cost and inconvenience. That is why we would like to learn about the full life cycle assessment process that was employed in this case.

In principle I favour such a ban, and in practice have replaced about half my home lighting with compact fluorescents. However, the swiftness with which so many governments have embraced the move away from incandescent bulbs reminds me too much of the move to replace gasoline with Ethanol, which for example the Bush administration has embraced as part of its own green thinking, even though the net savings in emissions is minimal to non-existant once life-cycle costs have been taken into consideration. So I too would like to see an analysis of the GHG emissions involved in producing CFs. And I would be surprised, no shocked, if anything like this was done when Mr. Baird was formulating his plan.

Furthermore, since compacts do contain a (tiny) amount of mercury, there are disposal issues to look at which are nowhere considered in the government's plan. And while some of the outlets selling compacts apparently have functioning take-back plans, my local hardware store is telling people to pitch the dead ones into the trash.


Anonymous said...

Your first paragraph essentially says to everybody:

My mind is closed.
I am completely biased.
I no nothing really about NRSP, Tim Ball, or non-AGW supporting climate science.

You add nothing but rhetoric and confusion, and promote ignorance and misunderstanding. You truly are a Big City Liberal.

Ti-Guy said...

I no nothing really about NRSP, Tim Ball, or non-AGW supporting climate science.



Anonymous said...


You speak like a true believer of the religion of AGW.

Your mind is closed, but hey, you sure have faith.

After all, why let a little thing like scientific evidence get in the way of your faith in AGW.

Has your mind always been closed? Or were you born that way?


Oldschool said...

Why do you suppose the Al the Goricle, Suzuki and others refuse to debate Ball, Litzen and Lomberg?
Al's movie is all bling and no science . . . the GW camp including you talk in soundbites. 2000 scientists, drowning polar bears, rising temperatures, melting glaciers.
These people are all getting rich . . . Al is selling carbon credits to himself, Suzuki is raking in 10's of millions from concerned citizens . . . and the US govt has given billions to the so-called GW scientists.
But . . . where's the evidence???
Who are these thousands of scientists???
Tell me how CO2 which makes up .05% of the atmosphese is a threat??? Humans contribute less than 4% of that .05% . . . which to me is insignificant. Volcanoes, oceans, decay and animals make up 95% of the CO2 output. Explain how the miniscule amount from humans is a threat?????
Does anyone remember what the air was like 30 or 40 years ago . . . its a lot cleaner today, cars especially are 95% cleaner.
The world is not warmer or colder today than is has been in the past, long before cars and trains and planes. So what is the real agenda of the UN, Mo Strong, Al Gore and the globalists??? Why its about wealth transfer, these global socialists just want to even the playing field, at our expense of course.
Can you name one situation in the last 60 years that the UN actually resolved???
GW is the religion of the left . . . saving mother earth has long been a cause of fringe groups like greenpeace, club seria and others.
Bring on the debates!!!!

Anonymous said...

The Trouble With Science
by Robert Higgs

"At any given time, consensus may exist about all sorts of matters in a particular science. In retrospect, however, that consensus is often seen to have been mistaken. As recently as the mid-1970s, for example, a scientific consensus existed among climatologists and scientists in related fields that the earth was about to enter a new ice age. Drastic proposals were made, such as exploding hydrogen bombs over the polar icecaps (to melt them) or damming the Bering Strait (to prevent cold Arctic water from entering the Pacific Ocean), to avert this impending disaster. Well-reputed scientists, not just uninformed wackos, made such proposals. How quickly we forget.

Researchers who employ unorthodox methods or theoretical frameworks have great difficulty under modern conditions in getting their findings published in the "best" journals or, at times, in any scientific journal. Scientific innovators or creative eccentrics always strike the great mass of practitioners as nutcases – until their findings become impossible to deny, which often occurs only after one generation's professional ring-masters have died off. Science is an odd undertaking: everybody strives to make the next breakthrough, yet when someone does, he is often greeted as if he were carrying the Ebola virus. Too many people have too much invested in the reigning ideas; for those people an acknowledgment of their own idea's bankruptcy is tantamount to an admission that they have wasted their lives. Often, perhaps to avoid cognitive dissonance, they never admit that their ideas were wrong. Most important, as a rule, in science as elsewhere, to get along, you must go along."

You can read the rest at


Anonymous said...