Climate change

I had some other things I was going to work on today.  However, there are a few things that I need to get out first so you get a blog post.

Dave MacDonald is running for the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario (PCPO) in Kitchener Centre.  Dave was a weather man for the local CTV station for a number of years. He is not a meterologist, but after talking about the weather for 40 years, you would expect him to have picked up a few things.

So it was surprising when at the debate on Wednesday night when he stated "There’s still a lot of controversy over what the cause of climate change is."  MacDonald then went on to state “If there is some component of it that is man-made, then I’m all in favour of trying to reduce carbon emissions and that sort of thing."  If I understand him correctly that even if a small part of the global climate change has to do with things being man made he wants something to be done about it.  However, MacDonald does not feel that anything needs to be done, and according to him there are 1000s scientists that deny global climate change.  I have phoned his campaign office and am waiting a response.

I put out a request on twitter for science papers that support MacDonald's belief.  I got two responses both linked to articles marked commentary in the National Post.

The first article, written by Lawerence Solomon, lists a bunch of scientists that have dismissed concerns about climate change.  If you look at the research of the named scientists, only one has done research in climate, Reid Bryson.  Bryson died at the age of 88 in 2008.  None of the other scientists researched weather or climate, and the youngest was born in 1937.  There is no linked papers or statements on what exactly these scientists believe. Some believe earth is not warming, some say it is but just natural forces, some say that poverty is a bigger concern than anthromorphogenic climate change.

The second article, again written by Lawerence Solomon is entitled "Science is now settled". Which implies the debate is over.  Solomon claims that due to a paper in Nature by CERN that the sun is responsible for cloud formation and the sole contributor to earth's warming.  I looked up that paper in Nature it is entitled "Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation" by Kirkby et al. (Kirkby, J. et al. Nature 476, 429-433 (2011). I don't have access to Nature on my home computer and am guessing most of my readers don't either (you can go to your local university library and read it if you want).  There is a discussion of the paper on Nature news which is accessible.  The gist of the paper is that cosmic rays can interact with aerosols in the atmosphere and enhance the formation of nano sized particles.  The particles are "way too small to seed clouds".  I find this quote by Kirkby to be very illuminating "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step,"   This is preliminary research, and they are continuing to ask and attempt to answer questions.

These are the papers that Global warming deniers are clinging too.  They call themselves skeptics, but too me a skeptic looks at the facts and asks questions not just cling to beliefs.  The deniers are also fond of the moving the goalposts.  This is the logical fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.

I am still looking for decent scientific papers (that have not been rescinded).  I also have a few other questions for Dave if he ever calls me back.

Election results

I stayed up late last night (well late for a pregnant woman) to watch the election results. I was not happy, then when I woke up to go to the bathroom I couldn't get back to sleep since I was so pissed off at Canadians.
Dr Steph sums it up the best here

In 2004, Canadians made fun of Americans for re electing Bush. The first time in 2000 it was a mistake- voter fraud, supreme court intervention but 2004 that was all the voters doing.
However, here Canada just repeated the mistake. We have re-elected a leader that doesn't understand the economy (head in the sand), that is out of touch with the people, a leader that doesn't understand basic science (apparently you can burn coal without emitting CO2).

We need election reform in Canada. We have declining voter turnout, this election was the lowest turnout ever only 58% eligible voters turned out to vote. Our first past the post electoral system allows the Tories to have a minority government (it was almost a majority) with 147 seats after receiving 37.6% of the vote. The Liberal Party received 26.2% of the vote and got 76 seats. Over 60% of Canadians who voted did not want Harper to be Prime Minister. Mixed member proportional system is not a perfect electoral system but it may give us better representation of what Canadians want (pdf link).

So I now have an MP that I have written asking clarification and he ignored me, he is anti choice, and likes abstinence programs. I still have a Prime Minister that is an effective politician but stands for everything I am against. The government spent $300 million in an economic crisis on an election that was against the law. The only consolation is that it could have been a majority (I shudder at the thought)- he was only 11 seats short.

Politcal rant

We interrupt this knitting blog for the following rant. It is about the Canadian election if you are not interested please feel free to skip.

The Conservative Party has not released a platform. I have asked them from a link on their website what their platform is, I haven't heard back. Harper has said he will announce policy on Oct 15 (the day after the election). What the hell good does that do for me?
All of the election ads have been attack ads, what other people have done wrong, why their plans won't work.

So far in election promises Harper has promised:
Up to $750 tax credit for new home buyers (doesn't mean you will get $750)
$0.02/L decrease in diesel / aviation fuel tax. The gas prices are changing by >$.10/L overnight - what does this do.
$150 tax credit to seniors
As I can't find the platform and only am able to get the sound bites of these policies what they actually mean is not much.

I want to know what his plans are on health care, environment, agriculture, family, economy. Harper has assured us we are not going to have a recession since if we were going to have one it would have started already. I need something more to go on.

My question is why are people going to vote for the Conservative Party - they are not willing to tell you what they want to do with the country yet you are willing to hand over control to them. Polls are showing that the Tories have 36% national support. This makes no sense to me.

A couple of things that I did find out about Harper while searching for his platform. He is writing a book on the early days of the NHL and that Laureen Harper is also listed as a Conservative Leader (she has never been elected so I don't know how this has happened).

If anyone out there is planning on voting conservative or knows some one who is I have a two simple questions "What part of the Tory platform attracts you? What do you want to see Harper accomplish?"

If my search of the Conservative website and of the internet has been faulty and a policy document is out there then please let me know where it is.

I think I will send a l link to this blog entry Conservative candidate in my riding to see if they can shed light on this issue.