Chantal Hebert is the most lucid political commentator in Canada in either official language.

What are you saying?!?! I thought I was!

I had a casual discussion about the impending election with my parents this weekend and it shone a light onto what I believe should be the central issue of this election - do you want the status quo with a bit of icing on it or would you rather see Canada begin the types of change that are required to bring our society to bear on the realities of climate change and globalization.

For whom do YOU vote? If it is for you alone then the Tory platform of keeping the price of things down through government subsidy (a la the diesel tax break) should suffice and you can rest assured that you have provided for your children by making sure that the price of that Christmas IPod remains within your reach.

However, if you think that your vote should carry value to your (and other) children in a more fundamental sense, then you would do well to consider which party can best address the plethora of future badness that unchecked climate change is reported to promise.

This is where I think Dion should begin tweaking the message. The Liberal (and arguably the Green and perhaps the NDP) platform is a strategic one that considers our responsibility as parents and stewards of another generation's place. Whereas Harper seems more mindful of creating a government that enables us to fulfill our duty as consumers of next quarter's product.

What should the Liberals do? For one thing I would like to hear from the leaders in science and the science journalsts. What say David Suzuki, Bob MacDonald, and their bands of not-so-merry men and women about the efficacy of the political propositions in protecting our future?

I see your point but surely there are better scientists than pop culture scientists like David Suzuki, Bob MacDonald.

Bob MacDonald is the Canadian Bill Nye. Awesome and intelligent yet mistaken as a TV personality only.

No, he has sold his soul to the pop clture. He may be wonderful to his mother, make a great crepe and be a nuclear physicist. But to most people he is a kid's science show presenter. Not the right person to right the Liberal campaign ship.

Al, you are good, but your lucidity is sometimes lacking. It might be the beer.

Alan, the average voter is a celebrity loving dope. They accept the views of an attractive intelligent sounding person who they can relate to or find charismatic before someone who is less so, regardless of the letters after their name. Bob MacDonald and Jay Ingram could be elected in Kingston if they ran for the Rhino party.

Currently, the Libs are as you surmised a one man team. Well, a team of one man and his team of yes men and women. It has been this kind of party since the Martin coup and it’s not a fun place to hang out. Prior to the coup, we had issues, problems, even in-fighting that never made the paper because honestly, apart from during elections and AGMs, the average party member doesn’t remember to pay their dues let alone ask what’s going on behind the scenes. Those of us who disassociated ourselves with the party when we were effectively bumped aside by the old ladies, small “c” Liberals and business students who propped Martin up, are still miffed and generally do not support Dion because it’s the same team behind him. Till he is again a friendly backpack sporting academic (who rumour has it, leads a secret life as an Indiana Jones like explorer!), many of us will stand back and let the ship sink.

Hans: I have actually only been eating oatmeal and skim milk since 1988.

I think that the populist scientists would be good to hear from but it would be better if they were providing journalistic commentary on the consensus position of thousands of brilliant but obscure scientists on the matter of the environmetnal merit of the various political positions.

As an environmental studies student I feel qualified to say the following about each party's environmental merit:

1. The Bloc: Who?
2. The Liberals: Not bad, but incentive is lacking and tax credits always hurt Teh Poors who are not liquid month-to-month let alone year-to-year
3. The NDP: Perfect in every way. And isn't that Jack dreamy?
4. The Greens: See above re: Liberals
5. The conservatives: The Earth is Fucked

5. The conservatives: The Earth is Fucked

I'll make a bet that the world will not implode in carbon-y destruction if a Stephen Harper majority comes to pass. In fact, if Stephen Harper wins the election (minority or majority), I'm willing to bet $500 that the Earth will not be "fucked" at the end of his term.

Accepting objective definitions for the term may prove difficult though. What constitutes "fucked" in relation to the planet?

"Fucked" means however it is today, from a left/progressive perspective, no matter how wonderful clean and green (and getting greener) it really is.

Temujin: I'm betting on 2020 already.

The Earth is already fucked. Just ask the Tuvaluans: http://nissologypei.blogspot.com/2008/09/real-issue-of-climate-change.html

David: you can't have a back dated "reform" of the ecosystem like McCain is suggesting for the US economy. There is no Chicago School of Environmental Studies. The right has to come up with some policy other than scoffery.

I'd prefer to ask a scientist: you certainly will have an issue finding one saying that Tuvalu is _currently_ fucked because of rising sea levels, just that if certain models come true it'll be fucked in 50+ years. While I know has a semi-policy of "no dueling links", here's a link to a Nature article on the same. And here (sorry Al, but you don't let me embed images) is a graph of global sea level over the last two decades as measured by satellite which shows sea level is decreasing, no doubt to climate change and which is fucking people who have sea front property.

How else am I to respond to "fear/doom/fucked" except by scoffery? Scientific claims we can argue: "fucked" requires laughter.

To play the Devil's Avocado, science requires debate and conjecture. It insists on evidence to be put forward by proponents of a hypothesis to prove the point. If you want to prove or disprove a point, you cannot just scoff. That all being said, I believe that there is some degree of climate change going on, no question, I also believe that a good deal of it can possibly be tied to human activities on earth. Again, that all being said, we only have a hundred and a half years of useful weather data to refer to and fluctuations of natural climate change on earth occur over tens of thousands.

I just realized images as comments are gone, too. Sad.

My point on reform is that even the right needs to forecast and plan. After the fact intelligence is not that useful.

Bring on the Rae! Hooray!

From the nature article: “The thing that really interests me is how you reconcile the relatively low estimates of sea-level rise, which are the same order as what’s happening in the rest of the world, with the anecdotal observations from Tuvalu,” says Hunter. “It seems that the flooding reported there is bigger than 2mm a year. The extremes
of high tide could be getting bigger relative to the mean sea level, although that’s disputed at the moment.” To me that says there are local reports of sea level rise and scientists are trying to catch up with their measurements. In other words, there is proof from actual observations but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The idea that it actually is a current problem is further supported in the Nature article because local administrators are trying to deal with the problems they are experiencing right now: "Webb, on the other hand, thinks that poor coastal management and climate change are acting in concert. Oddly, when he presented this sinister synergy to the falekaupule, or council of elders, in Fogafale, their reaction was something like relief; a remote and difficult
problem became a local and understandable
one. They learned there were things they
could do to mitigate erosion — they could
further regulate beach mining and carefully
dredge the lagoon for the island’s aggregate
needs, for example."

Fucked, being a subjective term might be overstating the case of Tuvalu, since I don't live there I have no sense the direness of the situation other than the article I linked to above and the Nature article David presented, but flooding and high tides are a very real issue there and which, according to the Tuvaluans, is different now than it used to be.

In North America, we know the there is less ice cover in North Atlantic waters than there used to be. Thomas Jefferson (circa 1770-1800) writes about ice in Baltimore Harbor and in PEI, we have ports ice free in winter starting in 2006 that never were before (in living memory).

I agree with Sean. We know climate has changed in the past. i.e. the Ice Age, the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warm Period. I agree that the extent of its human causes are far from proven. What good does scoffing do the Tuvaluans when they know their own reality?

Finally, a table from the other David presents seems to be a survey of various sea level studies which all show a rise over time, year over year from 1881-1990 from 1.43 mm to 2.4 mm each year. wtf? Am I reading something different?

Table 1: Estimates of Global Sea Level Rise from Tide Gauge Records Sea Level
Rise (mm/yr) Error
(mm/yr) Data Used
(years) # of Tide Gauge Stations References
1.43 ±0.14 1881-1980 152 Barnett, 1984
2.27 ±0.23 1930-1980 152 Barnett, 1984
1.2 ±0.3 1880-1982 130 Gornitz & Lebedeff, 1987
2.4 ±0.9 1920-1970 40 Peltier & Tushingham, 1989
1.75 ±0.13 1900-1979 84 Trupin & Wahr, 1990
1.7 ±0.5 N/A N/A Nakiboglu & Lambeck, 1991
1.8 ±0.1 1880-1980 21 Douglas, 1991
1.62 ±0.38 1807-1988 213 Unal & Ghil, 1995

Hans rocks!

"anecdotal observations" / "subjective" / "living memory" / "own reality". This is why we have science (and why I said scientists above) - if it's not measured, assigning a cause is little more than superstition. That's why we do even double blinds in medicine, just to make sure the person writing down the results or jabbing the needle doesn't contaminate the results.

Even if the anecdotal observations are correct (which I would doubt because there are potentially large financial incentives to talk a big story), land use is almost certainly a major factor (as it was in New Orleans, where the "natives" trashed the bayous which normally would dissipate hurricane energy).

And yes you're reading those tables correctly - until recently, sea levels have been raising at basically a constant rate since the dawn of the fossil fuel era.

Re "land use is almost certainly a major factor": As near as I can figure, what the Nature article seems to be concluding is that yes, poor land use + rising sea levels = erosion. But how does poor land use counter the suggestion that Tuvaluans should do something about their deteriorating enviroment? Or in other words, Trashed bayous + nastier-than-ever hurricanes = fucked environment. All of which is to say that my simple point is that the cause of the problems or observed phenomena is not really important (I agree that if you can't prove the cause, then assigning one amounts to superstition) but ignoring the problems because scientists haven't measured them yet is like sticking one's head in the sand.

I concede the point, in that I was arguing something slightly different. If the West did not exist, Tuvaluans would be in much the same place it is today. I.e. independent in particular of Stephen Harper's activities. Yes, they definitely need to be doing something - as should anyone, who doesn't like their situations - though I personally doubt if things are much worse there than were 100 years ago (e.g.).

Are we allowed to link in our comments: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

David: the earth is only fucked if people who don't believe in climate change gain power. I was not making an argument for climate change, I was making a joke, and basing the joke on the assumption that it is real and it is happening. It was funny because Stephen Harper doesn't agree with the broad scientific consensus. Clearly you didn't find it funny, not because your sense of humor is broken but because you also don't agree with the broad scientific consensus. Sorry. Tough crowd.

I won't argue it here, because honestly I don't have time to write an essay for you, when so many other essays have been so eloquently written. Start with the IPCC report and move on from there. It's funny, because it's the same problem that happens with evolution - the unconvinced pick at the edges but miss the core of the issue. Yes, some models need work. Yes, some cooling can happen in an overall warming scheme. Yes, we're not 100% certain of 100% of our claims - but policy decisions are made on data with far less certainty daily, and it's funny that nobody demands that kind of certainty except from things they don't personally like.

Start here and then read all those references, and then read the references they reference, and then we'll talk.

PS: Hans rocks!

I (heart) analogies..

Its like this.

Some say that eating Maple Leaf deli meat is dangerous. Some evidence exists that it and other brands of deli meat are possibly dangerous due to potential contamination at the manufacturing end of things. Deli meat is also high in sodium and fat. All in all, one group of people say "the risk of eating deli meat is very high, therefore we declare that eating deli meat is a hazardous thing to do".

Others say "it was only one plant and one select bit of meats over one period of time. We will therefore say that the system works and deli meat is safe".

The Some say "but we have evidence to support our side".

The others say "we don't believe your evidence, it is limited".

The Some say "thats not how it works. You need to have evidence to the contrary to disprove something that has been put forward as a hypothesis" (!!!)

The others say "we have faith in our belief that deli meat is safe and we refute your statements (insert sound of munching a big ol' sub full of sliced ham and summer sausage)"

The some say "argh..." then they get frustrated and go have a less than satisfying but safe salad.

If I may tweak the analogy slightly, it's like the world is a single Maple Leaf factory and we've found swabs of dangerous bacteria in most of the machines and some say "But you didn't find dangerous bacteria in all the machines, and the bacteria cultures give a false-positive 10% of the time *munch munch munch*" and others say "But... " and some say "So instead of cleaning all of the machines thoroughly, let's distribute deli meat to small children across the country for free!" and others say "But..."

And that's not even touching upon the economics of withdrawing the world's supply of deli meat, or weaning cafeteria ladies off sandwiches as a staple lunch-food, or the economic costs to the deli-meat industry. Never mind the potential damage from all the world's children succumbing en masse to listeriosis. Sure, some will survive! The strong ones!

Wait, where was I?

Wait a minute. Renee, maybe you have stumbled upon something. Perhaps, th Conservatives are in fact agreeing with the climate change claims, but are in fact secretly supporting climate change as a form of Environmental Eugenics!!!

Polar Bears, Salmon, Owls, People...

"Sure, some will survive! The strong ones!"

Those stupid owls don't have a chance. My money's on the salmon, though. Tough, mean salmon. With giant teeth. And don't forget the ROUSes!