Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in a grand gesture with no meaning. Kyoto was going to expire officially at the end of 2012 regardless, but was terminal in Copenhagen in 2009. Canada withdrew because of the cost of continuing. If they understood the science they would know Kyoto or any other CO2 reduction plan is not required. They don”t, so they seek a Kyoto replacement. As I pointed out years ago, Kyoto was a political solution to a non-existing problem.
Why don”t they know? Because they were deceived by bureaucrats at Environment Canada (EC) to the point of not even listening to other climate scientists. When Environment Minister David Anderson said he”d consulted Canadian climate scientists about Kyoto, eight of us held a press conference in Ottawa to say none of us were consulted. We were not the only ones.
The Impact Group, a contractor working for Environment Canada”s Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC), has released materials that support the contention that policy is driving climate science in Canada, not the other way around.
This was reached despite the limits of the study:
the Impact Group points out that “leading up to Canada”s decision to ratify the Kyoto protocol, there was no neutral, independent scientific organization to which the Government of Canada could turn to validate Canada”s position,” the Impact Group itself failed to seek meaningful consultation with independent scientists. Over 90 percent of the scientists interviewed by The Impact Group were government employees, many of whom were inside Environment Canada. Not a single one of the 40-some Canadian and international climate experts who published open letters to Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin were consulted by the Impact Group in assessing the state of climate science in Canada and internationally.
As recently as December 15th, 2011, they finally allowed climate scientists to appear before a Senate Energy Committee. It was a useless exercise. The politicians didn”t understand what the scientists were saying and the scientists didn”t understand the political questions. Consider this remark by the Chair;
You keep talking about greenhouse gases, and you say CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and then the H2O factor. There is a colloquialism in the world that has become part of our regular vocabulary greenhouse gases. I do not think anyone really knows what they mean when they say it. Could you give a definition?
The scientists failed to answer political questions about a consensus or the precautionary principle.
The Kyoto Protocol emerged from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as part of Agenda 21. The actual Protocol was established at the 1997 Conference of the Parties (COP) 3 in Kyoto, however details were only completed at Marrakech, Morocco in 2001. The Protocol was almost stillborn.
The US observed but refused to participate. Details in the Protocol said ratification by 55 countries was required including wealthy nations that produced for 55 percent of the developed world”s 1990 CO2 production. It left Russia with control, and President Putin – who said he wasn”t going to join – suddenly signed. He said he was given a choice: sign Kyoto or be denied admission to the World Trade Organization.
It didn”t matter because every nation”s CO2 levels continued to rise. Meanwhile, research showed that CO2 science was wrong. This didn”t deter politicians who wanted to appear green, not show their ignorance and exploit tax opportunities.
COP 15 in Copenhagen was critical to continuance of Kyoto. Somebody knew what the small group at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) were doing to achieve "the cause". It took just 1000 leaked emails to slow the process, but it didn”t stop – because it was now about politics. Gore”s comment that, “The science is settled” was true, but not as people understood.
The political juggernaut continued in Durban at COP 16. Another broadside of 5000 emails elaborated the extent of scientific corruption. Ignorance of the corruption is profound as the Chair of the Canadian Senate Energy hearing confirmed.
You keep talking about these leaks and we keep reading about these leaks. I chair a big hospital board and every morning in Montreal I am reading in the paper about stuff that happened in my board meetings. They say, “Oh, well, it”s a leak.” Who are these leakers? Do you have any idea?
This after listening to a succinct explanation of what is going on by Professor Ross McKitrick.
What should Canada do? They quit Kyoto but must quit the IPCC. It is beyond redemption and unable to “explain” climate change because of its definitions, assumptions, process, and political control.
Canada was a leader in climate change research in the 1980s and early 1990s until Canada was instrumental in the politicizing of climate science for a political agenda. Canadian Maurice Strong used the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to involve all national weather offices led by Environment Canada (EC) to define and establish goals of the IPCC. Former EC Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) Gordon McBean chaired the 1985 meeting at which the IPCC was organized. It appears his involvement killed Canada”s role as an independent apolitical leader in climate research.
A join program between the National Museum of Canada and Environment Canada studied Climate Change in Canada During the Past 20,000 Years. Each year a different critical period or issue was examined. Scientists studying all aspects of climate from dendroclimatology, to glaciology through historical climate presented papers, which were published in Syllogeus and edited by Dr. Richard Harington. One of the best studies, The Year Without A Summer: World Climate in 1816 looked at the impact of the eruption of the Tambora in 1815.
The program ended when Environment Canada pulled funding to pursue their political goals at the IPCC. To pay for this they closed weather stations, curtailed service, spent millions on computers and models that were and remain inadequate. They directed all climate research funding to “prove” the hypothesis in contradiction to scientific method. EC misled politicians for years and continue to do so.
Quit the IPCC. Reduce Environment Canada to data collection. Use the savings to set up the Climate Change in Canada project again through the National Museum of Canada and encourage other nations to do the same thing for their region. Hold biannual international conferences at the Museum to combine findings. Politics has no place in science.