“It occurred to me…” Society is all about trust. The law has become about not trusting anybody.
Current climate change is normal and well within natural variability. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not causing unusual warming or abnormal climate change. Neither story is reported because national weather agencies like Environment Canada (EC) adhere to the discredited “official” science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and ignore real world evidence.
Yet last month, twelve Canadian climate scientists, economists and policy experts condemned the government in their alarmist open letter to Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver writing that, if Canada wants to avoid dangerous climate change it
“will require significantly reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and making a transition to cleaner energy.”
Many of the signatories to the letter worked with the Canadian and other governments to create the IPCC in the first place and for years have boosted the incorrect claim that we are facing “dangerous climate change”. Of course, we always experience climate change, but now, because of the deceptions, these scientists urge preparation for warming even though we more probably face cooling.
It was a former EC Assistant Deputy Minister, Gordon McBean, also an endorser of the open letter and now President of Canadian Climate Forum, who chaired the 1985 founding meeting of the IPCC. The EC web site says,
“Environment Canada, as the hub for climate change science and research in Canada, is a prominent contributor to the IPCC. Environment Canada’s scientists have served lead roles in each of the IPCC’s four comprehensive assessment reports and continue to serve in this capacity for the Fifth Assessment Report.”
“Canada’s participation in the IPCC is coordinated by an IPCC Focal Point for Canada based at Environment Canada. The Focal Point serves as a central point of contact in Canada to link the IPCC with the Canadian scientific community and the Government of Canada.”
Canadian author Donna Laframboise documented IPCC corruption in her book The Delinquent Teenager. German physicist and meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Plus said about IPCC work,
“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.” “Scientifically, it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob.”
The false science was deliberately created for a political agenda and disseminated by the IPCC. The false scare is the danger not climate change. To mix metaphors, Chicken Little is crying Wolf.
In a recent article Michaels and Knappenberger identified the EC Canadian climate model as the most extreme with regard to forecasting warming for the 21st Century. As Ken Gregory of Friends of Science writes,
“Michaels and Knappenberger compared the hindcast model output to actual 20th century temperature data to determine what mobile casino portion of the actual data can be explained by the model. They write, “A model can’t do worse than explaining nothing, right?”
“The differences between the predictions and the observed temperatures were significantly greater (by a factor of two) than what one would get just applying random numbers.”
“No information” is a random number simulation. The Canadian model is much worse than “no information” by a factor of 2, so it only produces anti-information. I made a plot from Climate Explorer, CMIP5, comparing the Canadian model to observations,”
If what the gang of twelve proposes was genuinely new then it might warrant consideration. But it is not new, and worse, has failed when tried. Countries that adopted more government control, green agendas and alternate energies are now scrambling to deal with the damages. Here is one example (source?):
“Instead of the blooming green economy promised by political leaders and activists, Europe is facing a competitiveness crisis and an economic nightmare, with almost 27 million people out of work and many countries facing bankruptcy. According to Austria’s energy regulator, European consumers have subsidized renewable energy investors by a staggering 600 billion euros since 2004. In most EU member states, energy prices have skyrocketed while millions of families have been forced into energy poverty.”
Ontario is a Canadian example of following a green agenda to energy and Truck defensive driving online Companies That Pay for Your Training; Free CDL Training Schools; . economic disaster. The Toronto-based newspaper, The Star, described former Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty as
“Canada’s greenest premier ever.”
As a result, The Star reports,
“In 2003, it was decided to begin closing all coal-fired generation plants, without having any plan to replace the lost generation. Closing the three large coal plants — Lakeview, Nanticoke and Lampton, with a total generating capacity of about 8,000 megawatts — stimulated the decision to go green with environmentally friendly renewable sources such as water, wind, solar and biomass.” The result was that by 2010, “The McGuinty government has a major electrical power problem, one created by its decision to use the power system as a political policy tool.”
Despite this evidence, today we are still urged to pursue this failed approach.
Repeating failure is often defined as insanity. The change proposed by the signatories to the open letter to Oliver and their government allies applies to climate change, but also to politics and economics. This required creating the science, in other words, politicizing the science.
A Frontline (NPR) interview with former Colorado Democrat Senator Tim Wirth, now President of the United Nations Foundation, provides evidence for global warming being used for a political agenda.
“We had introduced a major piece of legislation. Amazingly enough, it was an 18-part climate change bill; it had population in it, conservation, and it had nuclear in it. It had everything that we could think of that was related to climate change. … And so we had this set of hearings, and Jim Hansen was the star witness.”
Hansen’s information was completely unscientific and insupportable. He pursued CO2, particularly from coal, obsessively. In a comment to the UK Guardian he said,
“The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.”
Hansen eventually became Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies so he was in control of global temperature data and promoted his agenda with authority. The IPCC manufactured science to further the CO2 obsession.
Reduction of CO2 then became the basis for unwarranted government energy and economic policies. Most damaging were the promotion of alternate energy technologies whose inadequacies were masked by massive financial subsidies.
After a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in April, Oliver said,
“It does not advance the debate when people make exaggerated comments that are not rooted in the facts.”
This was in response to Hansen’s New York Times Op-ed claiming that, if the Athabasca oil sands project and Keystone pipeline continue, it is
“game over for the planet.”
A National Post article by Terrence Corcoran was headlined,
“Minister takes on climate scientist, and wins.”
Now the Oliver must take on his fellow Conservative, Environment Minister Peter Kent, since Kent’s department is using the same misinformation as Hansen, less vociferously, but with equal damage. Worse, they’re the major source of funding to most of those scientists who complain about government failure to act on
“dangerous climate change.”
The United Kingdom Met Office (UKMO) now admits that
“claims of significant temperature rise (are) untenable.”
As Professor Richard Feynman Nobel Laureate in Physics said,
“It doesn”t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn”t matter how smart you are. If it doesn”t agree with experiment, it”s wrong.”