Al Gore is a big fat hypocrite

When is everyone going to notice the two elephants in the room standing next to the Goracle?

First, Al Gore does not practice what he preaches when it comes to his mansion and he refuses to simply pledge to reduce his energy usage.

Second, there is a huge conflict of interest for the biggest climate change alarmist on the planet who happens to own a carbon credit trading company that is worth close to $250 million.

One News Now brings these facts together nicely:

Last month, U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) challenged Gore to sign a pledge to reduce his home energy use to that of the average American household; but Gore, whose Tennessee home consumes 20 times as much energy as the average American's home, has refused to take the pledge.

Inhofe is convinced he and other skeptics are winning the fight over global warming. He says, "There is a level of desperation [on Gore's part]; his entire life, his career, everything in his life is wrapped up in this assumption that man-made gases are causing climate change, and most of his supporters, the scientists of 10 years ago, who believed that he was right have come over to the other side now because the science just isn't there."

MIT meteorology professor Richard Lindzen recently said Al Gore's goal is not to battle global warming but to become a billionaire. Inhofe also points out a possible financial motivation for Gore, observing, "When you stop and think about the fact that he gets $200,000 a speech, he has to be concerned that that's going to come to an end."

And the Oklahoma Republican says Gore cannot refute several specific points posed by him and other global warming skeptics. "Number one," the lawmaker contends, is the fact that "if we did everything that he wants to do, in 50 years it would only reduce the temperature by .07 of one degree Celsius." And there is more, says Inhofe. "Secondly, that there's no relationship between the severity of hurricanes and global warming; three, the sea level rise that he tries to scare little kids with is bogus; four, money is driving this whole thing."

Emphasis mine.

Dion: Minister DoLittle on Climate Change

What do Liberals mean when they say Dion:

"...led 182 countries to a long-term agreement to fight climate change."

Lorrie Goldstein (Toronto Sun) reveals that it was it was an agreement to talk about future talks that will happen at sometime later. Now THATS important!! Good job Stephane! You accomplished as much at that conference as you did when you were the country's environment minister

Global Warming is Over

When you pull back the vail, all becomes clear.

Increase your knowledge with facts and figures from Johnathan Lowe at his blog.

The year 1990 was selected as the reference year for the Kyoto Accord.

In 1990 human emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels was 21,230 megatonnes.

In 1990 atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 354.16ppmv (year average from Mauna Loa observatory). In 1990 the global temperature was 14.075 degrees C (year average from MSU satellite data for the lower troposphere referenced to 14 degrees C for a relative absolute temperature)

In 2003 the global temperature from this satellite data dropped from 14.317 degrees C of the previous year to 14.272 degrees C. The temperature dropped again in 2004, went up in 2005, and dropped again in 2006 representing a net cooling of 0.044 degrees C over the last four years indicating that global warming is likely over.

Dumb Politians Helping Al Gore Make Millions

Kate at SDA has posted a Financial Times piece that blows the lid off the carbon trading scam Al Gore and mega corporations are cashing in on:

A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.

The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a “green gold rush”, which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go “carbon neutral”, offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.

The burgeoning regulated market for carbon credits is expected to more than double in size to about $68.2bn by 2010, with the unregulated voluntary sector rising to $4bn in the same period.

The FT investigation found:

News Flash: Dwight Duncan is the stupidest politician, ever. Lorrie Goldstein of the Toronto Sun has a few things to say about the dumbest thing he (and I) have ever heard a polititian saying:

[...]

But our winner is Dwight Duncan, Ontario's energy minister, who says Ontario's Liberal government won't install scrubbers on the smokestacks of its coal-fired electricity generating stations -- among Canada's, and North America's, worst emitters of air pollution and greenhouse gases.

As Duncan put it: "We're not going to spend $1.6 billion on technology that doesn't help climate change. That's just dumb."

WHAAAA? So, according to the brain trust running the Ontario government, spending money on the supposed "man-made global warming problem" is THE only environmental issue worth pursuing. In other words, all the money that they were going to spend in the MOE has all been appropriated for addressing what they consider the biggest environmental problem facing Ontario today - CO2 emissions. Water pollution? Who cares. Particulates and smog? No longer an issue. I am starting to believe that the global warming cultists are lunitics. These people are willing to sacrifice the economy of the country and all of the other environmental issues to fix a problem that DOES NOT EXIST!!!

Why do environmentalists hate Harper? Follow the money

Let's see, do they want to save the world or suck on the government's teat to line their pockets? My question to environmentalists: Who has the hidden agenda now?

According to Steve Janke, Stephane Dion gave millions to evironmental special interest groups when he was the Environment Minister. When the Conservatives took office, they ended such funding through the Accountability Act. Now the ennvironmentalists are pissed:

Environmentalists say the Conservatives' communications strategy on climate change almost exactly echoes advice in a three-year-old briefing book written by U.S. pollster and communications adviser Frank Luntz.

"The reality is that the Harper government has studied Republican tactics carefully and is implementing them one at a time,'' said Louise Comeau, project director of the Sage Climate Project.
[...]
Consider these numbers. They are the funds received by environmental groups in 2005-2006, while Stephane Dion was environment minister

- Pembina Institute: $403,240
- Sage Foundation: $107,000
- Climate Action Network: $1,783,769

BIASED! Climate Scientists - Scientific Journals - Main Stream Media

Another example of why politics and science do not mix!

Commenter Fred left a juicy tease about a presentation made by Dr. Benny Peiser made at the "Climate Change: Evaluating Appropriate Responses" conference in Brussels on April 18th.

The paper below was presented at the conference "Climate Change: Evaluating Appropriate Responses". Brussels, European Parliament, 18 April 2007 by Benny Peiser, Liverpool John Moores University, Faculty of Science, Liverpool L2 3ET, UK -- b.j.peiser@livjm.ac.uk

Two weeks ago, climate experts and government officials from 130 countries released the latest IPCC Summary for Policy Makers on the 'Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability of Climate Change'. The IPCC's predictions of the future were carefully scrutinised by governments and generally accepted. Despite attempts to tone down some of the more alarming language, the latest IPCC report predicts that unrestrained warming will cause mass extinctions, devastating floods, heatwaves, storms and droughts that may trigger economic disaster and social upheaval.

There can be little doubt that scientists, science organisations and the dominant science media have been instrumental in turning doom-laden computer models into an apocalyptic consensus. For the last 10 years or so, there has been a relentless outpouring of disaster predictions that have been published with little hesitation and rising alarm by the world's leading science journals. Any lingering reservation about looming catastrophe has been silenced by science editors and environmental journalists. Uncertainties have been conveniently disregarded and highly unlikely worst case scenarios exaggerated. Not since the apocalyptic consensus of the Middle Ages has the prognostication of impending doom and global catastrophe on the basis of mathematical modelling been as widely accepted as today. No question about it: The IPCC's disaster predictions have been converted into a general consensus among the world's political and academic elites.

Ironically, these apocalyptic predictions of the future are politically sanctioned at the same time as a growing number of scientists are recognising that environmental and economic computer modelling of an inherently unpredictable future is illogical and futile (see, O.H. Pilkey and L Pilkey-Jarvis: "Useless Arithmetic: Why environmental scientists can't predict the future", Columbia University Press, 2007). As the eminent mathematician David Orrell has pointed out persuasively: "The track record of any kind of long-distance prediction is really bad, but everyone's still really interested in it. It's sort of a way of picturing the future. But we can't make long-term predictions of the economy, and we can't make long-term predictions of the climate. Models will cheerfully boil away all the water in the oceans or cover the world in ice, even with pre-industrial levels of CO2 When models about the future climate are in agreement, it says more about the self-regulating group psychology of the modelling community than it does about global warming and the economy." (David Orrell, "Apollo's Arrow. The Science of Prediction and the Future of Everything", 2007)

Luckily, I found the rest:

Be that as it may, the reality of the IPCC consensus should not be underestimated. Its political weight and growing demands for drastic economic intervention is posing a serious political predicament for many governments, most of which find themselves unable to control let alone reduce CO2 emissions that are rising almost everywhere.

Paradigms, Consensus and Falsification

Science based on "consensus" is a tricky business. I am agnostic about it because the history of science tells us that today's consensus can, and quite frequently is, tomorrow's redundant theory. There are certain types of general agreements in science that are more compelling and more durable than others. In some areas of empirical science, like solar system astronomy, there is more agreement because the data is more robust and the methods less complex. The more complex the science and the less reliable the data, the more scientific controversy you should expect to find.

On the other hand we also know that science tends to produce - and in fact needs - scientific paradigms -- which is perhaps a better word than consensus. So I have really no problem with the fact of a majority consensus on climate change. But science would quickly come to a dead end without the constant and necessary attempts to falsify the leading paradigm of the day, particularly those that are weak and based on contentious data, dodgy methodologies and flawed computer models.

Indeed, some critics argue that climate science has almost reached such a cul-de-sac. The scientific endeavour involves both the protectors and challengers of each and every paradigm. Both are essential to the health and dynamic of a highly competitive enterprise that is science. No consensus is sacrosanct. And it is in the very nature of science and science communication that all reasonable positions and counter-arguments should be heard. The ongoing controversy about hurricanes and global warming is a perfect example of the predicaments of consensus science. It also demonstrates that advocates who exploit the consensus argument against climate sceptics are more than happy to oppose the consensus - if it helps to further an alarmist agenda.

For a long time, and until fairly recently, natural variability was the lead paradigm underlying the dynamic changes in hurricane frequency and intensity. In the last two years or so, a small number of papers published in the world's leading academic journals Science and Nature have cast doubt over this long-established paradigm. Climate campaigners and science journalists jumped to conclusions and claimed: "The old paradigm is dead - long live the new paradigm!" It is noteworthy, however, that both the recent consensus statements by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) as well as the latest IPCC statements on hurricanes and global warming maintain rather than overturn the old paradigm. At the same time, they caution us about the weight of the new papers.

I believe this is an encouraging development because it would appear to raise the requirements for overthrowing old paradigms. Let me also remind you about the dodgy process that removed from the old IPCC consensus the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age and replaced it with the notorious Hockey Stick consensus. A few enthusiastically received papers were able to overturn the old consensus - mainly because they undermined the important argument by climate sceptics about the degree of Holocene climate variability. Science journalists bought into the new Hockey Stick "consensus" sink line, and hooker. However, their prejudice was evidently laid bare by the extraordinary reluctance to report or report impartially about its flaws and the controversy it generated.

Similar problems can be observed regarding the thorny issue of sea level rise: is it more or less steady (as the IPCC claims) or is it accelerating, as climate alarmists claim? The mainstream science media have no qualms in hyping up new papers that go against the IPCC consensus. At the same time, the same outlets ignore other studies that confirm an inconvenient consensus that climate alarmist regard as too conservative and thus pose an impediment for political action.

I could go on and on: while alarmist claims and predictions are routinely puffed up by the science media and environmental journalists, studies that come to more moderate and less alarmist conclusions are habitually ignored or discredited for being too cautious.

From editorial bias to confirmation bias

Over the last 10 years or so, the editors of the world's leading science journals such as Science and Nature as well as popular science magazines such as Scientific American and New Scientist have publicly advocated drastic policies to curb CO2 emissions. At the same time, they have publicly attacked scientists sceptical of the climate consensus. The key message science editors have thus been sending out is brazen and simple: "The science of climate change is settled. The scientific debate is over. It's time to take political action."

Instead of serving as an honest and open-minded broker of scientific controversy, science editors have opted to take a rigid stance on the science and politics of climate change. In so doing, they have in effect sealed the doors for any critical assessment of the prevailing consensus which their journals officially sponsor. Consequently, their public endorsement undoubtedly deters critics from submitting falsification attempts for publication. Such critiques, not surprisingly, are simply non-existing in the mainstream science media.

But there is more to the problem than just editorial promoting of the scientific consensus. After all, such behaviour is not restricted to the issue of climate change. Editorial bias is often found among other science journals on many other controversies. Much more problematic is the reality of a strong confirmation bias among science editors. While the phenomenon of confirmation bias is an intensely researched and well established form of selective thinking among medical and economic researchers, this methodological impediment is completely ignored in climate science.

Any careful examination of the publishing record of leading science journals will show that science editors too tend to favour the publication of papers that confirm their publicly stated beliefs rather than question them. That is why science editors habitually ignore or treat with contempt any evidence that contradicts their core beliefs. Many critical scientists can confirm that prominent science editors have turned down their papers and have become reluctant to the point of refusal to publish any evidence that attempts to refute their favoured theory.

Of course, climate scientist themselves are routinely accused of confirmation bias for running statistical models and framing their data in such a way that it predictably confirms their hypothesis. After all, research into confirmation and other biases has shown that the scientific method incorporates an inherent tension between hard data and their interpretation by scientists with deeply held convictions. Good science journals critically evaluated and peer review the quality of data and the likelihood of error.

This deceptively reliable process of scrutiny and quality control, however, is itself prone to confirmation bias: peer reviewers selected by biased editors are more likely to accept evidence that supports their own prior belief while rejecting arguments and data that may challenge these convictions (Kaptchuk, 2003). Any science medium that ignores or fail to appreciate these inherent pitfalls of climate science can no longer be regarded as trustworthy.

The end of fair and objective science journalism

For the last few years, a number of influential climate scientists and science writers have conducted a campaign against the principles of fair and balanced journalism that epitomize open and pluralistic societies. The main accusation against impartial reporting on climate change is quite simple: An article in the Boston Globe on climate change journalism sums up the key argument: "More and more environmentalists and climate scientists have been making the point that ''objective" journalists are doing as much as anyone (except maybe Hummer enthusiasts) to forestall action on global warming." (Christopher Shea, Boston Globe, 9 April 2006) Or, in the words of media analysts Boykoff and Boykoff: "A more subtle factor that helps explain US inaction (sic) also exists: journalists' faithful adherence to their professional norms (like objectivity, fairness, accuracy, balance)... (Boykoff and Boykoff, Geoforum 2007, in press)

In short, climate campaigners and science activists are concerned that any doubts or uncertainties expressed in the media may hinder the political objective for drastic action. No wonder then that science editors and campaigners have employed strategies to discourage or intimidate reporters from even asking climate sceptics about their assessment. Michael Mann (Penn State University), for instance, has warned science writers that even to quote a climate sceptic would be regarded as if they had granted ''the Flat Earth Society an equal say with NASA in the design of a new space satellite." (Boston Globe, 9 April 2006). The editor of Scientific American, John Rennie, publicly refers to dissenters as ''denialists" and said that "to give them even one paragraph in a 10-paragraph article would be to exaggerate their importance." (Boston Globe, 9 April 2006)

Occasionally, a probing science reporter dares to challenge these forms of coercion despite the threats of mockery and intimidation. In such cases, a whole army of climate campaigners and bloggers will rush to assail the insubordinate journalist, as science writers such as Bill Broad and John Tierney of the New York Times can attest.

In Britain, it has become routine for leading science organisations such as the Royal Society to press-gang the media against publishing critical reporting on climate change. Lord May, the former, president of the Royal Society publicly censured newspapers such as The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail for publishing sceptical articles and comments. May also tried to silence respected writers such as David Bellamy, Melanie Phillips and Michael Hanlon by intimidating them personally. In 2005, the then vice-president of the Royal Society, Sir David Wallace, warned the British media not to publish anything that distorted the official view of climate science: "We are appealing to all parts of the UK media to be vigilant against attempts to present a distorted view of the scientific evidence about climate change and its potential effects on people and their environments around the world. I hope that we can count on your support." (The Daily Telegraph, 16 May 2005)

The attacks by science editors and campaigners on critical scientists are not only fuelled by political considerations. Sometimes they are due to blind faith in an apocalyptic future, as a recent editorial in New Scientist reveals: "One of the most corrosive contributions of climate sceptics has been to promote any uncertainty as an excuse for inaction. In truth, the remaining uncertainties should be making us redouble our efforts to mitigate climate change. It's a fair bet that much of what we do not yet know for sure will turn out to be scarier than most of us like to imagine." In other words, the editors of New Scientist are certain that what we do not know today will, upon knowing it in the future, prove to be even worse than they fear. Evidently, such hyperbole has nothing to do with science but belongs to the realm of superstitious divination.

While climate campaigners are trying to frame even the political and economic debate in the traditional fashion of a conflict between consensus and dissent, the political debate is no longer about action versus inaction. The real issue today is about the most cost-effective ways of dealing with climate change: revolutionary transformation of the global economy, as advocated by climate alarmists, or gradual adaptation and adjustment as proposed by climate moderates.

The role of the science media as the maid of government policy

Climate campaigners and environmental media analysts have become convinced that their crusade against impartial science reporting has been won comprehensively. According to this view, the neo-catastrophist framing of climate change has been generally accepted by most science journalists and is now consistently communicated by most news media outlets.

Yet campaigners worry that the political battle is far from won. Thus, in a recent article published by the British Journalism Review, media researchers Eleni Andreadis and Joe Smith warn that the next contest poses an ever greater challenge to science journalism: "We are entering a period when careful interpretation and communication of the economic, political and social dimensions of climate change will be vital. Failure to tell these aspects of the story could be of even greater significance than the painfully slow arrival at the basics of the science. The media will offer the context within which we decide the If, How and When of transforming energy-hungry lifestyles and economies... The open terrain of these questions presents media decision-makers with a new set of challenges, and the way they handle scepticism will again be central to their performance." (British Journalism Review, Vol. 18, No. 1, February 2007).

Andreadis and Smith underscore the role of journalists in framing the climate change debates and assisting governments to enforce drastic policies: "Their principal question should be: Will this help to reduce emissions dramatically, or is it a way of only denting the status quo?". Andreadis and Smith have delineated the science media's political role in no uncertain terms. In a illuminating paragraph, they outline new programme of salvationist campaign journalism: "In dealing with these [climate change] stories the media will also need to marry their critical faculties to a commitment to enable debate about action and change. You can barely fill a taxi with senior mainstream politicians from Western Europe who do not believe action to mitigate and adapt to climate change is necessary. But most are frightened of sticking their necks out. They need to be given the space to think and experiment and lead public debate on action." (British Journalism Review, Vol. 18, No. 1, 2007).

In other words, the role of science and environmental journalists is to provide governments with media support that will enable reluctant decision makers to enforce unpopular policies.

The crisis of science communication

Despite the majority consensus among climate scientists, science organisations and governments, there is a sizeable minority of researchers, economists and political observers who are concerned about the apocalyptic nature of climate hype and the potential risk it poses for political and economic stability. Sceptical researchers have and will continue to publish critical papers that question important parts of even some fundaments of the current climate consensus. Will the science media provide a platform for these critiques? Will they discuss the weight of their evidence and the validity of their arguments? Or will the science media continue to ignore challenges to the status quo?

The absurdity of the science media's handling of climate science is well illuminated in this week's issue of New Scientist. In an editorial, the editors try to square the principle of falsification (which they claim is vital for science to progress) with their belief that any such attempt would undermine political attempts to mitigate climate disaster: "Some scientists are challenging our ideas on climate change, which is vital if we are to progress. But to overturn present thinking will need very strong evidence because, as the IPCC states, confidence in the idea that anthropogenic warming is changing our world has never been higher." (New Scientist, 14 April 2007).

Yet, at the same time, the editor's zealous defence of the apocalyptic climate consensus and their fierce resistance to provide critical researchers a forum for rebuttals or falsification attempts undermines their own integrity.

Let me conclude: The integrity of the science media will depend on whether it will encourage critique and fault-finding analysis by consensus sceptics - or whether they will continue its course towards unbalanced campaign journalism. Given the well-documented reluctance of mainstream science media to accept submissions by critical scientists and the aversion to report on critical papers published elsewhere, I remain unconvinced that science journalism will moderate its blinkered attitudes in the near future.

The diverse groups of critical analysts and researchers will need to develop alternative infrastructures and media outlets if they wish to provide open-minded science writers with judicious evaluations of disaster predictions and a genuinely impartial assessment of evidence. Given the evident biases mainstream science media and environmental journalism has chosen to adopt, there is a growing demand for more balanced and even-handed coverage of climate change science and debates. Scientists and science writers who are concerned about the integrity and openness of the scientific process should turn the current crisis of science communication into an opportunity by setting up more critical, even-handed and reliable science media.

Catching Up

Yesterday was a down day, but here are a few items in case you missed them:

As Al Gore takes his resource hogging, CO2 spewing crusade through the Canadian West, the Alberta Premier tells the Goracal (a paraphrase): "...if you don't like the oilsands, get your country to stop buying oil from it":

But Stelmach, who hasn't seen the documentary, said Monday in Calgary the province is merely feeding Americans' insatiable demand for energy, so perhaps ore should look closer to home.

Over at the Toronto 'Red' Star, they want to know if you are a "Invested Materialists" or a "Ambivalent Materialists" or part of the "Suzuki Nation". The insidious part about this is they tie the man-made global warming issue into the general pollution issue. Who in their right ind wants polluted air and water? I am against those and believe energy conservation is a good thing. I am against spending billions of dollars on a problem that has been created by unreliable computer models and simply is not true. Anyway, they are mostly talking about a marketing scheme:

Environment Canada was also advised to push those "most responsible for influencing or making the types of decisions that can have a positive environmental impact" into considering the environment in their shopping habits.

The report by [American] market researcher Phoenix Strategies suggests individuals can be pushed into environmental action with targeted communications.
(emphasis and addition mine).

And finally, Lorrie Goldstein of the Toronto Sun likes what Baird and the Conservatives have said about Kyoto:

Environment Minister John Baird deserves credit for finally getting a serious discussion going about the real costs of implementing the Kyoto accord. Up to now, we've been sleep walking toward disaster.
[...]
Yesterday, the National Post said the Liberals had studies in 2000 estimating that complying with Kyoto would result in a loss of $4,400 of disposable income for a typical family, close to Baird's numbers. Is that true?
[...]
Last week, Baird called his [Dion's] bluff. About time.

Google Supports Al Gore's Agenda

Imperceptibly, millimetre by millimetre the global warming mantra invades the psyche of anyone who is simply living life. Bombarded by the message “man made global warming is killing the planet” through the MSM, advertising, celebrities and now, Google. Check out their melting iceberg logo used to mark earth day yesterday.

Google’s message is subtle, but clear. Melting icebergs are a result of global warming, the number one threat to the earth. It has been known for a while that Google is liberal organization. This just adds to the evidence of their political agenda.

New-Improved Clean Air Act is Dead

Apparently, C-30 is a goner.

According to a piece by CTV today:

Environmentalists say Environment Minister John Baird told them in a private meeting that he will abandon the bill because he can't accept sweeping amendments put forward by the opposition.
[...]
In Friday's meeting, Baird reportedly described the rewritten legislation as a Liberal bill and said he would never bring it forward, said John Bennett of ClimateforChange.

Those freight trains are barrelling down the same track on a collision course. Stay tuned...

I may even tune into CPAC for question period today.

Suzuki is Clueless

David Suzuki, arch-bishop (Canada) of the global warming religion, has no idea what Canadians are willing to pay for to pray at his climate change altar.

On Sunday, Suzuki opined that Canadians would be willing to pay a carbon tax. CTV decided to run a little web poll. Apparently, Suzuki, the partisan global warming mouthpiece is WRONG!

Suzuki has jumped the shark. Time to go back to fruit flies and sucking on the public teat at the CBC where it is nice and comfortable.

Who is Scarier: Conservatives or Environmentalists?

The fallout from the Conservatives’ report on the economic cost of implementing bill C-288 has been interesting. As expected, the opposition and enviro-cultists like Suzuki have ripped into Baird and the Conservatives. Friday’s question period started off with a Liberal-Bloq pile on of Baird, lead by David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) accusing the Conservatives of trying to:

…scare Canadians with a report based on bogus assumptions and extreme views of the Kyoto accord.

This assertion is ironic because the environmental religion led by Al Gore has been trying to scare the world with predictions of cataclysmic disasters "based on bogus assumptions and extreme views". I guess they would know a scare tactic when they see one.

The enviro-kool-aid-brigade was made up of McGuinty, Rodriguez (Lib), Guay (BQ) and Bigras (BQ). They accused the Conservatives of everything from twisting the arms of the economists that supported the economic report to inflating the tax cost to corporations, with a healthy dose of damaging Quebec thrown in.

Baird shot back with Liberal inaction on Kyoto since 1997, the opposition not costing out C-288 before passing it and the

The cost of inaction is that we are forced to do the work of 15 years in just 8 months. That is the real problem.

Baird referred a number of times to the impending Conservative plan to tackle

harmful greenhouse gas emissions

It is worrying that the Conservative government has adopted the opinion that CO2 emissions are harmful. There is no evidence of this. CO2 is a naturally occurring molecule emitted by plants and animals alike. If you don’t like CO2 emissions, stop breathing. That is also impossible, just like Canada meeting its Kyoto targets in 8 months.

Even more worrying is Baird’s assertion that the Conservative’s will

regulate industry

for greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, Canada is riding high economically, regulating CO2 emissions will be a huge cost to industry, however they choose to meet the regulations. China and other developing countries are not part of Kyoto and do not have to regulate CO2 emissions. In fact, these countries have little to no environment regulations at all. Canada has to compete with these countries in the current global economy. We are shooting ourselves in the foot over a problem that does not exist.

Others have weighed in on the issue also:

Chantal Hébert of the Toronto Star agrees that the Conservatives and the opposition seem to be on a collision course over the environment. It should be interesting with bill C-30, the new, improved Clean Air Act looming on the horizon.

From the sounds of it, the differences between the Harper government and the opposition on climate change are irreconcilable.

Andrew Coyne of the National Post thinks that Baird may have a point. It is a good read. He even puts together some numbers to support Baird’s Argument.

The key assumption is that the bulk of the required reductions -- 75% -- would have to be achieved domestically, rather than by buying emissions credits abroad. We'll get to that assumption in a second, but the implications if you accept it are stark. At 770 megatonnes per year, we are now about 36% above the target set out in the Kyoto protocol: 6% below 1990 levels, or 563 Mt.

The deadline for meeting this target is not, as commonly reported, 2012. Rather, it is 2008 to 2012: the target is defined as the average annual emissions over that period. Yet emissions are currently projected to grow another 10% over the next five years, to roughly 850 Mt. So it isn't just a matter of somehow cutting 200 Mt out of emissions by next year, but of cutting nearly 300 Mt by 2012 --an average reduction of 33% from the baseline forecast. If we fall short of that target in the first year, we have to exceed it in subsequent years.

Finally, Jeff Watson (MP, Essex – CPC) , believes that implementing C-288 will kill Canada’s auto industry.

Jeff Watson, today panned the Liberals' job killing Kyoto bill, C-288, "as the death knell for Essex county's auto industry and called on the Liberal Opposition - and its nominated candidates - to explain why they want to kill auto jobs in Essex and across Canada".

Suzuki Blows a Gasket

Isn’t it interesting how stoked up the enviro-cultists get when anyone, especially a governing politician, says anything against their god, global warming. Check out GW arch-bishop of Canada - David Suzuki’s reaction to the dire warnings in the report on the economic impacts of meeting Kyoto targets:

If our so-called leaders ignore the warnings, I would think that this is a crime against future generations and I'm wondering if there's a legal basis for taking action against people who run corporations or who run government, for their inaction on global warming,

[...I’m wondering if there’s any legal basis for taking action against Suzuki and his ilk for spreading lies about man made global warming, with the intention of swindling everyday people out of gobs and gobs of money. Probably not likely either. As you were.]

I happen to think it's a crime, or perhaps we can call it a sin.

[…the bishop has spoken, let it be written that anyone that is not a lemming and likes to think for themselves is a sinner against the global warming religion and must burn in…umm…Ontario desert for all their natural lives. Even Suzuki is referring to GW hysteria as a religion, complete with sin.]

And what did his worship have to say about the report?

First of all, let's stop listening to the goddamn economists

[…classy! “If you don’t worship my god I will cuss in your God’s name.” Is that what they teach in fruit-fly skool nowadays? Not to mention the disrespect he has shown for some of the most honoured people in their field.]

And finally,

Twenty per cent of the economy will disappear. It will cost more than World War I and World War II put together. We'll go into a kind of depression we've never, ever had in all of history.

[…after which, Suzuki stood up and yelled “BOOO!”]

Why do people like Suzuki and the rest of the global warming cult not get it? These dire predictions are based on very flawed models that are set up to give the answer their creators (global warming proponents) are looking for. On a more basic level, climatologists are lousy at predicting the weather a week or a month into the future. How can we trust them predicting temperatures and weather 20 to 50 years from now?

Economic Catastrophe Trumps Environmental Disaster Propaganda

It looks more likely that the Conservatives are on a collision course with the Liberals and NDP over Kyoto/Global warming. The result: an election.

Exhibit A:

Today, John Baird released a Government of Canada study on the economic impact of bill C-288 (An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol) passed by a Liberal-NDP-Bloq coalition. This study is supported by leading, independent Canadian economists.

In a nutshell, the study says that it would be economic suicide if Canada attempted to meet the 2008 to 2012 Kyoto targets set out by the bill. Baird even details how many people will lose their job and how much more Canadians will be paying for utilities and gas:

• 275,000 Canadians would lose their job by 2009


• The cost of electricity bills would jump 50% after 2010


• The cost of filling up a car would jump 60%


• The cost of heating a home by natural gas would double

Exhibit B:

The Liberal-NDP dominated committee responsible for re-crafting the Conservative's 'Clean Air Act' has targeted 'Climate Change' (their way of saying Global Warming') in a big way. Have a look at a few parts of the new preamble:

[…]

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that air pollution and greenhouse gases are matters within the jurisdiction of both the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces;

[…]

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that climate change constitutes one of the most serious threats to humanity and to Canada, and poses major risks not only to the environment and the economy, but above all to the health and safety of all people;

[…]

Whereas the Government of Canada signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which entered into force in 1994, and Parliament ratified in 2002 by a majority vote in the House of Commons and the Senate the Kyoto Protocol which entered into force in 2005 and under which Canada must honour its obligation to reduce its average annual greenhouse gas emissions during the period from 2008 to 2012 to six percent below their level in 1990;" […bill C-288]

As I have said before, I believe people care about the bottom line before they care about Canada's infinitesimal contribution to man's CO2 emissions. Stripping the issue down to dollars and cents is a great strategy because the opposition is caught between a rock and a hard place. If the Grit-Dippers dig in and demand that the new and improved Clean Air Act is passed, the Conservatives may make it a confidence issue because of the economic peril. The Conservatives do not fear an election. On the other hand, the Liberals and NDP could tuck their tail between their legs and back off, allowing the Conservatives to implement their pollution/greenhouse gas plan. A Conservative win.

By the rhetoric I have heard from the Liberals and NDP after the report came out, it doesn't look like they are about to back off.

UPDATE: The CBC has weighed in with this fair and balanced 'report'. The highlight: Elizabeth May's reaction:

This is more economic fearmongering from a
Government that doesn't want to take its responsibilities.

That's rich! A global wanrming alarmist is lecturing about fearmongering.

War, Hurricanes and Dead Animals - OH MY!

Lots to choose from today:

I have never thought of GW as a security issue before. They make a good point given the fact that currently global temperatures are rising. I have never denied this, I disagree with the enviro-cult's assertion that man is causing it. I am sure the spin will be that GW will cause wars and we should all be more frightened.

UN debates impact of global warming on world peace

MARGARET BECKETT (Britain's Foreign Secretary): Security Council is the forum to discuss issues that threaten the peace and security of the international community.

What makes wars start? Fights over water, changing patterns of rainfall, fights over food production, land use. There are few greater potential threats to our economies, too, if the Stern Report is correct, but also to peace and security itself.

This is an issue that threatens the peace and security of the whole planet, and the Security Council has to be the right place to debate it.

Here is an interesting headline: "Global warming may inhibit hurricanes". I thought Al Gore said that super-GW-hurricanes will cause unprecedented loss of life and property? Anyway, after reading the article, I get the sense that they actually have no idea how the slightly increasing global temperature will affect hurricanes. Even here, the enviro-kool-aid brigade (Martin Merzer - McClatchy Newspapers) never stops the rhetoric:

And that could counteract global warming's baking of the Atlantic Ocean, which some experts have predicted will grow so hot by the end of this century that it turbocharges hurricanes

If you read anything today, Kate at SDA has an excellent post. Do not skip the comments, there are some diamonds in the rough to be found!

Y2Kyoto: "66% Confident, 50% Sure"

Reader Phil Primeau (Defend Canada) has read the IPCC report so you don't have to. His summary;
[...]

Keeping Up With the Schwarzeneggers

Just after MPs started the Easter break, I heard about the changes that were made to the Conservative's 'Clean Air' Act (Bill C-30). The NDP and Liberals make up the majority of the committee responsible for re-crafting the legislation. As a result, the bill has essentially been gutted and looks nothing like the original. Obviously, the Conservatives were none too happy about the changes and strongly voiced their concern over the changes that would hurt key industries and ultimately, the country.

One interesting addition to the Clean Air Act requires Canada to have the highest fuel consumption standards for vehicles in the entire world. If some other jurisdiction moves the bar higher, by law, Canada will have to do better:

New Clause 46.1

That Bill C-30 be amended by adding before line 1 on page 33 the following new clause:

"46.1 The Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act is amended by adding, after the long title, the following:

WHEREAS the Government of Canada is committed to a clean environment, healthy Canadians, and the reduction of domestic greenhouse gas emissions;

AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada is committed to having fuel consumption standards that meet or exceed international best practices;

NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:"

What if the technology to meet or exceed these best practices is very expensive? Car companies surely are not going to eat the costs. Car and truck buyers are going to have to pick up the extra costs. How is the government going to sell this to the SUV loving, mini-van driving middle class voter? What the heck does 'best practices' mean anyway? That is such a loose term, it could mean just about anything. So, if biking to work is the best practices of some third world country, does that mean that, by law, Canadians will have to be biking to work in February. I wonder what Buzz and the CAW thinks about this?

This is getting ridiculous, and everybody knows it. Many people have been speculating that there will be a federal election this spring. This new Clean Air Act may be bone of contention that may bring a confidence vote that triggers an election. Have a look at an exchange between the Minister of the Environment and the Liberals:

Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has now seen the amended version of Bill C-30, which passed in legislative committee just yesterday.

Bill C-30 will be reported to the House later today. My question is simple and straightforward. Will the minister abide by the will of the committee, the will of this House, and move to adopt the clean air and climate change act as soon as possible?

Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the bill that will be reported back later today is certainly one that we are prepared to read, to have our lawyers look at and to have discussions on with my colleagues.

I am concerned with respect to certain language that has been written into the bill. One of the member's own caucus colleagues said, "We're so far behind now" in meeting our Kyoto commitments "that catch-up is impossible, without shutting the country down". This is not a quote from 10 years ago. This is a quote from about eight weeks ago from the Liberal member for Halton. Maybe the member can tell us whether he agrees with it.

Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the retrofitted clean air act includes a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. It has targets. It has timelines. It has a clear framework for action. It brings Canada to the forefront of international trading, it ensures investments in clean technologies right here at home, and it outlaws hot air.

Will the minister get the job done and pass the clean air act in the House before the end of April?

Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, this government has a comprehensive plan to fight climate change, and we are actually doing action, not just talking. The member's own deputy leader said his leader just did not get the job done, and this is a member who this week voted against a budget containing substantial funding to help fight climate change.

Let us look at what one of my good friends said about the budget and some of the announcements contained in it. He said that the environmental announcements contained in the budget were "a great day for hard-working Ontario families".

Does the hon. member know which friend of mine said that? Dalton McGuinty.

Read the rest here.

The Conservatives are not buying in right away. They have reservations. I just hope that they do not blindly believe that appearing green will get them the majority they are seeking. If they asked me, I would tell them to start telling Canadians just how much this Clean Air Act is going to cost everyone at the gas pump, on the car lot and on their heating bill. The majority of people are want to save the planet if it doesn't cost them anything.

The proposed amendments to the Act are reminiscent of communism. Fear has been stoked by Al Gore and the environmentalist zealots, now governments are using the opportunity to grab more control.

Another Video You Shouldn't Watch...

...if you are OK with blindly believing in global warming.

Oh, yeah...it was made in 1990, seven years before the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated.

Green House Conspiracy

Al Gore Cashes In

Paul Ibbetson is a voice in the wilderness. Repent ye global warming fanatics and the truth shall set you free (h/t to Kate at SDA for the picture):

So what do you do when your leader (Gore), who preaches that the masses should reduce their deadly emissions, is found with his pants down consuming enough energy to power a third world country? Well, that’s when fanaticism comes in handy. We are quickly told that Gore is still among the holy, despite the fact that his utility bill was $30,000 in a single year. Why? Because he had a coupon! Thus enters the saga of the carbon credit. Like group hypnosis, the carbon credit sales pitch conditions the global warming convert to believe that if you have enough money, your spirit can be pure, without reducing your carbon foot print at all. Of course the ones that do not have the financial means will have to be doing the sacrificing, but by expanding government regulation there is little doubt that a fair and even reduction system can be found for the unwashed masses. In case, you don’t understand this system, it’s called socialism and it’s the business end of the church of global warming. There is little doubt that when we get to this point, we will be asked to put a lot more than money into the collection plate; but for the prophet Gore this will never be a problem. Even at Global Warming Hearings in the Senate in late March, 2007, where the red carpet was laid in his honor, the prophet of consumption reduction refused to take an energy ethics pledge to use no more energy than the average American. If this article is making you rant, I’m going to have to ask you to quiet down; after all, we are in church.

Why do you think Al Gore is leading the global warming bandwagon? Out of the goodness of his heart? Is he truly concerned for the planet? Surely he has nothing to gain from his efforts! Yeah, right. Look up 'conflict of interest' on wiki and you will find a picture of Al Gore. I have read many times that Al Gore justifies his use of private jets and ownership of palatial residences through the purchase of carbon credits. When you purchase a carbon credit, the money supposedly goes to a developing country (that has little to no environmental laws) to plant a tree or invest into some other 'green' project. You purchase these carbon credits from an intermediary company that skims a portion of the money off the top as a fee.

Guess who owns the company Al Gore buys his carbon credits from...Al Gore. You can buy your carbon credits from Mr. Gores' Hot Air Inc. Generation Investment Management LLP also. In the end, who profits from global warming hysteria, where the general public is whipped into such a frenzy that people will pay big buck to easy their environmental conscience? Al Gore. Who loses? You and me!!!

Don't believe me? Check out these inconvenient truths:

Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it (its not the first time Gore has benefited from scams)

Al Gore's Carbon Credit Company Now Has $206 Million In Holdings

A Few Morsels > UPDATED

Something to think about the next time you have you grab for the Briers Classic Double Churned Cookies and Cream ice cream:

...Do they also disagree with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist"? He says: Compliance with Kyoto would reduce global warming by an amount too small to measure. But the cost of compliance just to the United States would be higher than the cost of providing the entire world with clean drinking water and sanitation, which would prevent 2 million deaths (from diseases like infant diarrhea) a year and prevent half a billion people from becoming seriously ill each year.

Nature designed us as carnivores, but what does nature know about nature? Meat has been designated a menace. Among the 51 exhortations in Time magazine's "global warming survival guide" (April 9), No. 22 says a BMW is less responsible than a Big Mac for "climate change," that conveniently imprecise name for our peril. This is because the world meat industry produces 18 percent of the world's greenhouse-gas emissions, more than transportation produces. Nitrous oxide in manure (warming effect: 296 times greater than that of carbon) and methane from animal flatulence (23 times greater) mean that "a 16-ounce T-bone is like a Hummer on a plate."

Ben & Jerry's ice cream might be even more sinister: A gallon of it requires electricity-guzzling refrigeration and four gallons of milk produced by cows that simultaneously produce eight gallons of manure and flatulence with eight gallons of methane. The cows do this while consuming lots of grain and hay, which are cultivated by using tractor fuel, chemical fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides, and transported by fuel-consuming trains and trucks.

I love cool words like 'rort' Aussies use to punch up the point they are making. This article is worth the read:

...Professor Carter suggests that the "global warming" alleged by climate alarmists to have been caused by the accumulation of human-sourced CO2 in the atmosphere relies on surface thermometer records, whose accuracy he doubts.

Rather, he writes, the most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years has come from satellite measurements, and those indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - the very period in which human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly.

"The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails."

UPDATE: More clear thinking from down under:

“It is extraordinarily difficult to argue that human-induced carbon dioxide has any effect at all,” he said.

Prof Plimer added that as the planet was already at the maximum absorbance of energy of carbon dioxide, any more would have no greater effect.

There had even been periods in history with hundreds of times more atmospheric carbon dioxide than now with “no problem”, he said.

Steven Milloy

Here is a guy that makes sense in a society gripped by global warming hysteria:

Steven Milloy is a biostatistician, lawyer, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and publisher of JunkScience.com where the motto is: “All the junk that’s fit to debunk”, as well as CSRWatch.com. Steven Milloy is an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Milloy holds a B.A. in Natural Sciences from the Johns Hopkins University, a Master of Health Sciences in Biostatistics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, a Juris Doctorate from the University of Baltimore, and a Master of Laws from the Georgetown University Law Center. [from ProudToBeCanadian.ca]

Read Steven's latest article to get a interesting perspective on the reason large corporations and big money are jumping on the global warming band wagon:

Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and Morgan Stanley want Congress to establish a so-called cap-and-trade system so that they can profit from the trading of greenhouse gas emissions permits.

Industrial giants such as Dupont and Alcoa want Congress to give them “carbon credits” — essentially free money — for greenhouse gas emissions reductions already undertaken. Solar and wind energy firms, as well as the ethanol lobby, want Congress to award them subsidies and tax breaks.

All the new climate piggies that want to gorge themselves at the public trough have crowded out the environmentalists, transforming the global warming issue from an ostensibly serious save-the-planet crusade into a financial orgy complete with taxpayer piñata.

Here is a full archive of Milloy's articles.

Many THANKS to ProudToBeCanadian.ca for carrying Steven Milloy as a contributing columnist.

Today's Roundup

Global warming? Do the math

If, as Mr. Dion demands, we honoured our Kyoto commitments and reduced our current CO2 emissions by one-third -- [...] -- we would be saving one-third of 1 ml-- the tip of an eyedropper.
And somehow, that is supposed to save the planet from warming; the tip of one eyedropper out of 2,400 bottles of water.
That might be true if carbon dioxide were the most toxic substance ever discovered by man. But it is not. We each expel it every time we exhale.
It's hard to imagine how such a tiny amount of a benign substance could cause the end of the planet. Maybe Mr. Dion could explain that in his next press release.

Mansur: Is there global warming 'truth'?

We know from recent past experiences, however, that long-term predictions on issues where human agency and nature intersect -- such as population or renewable resources -- turned out differently.
This record of science being fallible might be a small consolation. Yet it is a helpful reminder. Scientists, when true to their vocation, will ask of the public not to abandon skepticism as a "truth" seeking tool -- unlike politicians in general being insistent on consensus when "truth" is uncertain.

Gray says Gore does ’great disservice’ by stirring up alarm over global warming

‘‘He’s (Gore) one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he’s doing a great disservice and he doesn’t know what he’s talking about,’’ Gray, 77, said.

[...]

Today, skeptics are left out of government funding and even endure a kind of ‘‘mild McCarthyism,’’ Gray said.‘‘If you don’t go along with it (global warming), you pay a bit of a price. There’s a bit of mild McCarthyism about this whole thing,’’ he said. Critics allege that skeptics are ‘‘all tools of the fossil fuel industry,’’ Gray said. ‘‘I’ve never gotten any money from the fossil fuel industry.’’