 (PE061) 
April 7, 2005
In Brief:
Diving off the Kyoto Cliff
"The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject."―Marcus Aurelius If you have a policy based on false assumptions, an incorrect theory and misinformation, and that policy will cost billions of dollars without achieving its goal, what do you do? Admit your failure, cut your losses and sit down with others to find an alternative? Not this federal government with respect to climate change; it is ignoring the evidence and resorting to illogic and shameless sleight of hand. The dodge is not surprising, because with their embrace of manmade global warming theory and its illegitimate child, Kyoto, the feds painted themselves into a corner from the start. They ratified Kyoto while ignoring both scientific evidence that warming was not due to carbon dioxide (CO²) and research that showed implementation would create an economic disaster. Then a voluntary reduction plan failed, because most understood Kyoto could not work. Did they face reality? No. Obsessed with CO² as the culprit, they decided regulation was required but had no legislative vehicle. They decided to list CO² as a toxic substance under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). But CO² is not a toxic substance and not even ideological fantasies can make it one. Instead, they chose to remove the word “toxic” from the existing Act, an intellectually dishonest action that made everybody unhappy. All this underlines the profound ignorance of scientific facts or methods that inspired our climate change policy in the first place. The irony in this shell game is that they didn’t need to bother removing the word “toxic” from the CEPA because it shouldn’t have been there in the first place. All substances are toxic at a certain level. Five hundred years ago, Paracelsus, the “Martin Luther of physicians,” said the toxicity is in the dosage. Using the government’s logic, the CEPA should list every known substance. This unscientific, unjustified, unnecessary move will give the government disturbing powers to effect a false and potentially devastating philosophy, not just for CO², but any other substance or activity they don’t like, or that becomes politically incorrect. When Minister of the Environment Stephane Dion took office, he promised to invite input from third parties and climate experts, not just from Environment Canada. Instead he continues to listen to bureaucrats whose web site demonstrates their scientific ignorance with completely false comments like, “The climate change we are seeing today differs from previous climate change in both its rate and its magnitude.” Environment Canada has a history of disastrous policy decisions. They spent millions on computer models of climate change, even though it was well known the computers were inadequate and the models couldn’t work. They researched global warming without questioning the unproven theory that an increase in atmospheric CO² would result in a temperature increase. In a period of budget cuts, they reduced data collection by closing weather stations, and charged the public for data already paid for by taxpayers. They engaged in consulting work by outbidding private companies for contracts because they got the data free. They began a campaign that can only be called propaganda to convince the public that CO² produced by humans was the cause of global warming. Most of the research they funded was for impact studies that started with the assumption that the theory was proven, instead of the proper starting point, an honest attempt to prove or disprove the theory. They established unnecessary climate research programs with the same assumption. This approach contradicts the aim of science, as best expressed by Karl Popper: “Our belief in any particular natural law cannot have a safer basis than our unsuccessful critical attempts to refute it.” Now Environment Canada’s campaign attempts to justify erroneous policies by claiming they’ll make money. Dion claims that selling Canadian technology and expertise in implementing Kyoto will make Canada a world leader and produce market opportunities. What rubbish! Most countries either rejected Kyoto or are not economically disadvantaged by its mandates. Japan ratified, but will likely not implement. Russia ratified when Europe threatened to deny it membership in the World Trade Organization, but won’t likely implement. The climate change quote above, which is clearly based on Michael Mann’s completely discredited “hockey stick” graph, illustrates that Environment Canada is still ignoring scientific evidence to the contrary. Economic costs are piling up¯$3.7 billion and counting, according to the EC website¯with no results. The federal government still refuses to admit its errors and cut its loss of our money. The Prime Minister recently gave three incredible indications of this. He said his guide is Elizabeth May of the Sierra Club; he appointed Sierra Legal Defence Fund lawyer David Boyd as an advisor; and he tried, unsuccessfully as it turned out, to ignore a Commons committee vote and appoint former Winnipeg Mayor Glenn Murray to head the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. None of them know anything about climate science. It’s not too late. To reverse this policy disaster, Stephane Dion should keep his promise and convene a panel of experts from outside Environment Canada to assess the assumption that humans are driving climate change. Let’s stop and think for a moment before we dive off the Kyoto cliff.  Related Items:
has an extensive scientific background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history. He is a regular contributing writer for Country Guide magazine and a researcher/author of numerous papers on climate, long-range weather patterns, the impacts of climate change on sustainable agriculture, ecosystems, historical climatology, air quality, untapped energy resources, silting and flooding. He had a long academic career at the University of Winnipeg until he moved to Victoria in 1996. He has a BA from the University of Winnipeg, an MA from the University of Manitoba and a PH.D (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England. On Dr. Ball as a climate change "denier" - more . . . and more . . . |
Tim Ball, Senior Fellow 
