Canadian federal budget a step forward on climate change
Ottawa, Canada, March 29, 2012: “The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) congratulates the Government of Canada for removing from the federal Budget the misleading language of previous Budgets concerning clean air and climate change,” said Tom Harris, executive director ICSC which is headquartered in Ottawa, Canada. “In past years, this serious science mistake, appearing repeatedly in such an important document, contributed to public confusion about the distinctly different approaches needed to address these two issues. This mistake has now been corrected and therefore a more productive debate about environmental protection will be possible moving forward.”
“We also express our support for the elimination of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE),” stated Dr. Tim Ball, ICSC science advisor and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. “The NRTEE’s biased approach to the climate issue, looking at the impacts on Canada of warming, but ignoring the far more dangerous, and more probable, cooling, contributed to a distortion of the discussion about how best to prepare for future climate change.”
“While we are unable to assess specific climate-related Budget details until the Estimates are released in May, it is encouraging to see essentially no references to the mistaken concept that humanity’s carbon dioxide emissions have a substantial influence on global climate,” said Harris. “This is different to past Budgets where climate change was highlighted as a major factor driving a number of federal initiatives. We encourage the government to now also change the emphasis of their Clean Air Fund and clean energy generation projects to focus solely on the important topic of air quality. Adaptation to climate change is also important, but it is unrelated to clean air so must be treated separately.”
The ICSC is a non-partisan group of scientists, economists and energy and policy experts who are working to promote better understanding of climate science and related policy worldwide. We aim to help create an environment in which a more rational, open discussion about climate issues emerges, thereby moving the debate away from implementation of costly and ineffectual “climate control” measures. Instead, ICSC encourages effective planning for, and adaptation to, inevitable natural climate variability, and continuing scientific research into the causes and impacts of climate change.
ICSC also focuses on publicizing the repercussions of misguided plans to “solve the climate crisis”. This includes, but is not limited to, “carbon” sequestration as well as the dangerous impacts of attempts to replace conventional energy supplies with wind turbines, solar power, most biofuels and other ineffective and expensive energy sources.
For more information about this announcement or ICSC in general, visit http://www.climatescienceinternational.org
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Canada: The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources – March 27, 2012 Meeting with Physicist Dr. Richard Peltier and Climate Modeler Dr. Andrew Weaver
I have asked certain climate scientists to comment on the presentations by Dr. Peltier and Dr. Weaver to this Senate Committee. Sorry, no slides now; these may be available later.
I would also be interested in the views of WUWT participants – thank you
I will allow myself one comment – both presenters seem to be saying “this is very complicated science, so you must trust me – I don’t, and I think I understand some of the science pretty well.
http://senparlvu.parl.gc.ca/Guide.aspx?viewmode=4&categoryid=-1&eventid=8110&Language=E#
or
http://tinyurl.com/7n92g4d
Only in Canada eh? Pity.
Acorn1 – San Diego says:
March 29, 2012 at 11:08 pm
DavidMHofer at 906pm..
I am serious..
There are some seven million species and we’re but one.
We are killing them off because we have taken a large percentage
of the Earth’s land for food.>>>>
As others have pointed out, the number of species we are “killing off” is rather exagerated. But at day’s end Acorn, we must choose. Food and survival of our species, or no food. You see, that’s the part of the equation that seems to get lost in the arm waving scary we’re driving other species to extinction mantra. That food feeds people.
If you feel comfortable sentencing billions to death from starvation to save some number of species, then that’s your opinion to have, disgusting as it may be. Don’t start with the controlling our own population mantra either. The truth is that the first world IS controlling itz own population. Allow the 3rd world easy access to energy resources combined with toppling of their corrupt governments, and the ensuing increase in standard of living will accomplish the goals that you seekl all by itself.
Force feed reductions in population or food production upon the human race and you would not only fail, but your name would go down in history in the same category as some very distasteful people.
Now read this … only its not Canada… its in Australia, which is about to embark on its insane carbon tax:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/elections/campbell-newman-orders-anna-blighs-husband-greg-withers-to-kill-green-schemes/story-fnbsqt8f-1226311864712
Mervyn: Campbell’s move re Greg Withers is one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen in politics.
How many times do I have to change the name in my WordPress account before it finally STAYS changed?
ARRRRGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
@ur momisugly CodeTech:
FYI the Queen is the supreme commander of the army. Every MIL recruit make an oath of allegiance to her majesty AFAIK. In my book, the one in control of the army is the real boss…
However, me think that Harper is a very clever naughty boy, the Queen’s health is declining, prince Charles is not very popular, and Harper is aligning Canada’s economy and legal framework w/t USA… Go ahead, connect the dots.
g2-b369c06850afa63886091a1f0601abd5 said on March 30, 2012 at 8:30 pm:
Must be your own fault. After the dash is a hexadecimal number, the digits run 0-9 and A-F. The wordpress software sees the “g2” and chokes on the math, since g2 would have to be a variable. Once you define g2, everything will be fine.
Or you could just find the wordpress “log out” on a WUWT page and feed it a different valid email address than the one for your wordpress account, and use whatever name you want. I’d recommend trying that first.
Emailed 20Mar2012
Note: D. V. Hoyt has kindly provided editorial review of this correspondence.
Open Letter to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources – Canada
“I am always happy to be in the minority. Concerning the climate models, I know enough of the details to be sure that they are unreliable. They are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behavior in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere.” – Freeman Dyson
Dear Mr. Prime Minister and Honourable Senators;
One of the methods used by global warming advocates to try to bolster their weak scientific case is to “fudge” their climate computer models by using aerosols* to help “hindcast” past climate, particularly the global cooling that occurred circa 1940 to 1975, the same time that world-wide combustion of fossil fuels greatly accelerated. The big problem for the global warming advocates is that they had to FABRICATE their aerosol data to fudge their models – they literally “made it up from thin air”.
If they had used actual aerosol data, as available from D. V. Hoyt and others (see correspondence below), their history-matched models would show a much lower “climate sensitivity“ to atmospheric CO2, and their scary global warming story would dissipate, and would closely resemble the climate skeptics’ position. Climate modeled “feedbacks” to increased atmospheric CO2 would be zero or more likely negative (rather than strongly positive as incorrectly assumed in their models), and there would be NO catastrophic manmade global warming crisis.
Please also note that their computer-modeled projections of scary global warming are NOT consistent with current temperature measurements. According to the most reliable satellite data, there had been NO net global warming for the past decade. The lack of global warming this decade further supports the climate skeptics’ position.
* Definition: An aerosol is a colloid suspension of solid particles or liquid droplets in a gas. Examples are clouds, and air pollution such as smog and smoke.
Questions the Senate Committee should ask Climate Scientists:
What is the source of the aerosol data that is used to “hindcast” climate computer models so that they better reflect the global cooling that occurred from about 1940 to 1975?
Please comment on the following, with your supporting documentation:
a. It is stated that this aerosol data was fabricated – literally “made up from thin air”, in order to purport that these climate models can accurately model the past (and therefore the future), when in fact they do not.
Solar physicist and climatologist D. V. Hoyt states that he and others have published actual aerosol data, and that the fabricated aerosol data are inconsistent with the observed actual data.
References:
Hoyt, D. V., 1979. The apparent atmospheric transmission using the pyrheliometric ratioing techniques. Appl. Optics, 18, 2530-2531.
[The pyrheliometric ratioing technique is very insensitive to any changes in calibration of the instruments and very sensitive to aerosol changes.]
Hoyt, D. V. and C. Frohlich, 1983. Atmospheric transmission at Davos, Switzerland, 1909-1979. Climatic Change, 5, 61-72.
Hoyt, D. V., C. P. Turner, and R. D. Evans, 1980. Trends in atmospheric transmission at three locations in the United States from 1940 to 1977. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 1430-1439.
Hoyt, D. V., 1979. Pyrheliometric and circumsolar sky radiation measurements by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory from 1923 to 1954. Tellus, 31, 217-229.
b. Please also note that different climate models have a different sensitivities to CO2. So to make the hindcasts work, each climate model has a different FABRICATED aerosol history.
In his 2007 paper, climate modeler Jeffrey Kiehl observed: “These results explain to a large degree why models with such diverse climate sensitivities can all simulate the global anomaly in surface temperature. The magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing compensates for the model sensitivity.”
Reference:
Jeffrey T. Kiehl, 2007. Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007
Yours truly,
Allan MacRae, P.Eng.
________________________________________________________________
Please see the communications below regarding D. V. Hoyt and aerosols:
http://climateaudit.org/2006/07/19/whitfield-subcommittee-witnesses-to-be-questioned/
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=755
Douglas Hoyt:
July 22nd, 2006 at 5:37 am
Measurements of aerosols did not begin in the 1970s. There were measurements before then, but not so well organized. However, there were a number of pyrheliometric measurements made and it is possible to extract aerosol information from them by the method described in:
Hoyt, D. V., 1979. The apparent atmospheric transmission using the pyrheliometric ratioing techniques. Appl. Optics, 18, 2530-2531.
The pyrheliometric ratioing technique is very insensitive to any changes in calibration of the instruments and very sensitive to aerosol changes.
Here are three papers using the technique:
Hoyt, D. V. and C. Frohlich, 1983. Atmospheric transmission at Davos, Switzerland, 1909-1979. Climatic Change, 5, 61-72.
Hoyt, D. V., C. P. Turner, and R. D. Evans, 1980. Trends in atmospheric transmission at three locations in the United States from 1940 to 1977. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 1430-1439.
Hoyt, D. V., 1979. Pyrheliometric and circumsolar sky radiation measurements by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory from 1923 to 1954. Tellus, 31, 217-229.
In none of these studies were any long-term trends found in aerosols, although volcanic events show up quite clearly. There are other studies from Belgium, Ireland, and Hawaii that reach the same conclusions. It is significant that Davos shows no trend whereas the IPCC models show it in the area where the greatest changes in aerosols were occurring.
There are earlier aerosol studies by Hand and Marvin in Monthly Weather Review going back to the 1880s and these studies also show no trends.
So when MacRae (#321) says: “I suspect that both the climate computer models and the input assumptions are not only inadequate, but in some cases key data is completely fabricated – for example, the alleged aerosol data that forces models to show cooling from ~1940 to ~1975. Isn’t it true that there was little or no quality aerosol data collected during 1940-1975, and the modelers simply invented data to force their models to history-match; then they claimed that their models actually reproduced past climate change quite well; and then they claimed they could therefore understand climate systems well enough to confidently predict future catastrophic warming?”, he close to the truth.
_____________________________________________________________________
Douglas Hoyt:
July 22nd, 2006 at 10:37 am
Re #328
“Are you the same D. V. Hoyt who wrote the referenced papers?” Answer: Yes.
_____________________________________________________________________
Jim Cripwell 3 30 12 608AM “The fact of the matter is that no Canadian politician, so far as I am aware, has come out and stated publicly that CAGW is wrong.”
In the land of Alberta, Canada, where the proven recoverable oil reserves are on a par with Saudi Arabia, there is an election campaign going on. The winner will govern not only the most extensive energy supply in the western world in the form of bitumen and heavy oil, but also the most dynamic economy in Canada. The party currently leading the polls, by a margin of 40% to 30% over the ruling Progressive Conservatives, is the “Wildrose Party”. In their policy document, they state:
“Clean Air
There is nothing more important to individuals than the quality of the air they athe their loved ones breathe every second of every day. It is imperative that our province’s economic reliance on the production, use, refinement and sale of hydrocarbons never undermines the right of Albertans to breathe clean air. Dangerous pollutants such as nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide, mercury, lead and other particulates must be reduced. …
The discussion surrounding global warming has become highly emotional. There is obviously still healthy scientific debate as to the extent of manmade emissions of CO2 are affecting global temperatures – and this debate will likely carry on for many years.
As a province we must strike the delicate balance between promoting out of precaution a practical reduction of CO2 emissions while ignoring the environmental extremists that would have us needlessly overreact to the severe detriment of our economy.
It is thus important that government avoid enacting CO2 reduction policies for the sake of simply appearing to be doing something.”
You can find the full text of the document on line, this quote is from page 11. By the way, please ignore the sentence I omitted from the original, in Alberta you can get points by pointing to others’ weeknesses, and I by no way celebrate the smog endured by any human being anywhere, hence the deletion.
I believe that the obove noted quote, by calling CAGW promoters “environmental extremists”, indicates disagreement with their theories.
errors, unnoted omissions, spelling mistakes and emphasis are mine.
http://www.wildrose.ca/media/2011/10/Wildrose-Policy-Book.pdf
Today, in no less than two articles, the very green Canadian Globe & Mail is complaining about the Canadian Revenue Agency enforcing the rule that charities could not spend more than 10% on political activism!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/budgets-new-rules-unfairly-target-environmental-groups/article2387590/
Since Vivian Krause exposed the connections between Tides and eco activism, The Globe has been cozying up with Tides Canada and Tides financed projects: LeadNow.ca (Robo Call 31,000 call campaign to election Canada), NotOurBudget (antics paid for by Tides), OpenMedia (internet freedom anti Harper campaign), Suzuki Foundation, The Tyee (Dr. Byers Op ed), support of Solomon and Newell’s charities, endorsement of Robertson, Dogwood Initiative against the Gateway pipeline…
The same Globe editors called her research “noise”….
http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/2012/03/budget.html
Clearly Thomson Reuters International controlled medias are very annoyed that their friends’ covert eco strategy has been exposed for all Canadians to see.
Allan MacRae says: March 30, 2012 at 10:46 pm
CORRECTION OF TYPO: Emailed 30Mar2012
Canada and the Kyoto Protocol: Who Says Quitters Never Win?
Carbon reduction is just a luxury pastime, and arguably a useless one. Where can you breathe better — “carbon-dumping” Canada, or Europe? I rest my case.
European countries have long been proudly fiddling with carbon credits both amongst themselves and on the world stage. Good for them. Given the current economic state of the euro zone, it’s obvious they’ve been busy debating wallpaper samples while the bulldozer rolls full speed toward the house. Good luck saving the world when you can’t pay the rent. Europe will probably keep trying to impose its moral example through climate-change activism, even when it’s in debt to China and Russia, both of which have zero Kyoto obligations.
A developed country under the carbon tax system can choose to offset its guilt with actions rather than cash transfers to less-industrialized countries. Nice racket. So Canada may have been able to reduce its billions owed with “do-gooder credits,” furiously running around the world planting trees, French-kissing rainbow trout, hosting one rock concert on arctic ice floes featuring Bono for every giga-tonne of carbon spewed, or something else equally absurd.
The Liberal Party’s environment critic, Kirsty Duncan, accused Harper’s government of ignoring the “science” of this. “While the world emits 48 giga-tonnes of carbon each year,” she wrote, “most models suggest that emissions need to drop to 44 giga-tonnes by 2020 to maintain a likely chance (66 percent) of remaining under 2 degrees Celsius.”
The Socialist NDP official opposition leader added: “While the Harper Conservatives are causing Canada to fall behind, the rest of the world is moving forward in the new energy economy.”
Good for “the rest of the world.” Have fun playing with your new taxes. The rest of us have real problems to deal with.
http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelmarsden/2011/12/21/canada_and_the_kyoto_protocol_who_says_quitters_never_win/page/2
TomRude says: March 31, 2012 at 11:19 am
“”Clearly Thomson Reuters International controlled medias are very annoyed that their friends’ covert eco strategy has been exposed for all Canadians to see.”
My experience with the Globe and Mail was similar to that of Soon & Baliunas and Veizer & Shaviv with EOS – the behaviour of both these rags was dishonest, unprofessional and reprehensible.
The Globe and Mail has disgraced itself and is unworthy of our readership.