Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. blog comments powered by Disqus

Alberta Suffering from Bitumen and Moron Bubbles

FoSpres

January-25-2013

Attn: Premier Alison Redford

Cc: Hon. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada
Hon. Peter Kent, Minister of Environment, Canada
Hon. Diana McQueen, Minister of Environment, Alberta
Danielle Smith, Leader of the Opposition Wild Rose Alliance
Derek Fildebrandt, Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation
FoS Media List

Dear Premier Redford,

RE: Looming Deficit, Diversion of Public Funds to Carbon Capture

Yesterday you spoke to Albertans about the bitumen bubble.

We respond to you that there is acarbon bubble’ of diverted public funds that put the future generations at risk. Not only is carbon dioxide (CO2) a valueless and owner-less substance, the science behind carbon reduction is faulty. Yet your government plans to spend billions to
capture CO2 while borrowing to support education, health and infrastructure.

The bitumen bubble’ though real, is based on a valuable, tangible product. By contrast, ...the carbon market is based on the lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no one. * Mark Schapiro Conning the Climate Harpers Magazine, Feb. 2010

Carbon capture and carbon reduction initiatives are a foolish diversion of needed public funds – particularly in light of recent revelations that:

a. There has been no global warming in 16 years, despite a rise in carbon dioxide (CO2), thus negating the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.

b. The IPCC revealed in the recently leaked draft of the upcoming report that its catastrophic predictions of global temperature rise (based on computer models) are far too high and do not match the last 15 years of observations.

c. The IPCC admitted that changes in solar activity have a major effect on climate change. (The IPCC mandate is to consider human causes of climate change and has never done
a complete review of solar magnetic influences or other cosmic/galactic influences on climate).

d. Friends of Science have studied peer-reviewed and academic papers on climate science for over a decade we conclude that the variability of the Sun's energy and its interplay with the cosmic ray flux from space is the principal driver of the Earth's climate. CO2 is of minor significance. In short, the sun is the main driver* of climate change, not CO2.

* solar variation is not only expressed by the cosmic ray impact on cloud
cover, but also in oceanic oscillations which by themselves are linked to weather/climate changes.

In the face of these facts, it is clear that the continuing with investment in carbon capture or carbon reduction schemes is a waste of our resources and a significant diversion of public funds that would otherwise completely allay the deficit position of Alberta.


Documents in the public domain show that the Government of Alberta relies upon the science of the IPCC for its action on climate change. The IPCC now shows that there has been no global warming since 1997. The Government should accordingly abandon all action on climate change based on faulty previous IPCC reports which incorrectly contended that global warming was still taking place and that there was proof that carbon dioxide generated by human activity was the main cause.

MLA Paul Hinman tabled in the Legislature on October 25, 2011 scientific information including graphic evidence demonstrating no global warming since at least 2002. We request Premier Redford explain why the government failed to act on this information. The submission is at; http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=61http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=618

The Alberta Government is unnecessarily diverting taxpayer funds from serving the needs of critical infrastructure and health/education services. Alberta is pandering to the carbon-fright’ scenario by investing in carbon capture and storage and other carbon reduction activities/legislation. These are taxpayer dollars that should not be going to serve carbon capture or carbon reduction projects when there is no valid scientific reason for such an investment. Albertans need hospitals and roads. We should not be going into debt for public needs. Public funds must not be applied to carbon reduction schemes that are only meant to appease unelected, unaccountable green groups.

We can provide complete scientific material to back-up our statements and we would be pleased to meet with you or any of your ministerial or policy staff on these matters. We recognize that in some matters related to environment, the Alberta government is bound to decisions made by the federal government; consequently we have copied this letter to the Honourable Peter Kent.

What follows is a public statement by Eija-Ritta Korhola, Finnish politician and Member of the European Parliament and Member of the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety committee of the EU, expressing similar concerns. Also attached is a detailed review of the items introduced in this letter. We also enclose our position paper on the recent climate conference in DOHA, Qatar.

We look forward to an opportunity to meet with you or your designated policy staff in order to discuss these matters further, at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,


Len Maier
President, Friends of Science

Web: www.friendsofscience.org
E-mail: contact@friendsofscience.org media@friendsofscience.org

http://www.korhola.com/2013/01/is-it-true-or-not/


Probably I am not the only one who has been wondering about the apparent contradictions that arise from the various climate positions. Meteorologists claim that global warming has made a slow-down and describe the current epoch as cooler. Hence, temperatures do not seem to be in line with the predictions of the greenhouse theory. At the same time, others, like the World Bank in its November report, stress that the situation is worse than ever: emissions have increased and a temperature rise of four degrees is predicted for this century.

How should we interpret these contradictions? Measured temperatures have been commonly understood as hard facts in the past. The fact that temperatures have not significantly increased during the first decade of this century can easily be checked by anyone. The conclusions that we should draw from this are a mystery, however. Changes in global temperatures could also be considered features of natural climate variability. The climate has always been changing at regular intervals.

Therefore, when one implies that the situation is worse than ever, one does not refer to empirically observed temperatures, but to the greenhouse theory. As a matter of fact, one interprets under the premises of the theory. Because the theory assumes that CO2 emissions cause a rise in temperatures, and as CO2 emissions have increased exponentially and much more rapidly than what was initially assumed, the conclusion is that temperatures will indeed rise. Even if they won’t now, some day they will for sure. The situation is bad, or at least it will become bad.

Is it bad? I do not know, but as a politician I am forced to consider all possibilities. I am obliged to draft policy that we are least likely to regret in the future. Whatever the conclusions of science eventually are, policies had better be as sensible as possible.

Three years ago both scientific circles and the rest of us were flabbergasted by the so-called Climategate scandal. The personal e-mail messages of some Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) researchers were leaked to the public. Some of the correspondence was from the time when the 2001 IPCC report was being finalised. The messages revealed that the researchers were wondering how the problematic’ Medieval Warm Period could be concealed. In later messages the scientists contemplated, why temperatures did not go up during the first decade of the millennium, and what they could possibly do about this issue.

In other words, climate researchers had difficulties producing the figures they desired, that is, figures that would give politicians the aspired signal. The Medieval Warm Period was in this regard the biggest problem, as it was conclusively warmer then than it is now. Secondly, based on the tone of the correspondence, the research group seemed frustrated: in recent times, temperatures had not gone up as predicted.

The truth is that they still haven’t. During this millennium the global average temperature has been rather stubborn and not in line with predictions. Even if emissions have increased radically, a correlation with rising temperatures just cannot be traced. This issue also features in the upcoming, leaked, IPCC report. Even though public statements attempted to mask the damage done by the leak, everyone has been able to draw their own conclusions based on a graph in
the report: temperatures stagnate even though the predictions point upwards. The temperatures simply do not obey.

Unless we make them obey. A University of Oslo professor, Ole Humlum, recently remarked an odd phenomenon and revealed the newest climate scandal. Apparently, since 2008 some research institutions have been retrospectively correcting their global temperature graphs. Usually, this would not be strange at all, as scientific information tends to be built up piece-by- piece and may have to be rectified at a later stage. It is, however, extremely strange that data from 1915 has also been touched-up. Temperature data from the beginning of the 20th century has been systematically rounded down, while later data has been rounded up respectively. Data seems to have been forced to obey the greenhouse theory, and suddenly it seems like the graphs confirm the desired hypotheses.

As I am a free thinker with no taboos, I want to express this out loud. The world should be portrayed the way it is, and a politician should also welcome crude facts. We should not force data or fit circles into squares this mentality belongs to another world and another political ideology.

But do we make sensible policies?

Lets assume that the AGW-greenhouse theory, as it stands now, is not correct, and warming and cooling both fit under natural variability and the fact is that the climate has always changed in one direction or another. In this scenario we are not making good policy, as staring at CO2 only has taken attention away from other severe problems. In the name of the fight against climate change both the quality of air and the problem of pollution have worsened. In other words, the climate problem has cannibalised other environmental problems.

Lets then further assume that the correlation theory of increased atmospheric CO2 and global warming is true, and that the situation is worse than ever. Even in this case we are not making sensible policy, as the policy has not alleviated the problem it was supposed to. Not in the least bit.

European climate policy has a massive price tag attached to it. It has even been catastrophic from an environmental point of view. For years I have spoken out about the fact that we should be more careful in investing our resources. We should not allow absurdities in the name of the

greenhouse theory. At present, we have the most expensive, one-sided climate policy in the world, which reduces jobs in the EU and also penalises the world’s cleanest production operations. As a matter of fact, the newest research shows that the present policy does not even reduce emissions. If we take into account consumption, too, the EU’s total emissions have actually gone up. While production-based emissions have indeed gone down appropriately, strikingly, consumption-based emissions have dramatically increased. This development speaks a language of failure: because of our climate policy, production has been relocated to other parts of the world with less clean production and unemployment in the EU has gone up.

My proposal is that we start making policy that we do not have to regret later, irrespective of the outcomes of scientific research. Such policy would include energy saving, the development of clean technology, sustainable forestation, the prevention of air pollution, as well as the fight against poverty and erosion in developing countries. We should also guarantee clean production and jobs in Europe. We ought to take all these actions even if we had no information whatsoever about climate change. And if we did have the information, these would be the best recipes to tackle the problem.

Friends of Science 2013 - The End of the Climate Catastrophe Cult

Carbon Reduction, Carbon Taxes, Diversion of Public Funds
On October 17, 2012, Canadian investigative journalist and author, Donna Laframboise, presented her expose on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to a large group of influential business people in Calgary.

UN Climate Change Panel: Activist and Untrustworthy
She revealed that the IPCC has been largely infiltrated by agenda-driven eco-activists and that the science has been politicized. Her presentation also noted that the IPCC is the scientific source relied upon by the Alberta government for formulating policy regarding climate change issues notable those related to carbon dioxide emissions reduction.

No Global Warming for 16 years (Despite increase in carbon dioxide)
Coincident to Ms. Laframboise’ presentation, the Daily Mail reported that the UK Met weather office released a chart showing there had been no global warming for the past 16 years. Human- caused carbon dioxide emissions during this 16-years period of no global warming were 33 percent of all emission since the start of the industrial revolution. This is strong evidence that carbon dioxide emissions have little effect on climate. Indeed the IPCC climate models predict global warming of +0.20 °C/decade, but the actual measured temperatures since 2001 have
been declining at -0.09 °C/decade. The leaked IPCC draft science report (chapter 11) states that tropical cyclone frequency may "decrease by a third by the end of the 21st century. Alarmist scientist James Hanson thinks global warming is terrifying, but it would likely be beneficial to humanity, especially in northern regions. In geological context, temperatures are not beyond
normal climate fluctuations.


Friends of Science offer a decade of climate science review
Since 2002, our organization, Friends of Science Society, has been assessing peer-reviewed research on climate change. We challenge the so-called consensus’ on climate change. We

find no scientific evidence to substantiate the claim that the globe is abnormally warming, or that human-made emissions through the use of hydrocarbon/fossil fuels is a factor of any significance. All of our board and review committee are experienced and expert atmospheric and earth scientists.

The scientific evidence suggests strongly that the sun is the main direct and indirect driver of climate change. Recent weather events (such as Super Storm Sandy) are well within norms as recorded by history and geological evidence. Tropical cyclones have become less frequent and less intense over the last 20 years.

Doha COP-18 a Deception based on Global Warming Dogma
Subsequent to Donna Laframboise’ exposé, international representatives met in Doha to attempt to recreate Kyoto-2” and Friends of Science prepared a position paper entitled DOHA Save the Planet from Global Warming Dogma at COP-18, a copy of which is attached for your review.

Alec Rawls Leak of IPCC draft reveals faults and gaps in IPCC science review
Following DOHA, Alec Rawls, an expert reviewer for the IPCC, leaked a draft for the upcoming Fifth Assessment review on the internet. The draft IPCC report does not explain why measured temperatures have not increased as predicted by the anthropogenic global warming theory; the IPCC draft report acknowledges that the sun’s influence on temperature is much greater than what can be explained by changes in total solar energy as shown by many studies, but then ignores this evidence. It falsely attributes solar-caused warming to carbon dioxide emissions. A review of studies showing high correlations between solar magnetic activity and global temperatures is absent from the IPCC report.

In fact, the IPCC was never established to review all relevant climate factors according to its parent body, the UNFCCC, the IPCC was established with a mandate to only review human factors that might affect Global Warming, later changed to climate change.


Alberta Government policies should be based on solid science
Therefore Premier Redford, we believe that the Alberta government has unwittingly premised many of its policies on inaccurate and agenda driven policy statements laid out by the IPCC. Now that Ms. Laframboise, Alec Rawls and numerous other Canadian experts* have revealed the faulty procedures and politically driven aspects of the IPCC, the incomplete science and faulty logic of many of their premises, it is incumbent upon the Alberta government, a fossil fuel and resource-based economy, to reject the IPCC as any sort of reliable scientific source for provincial policy decisions.
* like Dr. Tim Ball, Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Jan Veizer, Tim Patterson, Chris Essex, Ian Clark and hundreds of other international scientific experts (see attached list) not to mention our own volunteer group of experts who have a decade of research compiled for public review.

What of “Clean Tech” and a “Renewable” or Low Carbon Economy?
We note that TIDES Canada/Initiatives has been actively disseminating its proposed Clean Energy Accord” across Canada. TIDES Canada is supposed to be operating as acharity which under the Canadian Revenue Act is supposed to be serving the interests of widows and orphans, not attempting to sway public policy.

Their entire premise is based on the notion that Canada will somehow miss the boat of potential
clean-techif we dont get on board with a ‘low-carbon economy. What Tides fail to mention, is
that all clean-tech requires fossil fuels for the materials to be mined, manufactured, transported, installed and backed-up. In this process, clean-tech is creating more pollution than it reduces – all Alberta wind farms need a (gas) fossil fuelled power plant running 24/7 to back up their unreliable output. Several studies shows that wind power with the required back-up generators use more fossil fuels than what would be used by high efficiency gas-powered generators alone. As is the case in Ontario, the combination of taxpayer subsidies to carbon reduction clean-tech’ ends up with the citizens facing fuel poverty, and the industry struggling to survive.

Renewable is NOT so doable” We do not want this to happen to Alberta. Ontario was pushed into this mess by the green lobby of Suzuki, Pembina, WWF, Greenpeace etc, but these wealthy green groups are not there to bail Ontario out today. Alberta will have to do so, for decades to come, both through providing oil sands manufacturing opportunities to Ontario and through increased equalization payments.

Consequently, if these TIDES Canada prop