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

Climate Debate ignores dissenting Science

Roger Romney-Hughes says: CERN and NIPCC; is that the best he can do?

Owen Sound Sun Times
Mon, 19 Sep 2011
772 words
2011 Sun Media Corporation

The Harper Conservative government and the McGuinty Liberals seem oblivious to the latest developments in science when it comes to multibillion dollar climate and energy policies.

While the federal government is imposing useless and expensive
regulations against the benign gas carbon dioxide (CO2), Premier Dalton
McGuinty has made equally nonsensical green policies the cornerstone of
his party's reelection bid.

The McGuinty government's Green Energy Act is founded on the
increasingly discredited hypothesis that CO2 and other greenhouse gases
are causing dangerous climate change. McGuinty's drive to replace
dependable, inexpensive electricity from coal-fired generating stations
with unreliable, costly power from wind turbines and other alternatives
is driven largely by the climate scare.

Similarly, climate alarmism is at the root of the Canadian government's
new CO2 regulations for coal-fired electricity generation. When in
opposition the Conservatives vehemently opposed then environment
minister Dion's inclusion of CO2 in the list of toxins controlled by the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA). Now they are using Dion's
CEPA amendments to regulate CO2.

Besides years of solid evidence countering the climate scare, two recent
developments underline how far out of touch both governments have become

On August 24, the prestigious journal Nature published a science paper
that bolsters the theory that changes in the output of the sun are
responsible for most of past century's warming.

By firing a beam of high energy particles into a large air tank,
scientists at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research in
Switzerland, were able to simulate Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) entering
Earth's atmosphere. Researchers witnessed the formation of "condensation
nuclei," small particles that lead to the creation of low level clouds
when enough moisture is present. These bright, white clouds act as a
sunshade for the Earth and have many times more impact on global climate
than all human influences combined.

The rate of influx of GCR, and so the amount of low level cloud
formation, is largely determined by the activity of the Sun. When the
Sun is brighter, not only do we get slightly more direct warming from
increased solar radiation but the Sun's magnetic field intensifies. This
field is then believed to deflect away enough GCR that there is a
significant reduction in low cloud cover across the Earth. With less of
a sunshade, the direct warming of the Sun is intensified. Most of the
warming of the past century can now be explained in this way, meaning
that CO2 emissions appear to have only a small influence on climate.

On August 29 another blockbuster science document also refuted the need
for CO2 controls -- the Interim Report of the Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Coauthored by a team of
scientists recruited and led by climate experts Dr. Craig Idso,
Professor Robert Carter, and Professor Fred Singer, the NIPCC report
contradicts much of the scientific basis for the worldwide effort to
restrict CO2 emissions. In particular, the NIPCC shows that the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has ignored or
misinterpreted much of research that challenges the science being relied
upon by most of the world's governments, including those of Canada and

For example, both governments promote the concept that CO2-induced
global warming is leading to increasingly severe weather. But after
studying trends in precipitation, floods, drought, storms, hurricanes,
fire and other weather-related phenomena, NIPCC researchers concluded,
"...the data reveal there have not been any significant warming-induced
increases in extreme weather events."

Neither the McGuinty nor Harper governments have said anything at all
about the CERN discovery or the NIPCC report. Perhaps this is not
surprising. For years they have consistently ignored the growing body of
scientific evidence that counters the need for CO2 and other greenhouse
gas controls.

An important first step to help remedy this problem is to invite
scientists from both sides of the climate debate to testify before
federal and provincial committees studying climate policy. For the first
time in years, there is now a glimmer of hope that this just might
happen, at least at the federal level.

Just before the Senate rose on June 26, Senator Nancy Greene Raine
called for her colleagues "to put aside political correctness and
carefully consider a broad range of expert scientific opinion." Raine
expressed the hope that one of the Senate "committees will take a fresh
look at the issue of climate change, one based on realistic assessment
of science and history. Canadians deserve nothing less."

Tom Harris is Executive Director of the International Climate AntiScience
Coalition (ICSC ).