Open letter to the Government of Canada re: climate change
0 have signed. Let’s get to 100!
1) After years of study of the climate change issue from both sides, we are forced to conclude that it is unproven that climate change is attributable mainly to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. It has been well demonstrated that computer models are not reality, as all predictions made so far regarding climate change have been wildly inaccurate.
2) That said, if it is ever proved, then is it in fact a problem? What is even meant by such alarmist expressions as "climate disaster"?
3) We do not believe (in agreement with many experts, e.g. in the successful British High Court lawsuit against the teaching of "An Inconvenient Truth" as fact in public schools), that one-off meteorological events that have a negative impact on human beings can necessarily be attributed to climate change.
4) If at some point it is proved that such events can be attributed to climate change, to what extent are they attributable vs. normal variance in the weather? Further, to what extent can any such events be attributed directly to anthropogenic CO2 emissions vs. other factors forcing climate change? It is worth noting that when weather becomes very cold, representatives of the alarmist narrative tend to state that "the weather is not climate" - yet this is reversed when a weather event occurs that seems to conform to the "disaster" model.
5) If it can be proved, is the correlation to the extent that it justifies the eventual expenditure of trillions of dollars on totally unproven schemes for "climate change mitigation" rather than other issues that the money could be spent on - for example, increasing health and prosperity for the poorest people in the world (thereby alleviating an incalculable amount of human suffering, relieving pressure on the environment, and reducing or eliminating issues such as dictatorship, civil war and terrorism, opiate and cocaine trafficking, etc) or developing treatments for diseases presently thought to be incurable?
6) It has been said by the supporters of the dominant narrative themselves that the expected result of this expenditure would be a change in mean temperatures that falls well below their own claims of what is necessary for avoiding "climate disaster" (https://tinyurl.com/y8dbymqm). Bearing in mind that we the undersigned do not accept these prognostications as having any basis in fact anyway, what possible justification can then be offered for the expenditure? It has always been easy for those in power to think of new ways to spend other peoples' money while flying to conferences in private jets, but this seems to open up whole new vistas of cavalier squandering behavior. Given that the US Energy Information Administration has predicted a 28% growth in world energy use by 2040 with 83% provided by fossil fuels (https://tinyurl.com/ycf4cm95), what expectation can we have that those in power are even remotely serious about any of their stated goals?
We contend that the entire issue is clearly nothing more than certain kinds of human beings doing what they have always done: finding new ways to generate income and impose their will on their fellow humans, with the additional benefit of providing a distraction from critical issues they cannot or will not address. For some of those who follow, it is an exercise in alleviating guilt over their luxurious lifestyle; for others, a very common knee-jerk response to what they regard as the power structure in society that they feel left out of or oppressed by (ironic given the wealth and power of those orchestrating the affair: politicians, celebrities, environmental organizations, and media outlets); and for the vast majority, given how little they have actually altered their lifestyle to demonstrate their commitment to the cause, obviously little more than a topic for casual conversation. Historically though, people have rarely been willing to upset the status quo when new and even seemingly arbitrary kinds of power are imposed on them in the form of increased taxes or restrictions to their freedom, and this has certainly been the case with the climate change issue.
For many scientists and journalists, whether actually conversant with climate science or (in the majority of cases) claiming the right to lend their voice simply by virtue of the title of "scientist," conforming to the dominant narrative is a path to career relevance, job security, publication, money, fame, television and other media appearances, and so on. As has been seen, to be vocally outside the narrative can have the opposite effect - a chilling effect on career, you might say.
Any layperson can go to Wikipedia and learn that for hundreds of millions of years, the earth was largely covered in shallow seas sustaining enormous coral reefs, with atmospheric CO2 as much as 16 times present levels - yet we are expected to believe that anthropogenic CO2 is causing oceanic acidification that will result in coral reef destruction? Additionally, current species have existed for millions of years and have therefore already endured many changes in climate, invalidating claims of future impacts to biodiversity.
In short, NONE of the "climate disaster" prognostications we have seen make any sense at all, and are transparently fictions meant to frighten a scientifically illiterate public.
Given all of this, as well as the litany of irrational and desperate ad hominem leveled at the skeptical community (not excluding the repeated suggestion by an Order of Canada recipient that dissenters receive prison sentences), the entire edifice of climate change conveys to many observers an unavoidable odor of corruption and deceit.
We the undersigned suggest that our Minister of Natural Resources, the Premiers of our provinces, and the Prime Minster:
1) Initiate an investigative period, suspending any further climate-based government expense and taxation until all evidence from the skeptical side of the discussion is given the impartial examination it deserves.
2) Make public the results of this investigation.
3) Make public the impartially reviewed scientific rationale for any future climate-based planning and expenditure. "Impartially" should be understood here to mean "conducted by individuals or groups not reliant on government, media, or environmental NGO funding."
Transparency in this issue has been entirely absent from the alarmist side (https://tinyurl.com/y7sygg7s) and is well overdue. Thank you for your time.
Today: Michael is counting on you
Michael Anderson needs your help with “The Honourable James Gordon Carr Minister of Natural Resources: Open letter to the Government of Canada re: climate change”. Join Michael and 35 supporters today.