URGENT REQUEST FOR CITIZENS TO QUIZ DION ON CLIMATE POLICY

[Tom Harris]

THIS IS AN URGENT REQUEST FOR ALBERTANS TO QUIZ STEPHANE DION ABOUT HIS PRO-KYOTO AND OTHER CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY WHEN HE APPEARS IN TOWN HALL MEETINGS LATER THIS WEEK. I HOPE SOME OF THE ALBERTAN READERS OF THIS FORUM ARE ABLE TO DO THIS!

First, as can be seen at http://tinyurl.com/wdm5c, Mr. Dion will be holding town halls in Edmonton and Calgary as follows:

Thursday, January 11, Edmonton: town-hall meeting at 7:30 p.m. at the Ital Canadian Seniors Association Centre, at 9111 110th Ave (see http://tinyurl.com/y2ozx7 for directions and call 780-424-1255 to check ahead how to get in).

Friday: January 12, Calgary: town-hall meeting at the Epcor Centre's Engineered Air Theatre, EPCOR CENTRE for the Performing Arts, 205 8th Avenue S.E., Calgary, Ph: (403) 294-7455 - time not announced (see http://tinyurl.com/y669o6 for directions and other contact coordinates to check ahead how to get in)

I suggest it is crucially important that Dion be held to account, in public before the press, who I imagine will be in attendance at the town hall meetings, about his Kyoto policy. This is not a waste of time. An engineering friend of mine in Calgary did this when David Anderson came to the city for a public session a couple of years ago and, after the session, the media went as much to my friend to speak with him as they did to Anderson – the Calgary Herald, for example, conducted an interview with my friend (an environmental activist tried to break it up the interview, standing over them and interrupting, until my friend just stood up, gave the activist his card and told him to leave them alone and call him later if he wanted to talk - the enviro activist went away and the interview continued (these activists are not as fearsome as some people would believe)).

I am hoping some FD'ers and others can attend the Dion town hall meetings and ask him some fundamental questions about why he supports Kyoto, WHY THE MANY SCIENTISTS WHO OPPOSE KYOTO ARE BEING BARRED FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE DEBATE, what it will cost and how he plans to pay for it (and I would not let him get away with statements like the one at the beginning of http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=3 , unless he can back it up with sound numbers right then and there in front of the audience. As a starter for helping people decide what questions Dion should be asked, here is our most recent piece on his policy:

http://tinyurl.com/y74m6s

For people who may still be intimidated into asking Mr. Dion a question or expressing your opposition to his climate change plan, I submit the following to give you an idea how easily he can be tripped up on the climate change issue:

Here is the exact exchange, word for word (I was there) that occurred when Dion announced his new green plan at a formal presentation at Carleton University here in Ottawa in 2005:

First the question put to Mr. Dion:

"My name is Andrew and I am a Masters student in the department of geology. I’d like to thank you for an interesting presentation and I do agree with many of the points you made about increasing efficiency and reducing pollution. Although, and I may be in the minority here, I’d like to say that agreeing to a protocol that aimed to achieve these objectives by reducing carbon dioxide emissions, I don’t think is the way to do it.

I’d also like to mention that President Van Loon [Carleton U president] forgot to mention the prominent climate change scientist at Carleton and that’s Dr. Tim Patterson who appeared before a Parliamentary Action Committee on Kyoto, I think it was on Thursday or Friday. It was actually a breath of fresh air stating that much of the science behind Kyoto is somewhat outdated and maybe we should analyze new science and rethink our commitment to it.

And this brings me to my question, which is:

I assume that you are aware of recent testimony by Professor Patterson showing that there are serious flaws in the science underlying of the Kyoto Protocol [here is the testimony: http://tinyurl.com/usy6j] . Have you ever consulted personally with independent non-governmental expert climate scientists on this matter and, if so, whom? And if not, why?"

.. And here is Dion's "answer", verbatim (I swear, I have not altered anything whatsoever, including the sudden “Canada” blurt) - remember, he was ENVIRONMENT MINISTER announcing a major government initiative when he said this, not a back bencher who could perhaps be forgiven for not expecting such a question:

Dion: "Well, you know, they, there is a large number of ah, of ah, er, ah, communities, scientific communities in the world, ah, that are saying that the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has been as high now and this is inducing a lot of climate change that we are seeing. And the, the overwhelm, whelming, majority of scientists, ah, Canada. There are scientists that are saying the reverse, you're right. And I respect them. And maybe they are right. Because I know that science is not a poll. But I cannot take any risk. Uh, ah, I, I need to, anyways the mandate I received from the Prime Minister is to deliver a strong, improved Kyoto plan that at same time will strengthen the economy, will give result at the long term, and, as I said, will make us in a situation to address other environmental problems. So lots of things we will do through this Kyoto plan so that we're would be in a situation to do it anyway for other environmental reasons. And lets say that in ten or twenty years we will see if your professor was right, was right or not. I think it's realized is that it will be right. Uh, but I am respecting his work and I am following the debate with a lot of interest."

Anyways, I hope some Edmonton and Calgary area FD readers can take up this challenge and ask Mr. Dion some tough questions on Kyoto and climate change. Please contact me if you would like to discuss the issue or get more information.

Sincerely,

Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (thermofluids)
Executive Director
Natural Resources Stewardship Project
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2

e-mail: tom.harris@nrsp.com
Web: www.nrsp.com

[Vigilance]

I want to see him try to answer the fact that under his watch, there was a 35% increase in GHG emmissions above target set by the Kyoto Protocol signed by the Liberals.

Dion: "Well, we tried."

That's what I've been hearing from Liberals- that Dion tried. It's an absolute ridiculous and stupid answer. If you tried the Kyoto protocol... and it didn't work... isn't it obviously time to try a new approach? It just shows Liberal stupidity.

[hunterofvoters]

I want him to tell us how we can meet the Kyoto targets without sending our taxpayers money out of Canada to China. I want him to explain how sending money OUT of Canada will help future generations of Canadians, and how exactly it will reduce pollution IN Canada.

[Tom Harris]

While I admit that it may be attractive politically for those who oppose Dion to ask why he did so poorly on reducing CO2 when he had the chance, I suggest this question just digs us further into the hole of climate change dogma and so it is a question that will benefit only the NDP and those on the left of the political spectrum on this issue inside the CPC.

Here is my piece from 2002 on the topic (there is no link for it so I need to post the whole thing - sorry (I own all rights)):

Check the science
It's not too late to stop Kyoto. It requires a program that highlights the problems with Kyoto science and letting Canadians decide for themselves

Tom Harris
National Post

Thursday, September 05, 2002

National Post

As a child, I used to "help" my parents in the garden by picking the tops off dandelions. It seemed like an effective strategy -- the lawn quickly looked better and I didn't even have to get my hands dirty.

However, the dandelions soon came back, accompanied by the next generation of weeds. Only when I learned to dig up the dandelions' roots did my efforts amount to anything useful.

Those who attack the Kyoto Protocol on climate change by focusing primarily on the economic and societal problems it would cause are merely picking the tops off the Kyoto weed. Their warnings may scare Canadians into opposing ratification for a little while, but in the long run, Kyoto, or a made-in-Canada variant, is bound to quickly grow back as a recipe for "saving the planet from human-induced global warming."

This should surprise no one. Who wouldn't support a treaty to save the Earth from environmental Armageddon? While others at the Premiers' Conference in Halifax were focused on the cost of implementing Kyoto, Paul Okalik, territorial leader of Nunavut, clearly summed up the environmentalist position when he described climate changes in the North and told the premiers, "You can keep your money!" The extensive coverage given his statement shows how this attitude resonates well with the media and the public, many of whom have little patience with a "profits before environment" approach.

But statements like Mr. Okalik's only have power if people really believe human activity has a significant negative impact on global climate. Do away with that doctrine and Kyoto reduces to another cost/benefit pollution debate, one that the treaty's supporters would quickly lose.

So the real question is, do all climate scientists support the doomsday scenarios of environmental extremists such as David Suzuki and others who have misled Environment Minister David Anderson?

Of course not. Here are just a few of the many mistaken ideas in circulation, and what real scientists have to say about them:

Humanity is causing climate change. Tim Patterson, Carleton University professor of earth sciences, explains that this is very unlikely. Long before our species inhabited the Earth, there were far more extreme changes in climate than what we see now. Mr. Patterson and others show that, even in the past thousand years, there were much warmer and colder periods than today.

Global temperature is now rising rapidly. Only selected ground level monitors report that global temperatures are rising. Mr. Patterson, Pat Michaels, professor of climatology at the University of Virginia, John Christy, associate professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama, and many others explain that far more accurate and comprehensive satellite temperature sensors reveal no appreciable global warming since measurements began in 1979.

Carbon dioxide is the major contributor to global warming. Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics blame variations in the sun's brightness, not CO2 levels, for most of Earth's climate change. Tim Ball, retired climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, and Jan Veizer, professor of geology at the University of Ottawa, show that CO2 merely responds to temperature changes; it does not cause them. "[G]lobal average temperature will go up and down during the future years regardless of what we do," concludes Petr Chylek, professor of physics and atmospheric science at Dalhousie University.

Human activity is a major contributor to world CO2 levels. Messrs. Veizer, Patterson, Ball and others show that over 95% of the CO2 that circulates through the atmosphere is produced by nature.

CO2 is a pollutant. CO2 is a nutrient vital for plant photosynthesis, and prevents Earth from being locked in a perpetual ice age. Real pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides, can be reduced with far less expensive methods than a greenhouse gas treaty.

Global warming will be disastrous for the environment and human society. Mr. Patterson and climate historian Hubert H. Lamb demonstrate that during warm periods civilization flourished, while in cold periods, there was more drought, famine, wars and disease. Messrs. Michaels and Patterson explain that weather should be more moderate in a warmer world.

Sea levels will rise catastrophically if polar ice melts. Just as the melting of ice cubes in a glass of water does not cause the glass to overflow, so too the melting of polar sea ice will not result in ocean level changes. Only if massive quantities of inland Antarctic and Greenland glaciers melted would sea levels rise enough to submerge coastal settlements. Mr. Patterson and University of Hawaii professor of earth science Charles Fletcher maintain that this did not happen when the Earth was three degrees warmer 5,500 years ago. They also explain that sea level was only two metres higher 120,000 years ago when temperatures were almost six degrees warmer than now.

With so many technical flaws to choose from, why do the treaty's opponents attack the economics but not the science root of the Kyoto weed? After all, if the emperor has no clothes, then what is the point of debating the cost of his cape or where to get his shirt dry-cleaned?

Intimidated by the science and environmental extremists, many of Kyoto's opponents believe climate-change science is too complicated for them or the public to understand. Indeed, climate is very complex -- probably the most difficult problem ever tackled. But one need not get deeply into technical details to effectively oppose Kyoto. After all, most of the activists who support Kyoto are not formally trained in science and so are unable to deliver more than superficial sound bites when interviewed by the media. When seriously challenged, they simply parade their own climate "experts."

With a greater pool of scientists to choose from, and more solid evidence to cite, such an approach would be relatively easy for those opposed to Kyoto to follow as well. They could simply reference the scientific uncertainties and refuse to take part in implementation discussions until the treaty is thoroughly examined by an unbiased panel of scientists and engineers.

Yet, most of those opposed to Kyoto still won't bring up the science -- they are afraid of confrontation with environmental lobbyists and bad press coverage. Environmental extremists have been working for years to foster a climate in which anyone who dares doubt even the smallest part of Kyoto's science is viewed as anti-environmental. Referring to skeptics in this fashion, David Suzuki impatiently dismisses suggestions that the science be revisited. "We're past the science," he chastises those who want to examine the faulty roots of Kyoto.

Others lobbying for Kyoto's quick ratification also become severely agitated when presented with contrary science. They know this is the treaty's weak point and so they do everything possible to avoid opening the science to public discussion.

This is exactly why those who seriously oppose ratification must not abandon the high ground of climate science to pro-Kyoto forces. Doing so will almost certainly lead to Canada being burdened with a continuing series of draconian greenhouse gas treaties, Kyoto being just the first and least severe. After all, Mr. Suzuki and other environmental lobbyists advocate far more drastic cuts in emissions than those imposed by Kyoto.

Emboldened by the success of their greenhouse gas campaign, environmental extremists will bully a gullible public into accepting even more severe penalties in the guise of saving the planet. Funds otherwise allocated to well-understood environmental problems, as well as education and health care, will be siphoned off into progressively more oppressive, and unrealistic, ecological crusades. The realities of science and technology will be swept aside as governments scramble to cash in on the fashionable new wave of irrational environmentalism.

Some may consider this scenario sensationalist. But until very recently, most of those opposed to global warming treaties didn't take the threat of Kyoto very seriously either. Surely Kyoto was just a fad, they thought, one that would fade away when people realized how improbable its basic premise really was.

However, Kyoto's opponents grossly underestimated the determination of environmental groups. While society's attention was focused on fighting terrorism and healing the economy, Kyoto advocates continued to recruit new supporters and developed surprisingly sophisticated communications strategies in preparation for the final push for ratification.

Many believe it is now too late to stop Kyoto. It is not. If the public and the media come to understand how they have been manipulated by the treaty's supporters, support for the accord will quickly wither and government plans may change radically. Recent surveys reveal that, as the public learns more about the accord, its support for ratification drops.

A well co-ordinated communications program, highlighting the problems with Kyoto's science and encouraging Canadians to come to their own conclusions, could entirely alter the situation almost overnight.

It is also important that Kyoto opponents ask themselves: "Are we really trying to kill the accord or do we just want to appear to be trying to stop Kyoto to please our constituents?"

These two objectives are not compatible. In the first case, one focuses on doing what is best for the country -- both its environment and economy -- exposing the real state of climate science in the hopes that Canadians can be led into making rational choices. This approach requires leaders with the courage to address the root of the issue despite inevitable criticism from green lobbyists.

The second approach is focused primarily on spin -- saying what sounds acceptable in the press while carefully avoiding the science. While giving the appearance of fighting Kyoto, it is a strategy that has already failed.

As the government rushes towards ratification, Kyoto opponents have a choice. They can dig up the roots of this flawed treaty and kill the Kyoto Protocol once and for all. Or they can throw in the towel and resign to living in a state-regulated, greenhouse gas-controlled economy, one driven more by environmentalist dogma than serious science.

[khori_wan_kenobi]

Ask him how he can criticize Harper when he himself admitted to reporters that if the Liberals had won the last election that they would have had to admit that our Kyoto goals were unreachable.

[fourhorses]

Mr Dion:

Why are the Canadian auto industries exempt under your Kyoto plans and I would like some more concrete of an answer than the targeted 4% hopeful rise in yearly gas mileage and the fact that a few hybrid car types have entered the marketplace ?

Was this to appease the auto industry not to oppose Kyoto?

[fourhorses]

Mr Dion:

The 2005 Climate Change Plan for Canada states

The objective of the 2005 Climate Change Plan for Canada is to transform Canada's economy so the government can honour its Kyoto commitment and make deep reductions of emissions in the decades ahead while ensuring continued economic growth.

You have had several years since your government signed on to Kyoto in 2002, to produce hard numbers as to this transformation of the Canadian economy.

Are you yet ready to produce those economic numbers, share with us the economic modeling of Canada's future, and which noted economists have audited and vetted your calculations ?

[fourhorses]

Mr Dion:

Under your Kyoto plan for Canada, the Climate Fund Agency, established under legislation given Royal Assent in Parliament on October 3rd, was designed to be cornerstone of Canada’s updated Climate Change Plan 2005.

It was to purchase credits created by Canada’s Domestic Offsets System as well as internationally recognized Kyoto units beginning on March 31st, 2006.

At that same time the EU had to intervene to shore up a 60% decline to the $E 14 mark in Carbon Credit values on the EU exchange market, owing to European flooding of preferential exemption credits to their own industries. Had they not intervened, the EU CC market would have collapsed.

This past year, Carbon Credits are selling as low as US $1.00.

Your plan was to invest Canadian tax dollars in a government run Carbon Credit Marketing Board ( the Climate Fund Agency ) which would have lost hundreds of millions of tax dollars in its first year.

Can you explain your economic theories to support this boondagle ?

[fourhorses]

Mr Dion:

Can you explain to Canadians the fairness in Germany seeking exemptions for their coal fired industries under Kyoto. Has burning coal become emmission free or does carbon from coal not count ?

[fourhorses]

Mr Dion:

Can you explain to Canadians why Russia was given specific exemption credits to the amount of US 1.5 Billion dollars, for factories that are ouside Russia's boundaries and within the sovereignty of other countries ?

And further, can you show us in your economic modeling, how when Russia sells these $ 1.5 Billion dollars of carbon credits on the open market to generate foreign currency, the carbon trading market and your Climate Fund Agency won't be affected ?

[fourhorses]

Mr Dion:

Can you explain why Hydro Quebec, a power generator, should receive the special exemption they are demanding, when Ontario and Alberta's power generators are expected to carry the financial load ?

[fourhorses]

Mr Dion:

What qualifications do you posess in this scientific field of climatology, chemistry or environmental science ?

[fourhorses]

Mr Dion:?

Other than naming your dog Kyoto, WTF have you really done ?

[fourhorses]

Mr Dion:

The EU has proposed unilaterally hiking cuts of carbon emissions from the current 8% for 2012 to 20% by 2020 and attempting to reach 30% cuts by the same 2020.

There are significant reports of economic hardships affecting Europe already, owing to this Kyoto protocol and the EU

The Commission intends to propose options including forcing power-generating companies to sell off their distribution assets.

If Canada were to continue with your Kyoto plan, it too would be pressured into a further rise to 20% cuts by 2020 and large power generators here in Canada could also be forced to sell off business assets.

What do you have to say in defense of this new directional change in Kyoto and the possible devastating effects on businesses ?

[fourhorses]

Mr Dion:

The Greenland ice packs are thickening not melting.

The overall ice thickness changes are ... approximately plus 5 cms
(1.9 inches) a year or 54 cms (21.26 inches) over 11 years," according
to the experts at Norwegian, Russian and U.S. institutes led by Ola
Johannessen at the Mohn Sverdrup center for Global Ocean Studies
and Operational Oceanography in Norway.

Can you explain to us how global warming is causing more ice in the arctic ?