WhatFinger


Harper government must provide strong support for Oliver's climate realism

Steel yourselves to attacks from enviro-extremists, don’t surrender, advises air force vet



World War II Lancaster bomber pilot "Sandy" Mutch says that the Harper government should not be surprised that they were angrily attacked by climate campaigners last week when Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver expressed doubt about the severity of man-made global warming.
"On bombing raids over Europe, we could tell we were closing in on the target when we started to get the most flak," said Mutch, now 93 and living in Ottawa. "Anyone who wants to kill the dangerous and unfounded climate scare, as I certainly hope our government does, should focus on exposing the shaky science behind climate alarm. That is the Achilles heel of the whole movement. Shoot it down and you win the war!" Mutch, who hold a Masters of Science degree from the University of Toronto (1951) and who has prepared some of his own YouTube videos on the topic, is right. The science is of paramount importance. If humanity's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are not causing dangerous climate change, then all of the other arguments in the debate are irrelevant. It no longer matters whether it is better to tax CO2 emissions or enable cap and trade. Arguing about which countries should go first in reducing emissions also becomes a waste of time since no one should bother with CO2 reductions at all. It is not even worth discussing alternative energy options that reduce CO2. CO2 is the stuff of life. It is essential for plant photosynthesis on which all life depends. It is anything but a pollutant.

Support Canada Free Press


Many environmental extremists know that the science backing the CO2-driven climate alarm is its weakest link. They can see that there has been no warming for 17 years while CO2 levels have risen almost 10%. Dr. Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, even wrote in 2009 in an e-mail leaked as part of the Climategate scandal, "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." Clearly, something is seriously wrong with the models being used to forecast climatic Armageddon. So the last thing global warming campaigners want is for the public to start asking tough questions about the science or real-world data. When a person as influential as Oliver voices uncertainty about the extent of climate dangers, of course Greenpeace would call his views "appalling" and "shocking." Naturally, the Globe and Mail, a newspaper with a long history of supporting the climate scare, would publish a Canadian Press column asserting that Oliver "has found himself trying to prove he is not a climate-change denier." What did the Government expect from these groups; a thank you note and roses? Anyone following recent developments in the field would see that Oliver's remarks in the editorial board interview with Montreal daily newspaper, La Presse, were correct. Here are his statements that set off the controversy:
"I think that people aren't as worried as they were before about global warming of two degrees. Scientists have recently told us that our fears (on climate change) are exaggerated."
Of course climate science easily backs such cautious comments. But the predictable reaction from activists apparently frightened Oliver and his staff. Backtracking, the Minister later said, according to his spokesman, "I did not say that there is no problem, and I do not say that others (scientists) have said that there is no problem. Instead, they say there is a big problem. But now they say that the problem is not so urgent that they previously thought. Maybe it will take more time. But ... I do not deny the problem, which is a fundamental problem." Rather than retreat when attacked by climate extremists, Oliver should have provided solid evidence for his statements. He should have mentioned the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change in which hundreds of science research papers are cited that shed down on, or disprove much of the basis of climate alarm. He should have mentioned the December 15, 2011 testimonies of four leading climate experts before The Senate Standing Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources that clearly showed how poor the evidence is for dangerous human-caused climate problems. He could have mentioned the dozens of open letters and other declarations endorsed by hundreds of scientists over the past 15 years that the climate scare is scientifically unfounded. While there was nothing wrong with Oliver's staff telling the Canadian Press that his sources included journalist Lawrence Solomon and the Economist (which, on March 30th, published an important article about the uncertainties in climate science), it was hardly sufficient to counter the anger released by eco-campaigners across social media. To date, the Government's climate change communication strongly supports the climate scare and so naturally journalists would point out inconsistencies between Oliver's La Presse statements and those of Environment Minister Peter Kent. Instead of pretending they know who is right in the climate science debate, it is time the Harper government convened open, unbiased climate science hearings across Canada so as to help the public understand the vast uncertainties in this, arguable the most complex science ever tackled. Public support for "stopping climate change" would then quickly wither and, without even taking sides in the science debate, the Conservatives would be politically able to cut back on and eventually cancel expensive and pointless greenhouse gas reduction programs. In the meantime, government strategists, at both federal and provincial levels, must think long and hard about their messaging. As the International Climate Science Coalition explained in our recently released video, it is imperative that our leaders do nothing to support a movement that, if successful, would eventually destroy our country's most important source of wealth--our vast hydrocarbon fuel resources. Being so frightened of their opponents that they actually feed the fire that threatens to burn down our economy is a betrayal to all Canadians. In 2002, the Liberal government of former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien held hearings across Canada leading up to our ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. Those meetings excluded climate realists, scientists who do not support the climate scare. Today's government can, indeed must, do better in any hearings they set up and include scientists from all reputable points of view, politically correct or not. Mutch understands that it will not be easy for politicians to change course on climate policy, but that it must be done regardless, he explains. "I lost many of my best friends and colleagues in the war but we were doing it to defend our society from deadly enemies," he said. "Canada now needs leaders with the courage to stand up to today's deadly enemies, climate campaigners who are bent on destroying the energy sources we need to maintain a prosperous society." "No one is asking politicians to risk their lives as many in my generation did," concludes Mutch. "But they must be strong enough to take the flak that always comes when you are directly attacking your enemy's most important asset. In this case, it is also their most vulnerable asset, and so the Harper government must open up the climate science issue so that the public can hear what is really happening. My discussions with climate scientists such as University of Ottawa Earth Sciences Professor Ian Clark have convinced me that the science is not even remotely settled."


View Comments

Tom Harris -- Bio and Archives

Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition at http://www.icsc-climate.com.


Sponsored