Congratulations to Ken Allred for demonstrating the courage that so many scientists lack. I hope he won't mind if I clarify some of his points.
The main purpose of the IPCC was to make a treaty that would bring together world governments, to control carbon. This followed the UN's huge success in controlling freon emissions, through an international treaty. Maurice Strong, a guiding light of this new treaty and a Marxist, wanted to distribute wealth from the western world to all the poorer regions of the world. Trading carbon rights was his idea for accomplishing that dream. Saving mankind from intense heat was the cover story.
There never was a public debate on man-made global warming. When some credible scientists started to gain traction in criticizing the hypothesis, the chief movers and shakers of the AGW crowd decided to avoid debate at all costs. Their proponents would literally run off the stage if the interviewer brought a "denier" on the stage to debate the issue. David Suzuki would turn off the microphones when a reporter asked an inconvenient question. Using the word "denier" is part of an ad hominem strategy that real scientists avoid like the plague. Your facts should be able to defeat an opponent's theory. Name-calling is for the third grade playground.
There never were 90% of the world's climate scientists agreeing to the conclusions of the IPCC. Only a few scientists wrote the chapter in the IPCC report on "attribution" and there was no proof presented of a cause. It's all correlation and climate models, not causation. The other scientists listed in the report are there to speak for their own chapters in the report. Some scientists who changed their minds about AGW have tried to get their names removed from the IPCC report, but without success.
As far as world wide CO2 levels, we are at a low point in the Earth's history, according to all the proxy indicators of past CO2 levels. Around 500 million years ago, in the Cambrian period of the Paleozoic era, CO2 levels were estimated to be at least 10 times higher than today and the result was – lush vegetation spreading over the globe, accompanied by the most explosive evolution and diversity of new life forms ever.
Perhaps Mr. Allred will write a follow up article which explores the huge cost that Canadians have paid to support this phony theory, which is arguably the biggest scientific scam of the 20th century. One day, politicians, like our own City Council will eventually stop using the cliché of reduced emissions to justify everything they do, like their dreams of development gone wild.
W.G. Whitney, St. Albert
