Re: The Gazette’s Environment File of March 25:
Top scholars trying to tell us that we can change the climate include people from urban studies, business administration, sociology, political science, nursing studies and architecture. Of the 60 so-called top scholars, exactly five have a hard science background. This fact alone does not inspire confidence.
Having read their paper twice, their whole effort suffers from some serious scientific errors. One would think that the term “climate change” is defined somewhere, since it is the main rationale for the paper. No definition can be found. On page 17 the consequences of not doing what these folks suggest would be climate disasters. Except even the latest IPPC report on climate as well as Nature magazine (Sept. 2012) stipulate: “Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.”
This fact alone must have been known to these scientists.
Dr. James Byrne is correct in stating that Canada currently gets 77 per cent of its electrical energy from renewable (mainly hydro) and nuclear power. However, according to figure 3B on page 21, total thermal (coal, oil, natural gas) energy consumed is 74.3 per cent. A lot of the hydro electrical power generated is exported to, e.g., New York. And thus not used in Canada.
That aside, however, it is not the largest error in the paper. It continuously confuses environmental stewardship and climate change. I am all for protecting the environment. And Canada is currently doing an admirable job with existing legislation. I just fail to see how a carbon tax will change the climate. No one has ever explained to me how an increase of one molecule from three to four out of every million has any effect.
A quote from UBS AG, a Swiss investment firm: “the EU ETS cost $287 billion through to 2011 and had an "almost zero impact" on the volume of overall emissions in the European Union and the money could have resulted in more than a 40 per cent reduction in emissions if it had been used in a targeted way, e.g., to upgrade power plants.[79] (Wiki)”
This group of scientists is asking Canadians to spend as much on climate change for absolutely no effect whatsoever as we do on defence. Totally indefensible.
Joe Prins, St. Albert
