Canada has more culpability than any other nation in creating and perpetuating the deception. It is not hyperbole to say that Canada was central to creating and mobilizing the false claim of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
The idea that humans were causing runaway global warming originated with the Club of Rome.
Formed in 1968 by David Rockefeller, it expanded on the Malthusian idea that the population would outgrow the food supply. The expansion was that world population would outgrow all resources.
They made three major assumptions:
They produced a few books and reports to substantiate the claims about population and demand.
Paul Ehrlich's 1968 The Population Bomb garnered enormous attention. Less well read but still influential was the 1972 book Limits to Growth by Meadows et al.
It used a very primitive computer program that started with two components.
The known volume of a resource and the current rate of use. Then, using a simple linear trend, it projected the point at which the resource would run out.
It also projected the point at which the volume of the resource use peaked.
Another book published in 1977, Ecoscience, Population, Resources, and Environment, influenced policy for a long time because of Paul Ehrlich's co-author John Holdren.
He later became Science
the Obama White House.
The two most important in the latter half of the 20th century were feminism and environmentalism.
Both were necessary
changes, and both went through the same sequence as all shifts. This
point is important because anyone who dared to question the
deception that humans were causing global warming was accused of not
caring about the environment.
They don't occur very often partly because, as philosopher A.N. Whitehead said,
Many ideas are proposed, but few catch on because people are generally afraid of change.
They know change occurs,
but they also know there are always winners and losers. Since every
idea is new, they lack the information and ability to decide. It is
simpler to assume they will lose, and it is safer to maintain the
Only they care about,
Most people realized it made sense not to soil your nest but were afraid of the change. How far would or should we go? Since they knew little, it was easy for the power group to marginalize any who dared to question.
I recall questions from the media prefaced with the idea that I was "giving comfort" to the polluters.
This troubled me until I
realized that giving false information and misleading the people was
more problematic. Once the public learned that they suffered for
change and made sacrifices on false information, it would give
greater comfort to polluters.
Those are identified by the people who started the idea and their disciples.
When negative impacts,
such as loss of jobs or economic downturn, appear their reaction
will define the limit. They either acknowledge that it is a limit,
or they become more strident and unreasonable. That is the stage we
are at with environmentalism.
The question was what to do about it...
There were a very strong
anti-capitalism and anti-development agenda behind the idea and
therefore the responses.
Published in 1991, it was a follow-up and expansion on The Limits to Growth.
Here is a quote that typifies the approach and the sentiment.
At this point, the challenge is to convert ideas to action. It is
where most ideas founder. The AGW idea didn't founder because,
unfortunately, a Canadian and member of COR,
Maurice Strong, became the
pivotal person with the skills to make it happen.
It began in the 1977 at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment Stockholm Conference.
Hrab quotes from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:
He also noted:
We know how Strong, as a member of the COR, took the ideas and translated them into policy.
Elaine Dewar, an investigative journalist, and another Canadian planned to write a book praising Canadian environmentalists. Her research showed that all the people on the list were more corrupt than the people they were attacking.
Dewar wrote a book titled
Cloak of Green with at least 20% on Strong that included
details on five days with him at UN headquarters.
The overall aim was exploitation of environmentalism, using the secondary issue of global warming.
Strong knew that the best way to achieve his goal was through the bureaucrats at the UN and the bureaucrats at every National Weather Office in every UN member nation. He knew what US social commentator Mary McCarthy warned.
To McCarthy it was a threat, to Strong it was the potential for total, unaccountable control. He set up the entire COR objective under the organization he created called the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).
The overall control of
politics and science is shown in Figure 1.
It was easily achieved by the definition given it by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that limited them to only human causes of climate change. It was at this juncture another Canadian became directly involved.
The founding meeting of the IPCC occurred in Villach Austria in 1985 and was chaired by Canadian scientists Gordon McBean.
Later McBean became an
Assistant Deputy Minister at Environment Canada (EC).
In that role, he supervised and directed the department to convince
politicians of the legitimacy and accuracy of the IPCC science.
Budget overruns drew the attention of the Canadian Auditor General (AG) and activities to increase other sources of funding all drew public attention.
For example, from 1997 to 2005 the AG reported EC spent $6.8 billion on climate change, with no results. To pay for this, they diverted funds from other legislated activities.
They closed stations and replaced many with Automated Weather Observing System (AWOS).
These were so bad that
Nav Canada, an agency set up to run
the airports including the weather stations refused to accept them.
It triggered an inquiry by BC Senator Pat Carney that
confirmed the problem.
Ken Gregory of the
Friends of Science group showed that the Canadian model
produced the most inaccurate projections of all the models in the
ensemble (Figure 2).
The weather forecast accuracy has not noticeably improved, especially for severe weather. They continue to waste money on propaganda and attendance at the IPCC meetings - they invariably have the largest delegations at the annual Conference of the Parties meetings (Figure 1).
It is time to severely limit all national weather agencies, including EC, to only data collection agencies.
All weather forecasting
should be done by private agencies, so they will only succeed based
on the quality and accuracy of their work. No government agency
should be involved in research because the potential for political
bias or influence is very high.
He applied it in complete form when, in 1992 he became Chairman of Ontario Hydro, the government agency that controlled all energy production in the Province.
It destroyed the economy
of Ontario taking it from the best performer of all Canadian
provinces to one of the poorest.
Now there is open revolt against the carbon tax from major Provincial governments.
Ontario elected a new government and among the first actions Premier Doug Ford took was to seek retirement of the Chairman of the Board of Hydro One (the new name for Ontario Hydro) and ask for the resignations of all Board members.
It is a step in the right
Even if you accept the bad science, the cost of reducing global temperature by controlling CO2 is not tenable. They are still afraid of attacks from the eco-bullies.
However, a majority are
prepared to take an economic stand.
The bureaucrats at Environment Canada (EC) became a major force nationally and internationally in promoting and perpetuating the deception.
The government of Canada must use them to take the lead in a return to sanity.
It is time to shut them down and CLEXIT from the fiasco, deception, and devastating costs in lost opportunities. It is guaranteed to create bad science when you have scientific bureaucrats.
If the evidence shows what thy told politicians were the case, they are not going to risk their job by admitting they got it wrong.
As Upton Sinclair said,
The only role of EC
should involve as much data collection as possible made available to
anybody who needs it.