Climate change reality check



Commentary

I have a problem with the basic assumptions of a recent ruling on the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Price Act from the Supreme Court of Canada. Judge Richard Wagner stated this in his decision:

“There is also widespread consensus among international professional organizations that carbon prices are an important means of reducing GHG emissions. This issue is a real threat to human life in Canada and around the world. It is important for our response to. As a result, it must pass the threshold test and be considered as a national concern. “

It is simply not true that climate change poses an existential threat to Canadian life. Warming is more likely to improve our overall living conditions. That does not mean that other parts of the world are not at risk of rising temperatures, and certainly rising sea levels, and rising temperatures can also affect ecosystems. But disrupting Canada’s economy will not help save the world.

The court ignored the fact that the climate is constantly changing. The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report acknowledged that solar activity explained more than 50% of pre-1950 temperature rises. Other causes include fluctuations in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, wobbling of the Earth, and changes in tilt. These long-term periodic forces explain the arrival of the ice age. So, taking these forces into account, how much of the impact of carbon dioxide remains? As Bob Essenhigh of The Ohio State University told me, we may still be out of the last ice age.

It is a scientific fact that carbon dioxide is a trace gas that makes up only 0.04% of the atmosphere and is also a vegetable food. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been higher than they are today, especially during the dinosaur era in Earth’s history. I ask if natural warming does not increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but vice versa. As all lawyers know, accidental activity does not mean causality.

I, along with Danish scientist Bjorn Lomborg, believe that policy momentum needs to mitigate the effects of climate change and rising sea levels. Lomborg says the world is wasting trillions of dollars trying to stop what it can’t stop. For example, consider a Dutch template. Much of the Netherlands is below sea level, thanks to the barriers they built and the machines used for dehydration if needed.

It is undeniable that the surge in warming began to end the last ice age about 20,000 years ago. It began when the ice above Edmonton today is one mile high and sea level is about 300 feet lower than it is today. After that, global warming for thousands of years stopped. Next, about 12,800 to 11,500 years ago, a surge in global warming occurred. In Greenland, temperatures have risen about 7 degrees Celsius within 10 years. This warming has spurred a human shift to agriculture and urbanization.

From a historical point of view, there are many credible authorities. On December 20, 2010, I read an article by Anuradha K. Herath entitled “How the Earth’s Orbital Shift Shaped the Sahara Desert” in Astrobiology. The Sahara Desert was a fertile grassland during the Holocene’s optimal warm season, about 7,000 years ago. It was very similar to today’s Canadian prairie and was inhabited by humans.

We know that centuries of cooling continued before the Roman Warm Period from 250 BC to 400 BC. Then, until the Medieval Warm Period, another cooling took place between about 950 and 1250. That was when the Inuit ancestors of today lived in the Arctic and probably boated through ice-free waters. The next 6th century was called the Little Ice Age when the Vikings, who had been successfully farming in Greenland for good reason, gave up. This cold season began to end around 1850, long before the start of large-scale industrialization.

The Chief Justice was right to say that most major agencies support the hypothesis that carbon dioxide causes climate change. But if the consensus is credible, the Orthodox will have the sun orbiting the earth. Today, we rarely send dissidents like Galileo to jail. Just unlock the platforms and expel them.

In the 6-3 decision, the majority of judges all ignored a substantive cohort of responsible critics of climate change policy. In Canada, it includes Ross McKitrick, Ian D. Clark, Lawrence Solomon, Tim Ball and Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace). Climate change religion has become a bottomless money bucket for more intrusive government causes and justification. Criticism is primarily about the protection of retired people and those who are not subject to financial retaliation.

The world has real problems with pollution, but carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. So why do Supreme Court judges collude to disrupt the Canadian economy and promote a one-party system? How can all of them be such historical, scientific, and financial illiteracy?

Colin Alexander was the publisher of Yellowknife News in North. His degree includes a master’s degree in politics, philosophy, and economics from Oxford University. His ongoing work is a book with the working title “Justice on Trial”.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Posted on