A giant waste of time and money

At the Premiers’annual Council of the Federation these bozos

gassed on about (a) saving the planet from global warming and (b) making sure Canadians don’t "waste" water, even though:

(a) Canada’s contribution to global GHG emissions is negligible (assuming "GHGs" are a problem to begin with), and;

(b) Canada has the world’s largest supply of fresh water which might explain why we’re big users of the stuff. Apparently we have to wear a hair shirt because desert dwellers need to get by with less.

Perhaps they haven't read the memo, the climate climate has gotten colder. Nor, I'd wager, have they kept up on recent research which, in part, concludes:

Climate scientists have greatly underestimated the uncertainty of proxy based reconstructions and hence have been overconfident in their models. Which means, one commenter says: "ie. they've done it wrong, and then oversold it."

[via FOS]

The light bulb ban - some important facts

The Canadian government plans to ban the incandescent light bulb in 2012. The compact fluorescent bulb (CFL) is being promoted as a replacement. This is, of course, part of the lunatic politics of global warming.

A similar ban is being imposed in the U.S.A. where the use of CFLs is also being legislated. Representative Ted Poe of Texas isn't happy and wants the American people to be aware of

Some important facts about compact fluorescent bulbs


[H/t: Vinney Di]

Hey, John Baird! Listen to Peter Foster

Today Environment Minister, John Baird has his say in the debate on how best to cut greenhouse gas emissions:

Those of us contributing to this National Post debate may not agree on how we should cut emissions, but I am sure that we all agree that action must be taken to confront the challenge of climate change.

"... we [true believers] all agree that action must be taken." That’s a given. It imparts about as much information as saying "water is wet". But my advice to Minister Baird would be - listen to Peter Foster in his column today, "An arm and a leg".

On politicians and their advisors:

Let's say that a bunch of tribal chiefs, having realized that they are in danger of being exposed as useless parasites, consult with their witch doctors and announce that the Gods are angry. These vengeful Gods are demanding that every tribesman (except chiefs and witch doctors)must have either an arm or a leg amputated.

On the choices and ‘benefits’:

Being eager to be seen as good chiefs, they agree to consult with the tribesmen. Not about the anger of the Gods, of course. That's settled. Instead ... Should individuals be allowed to choose which limb to lose? ... Below the knee? Above the elbow? ... a marvellous opportunity to stimulate economic growth via the development of a prosthetic limb industry.

On the "deniers":

...."Hang on, what proof do we have the Gods are angry? And where are these Gods anyway?".... if they couldn't rip his heart out straight away .... "Infidel," they would scream.....How dare he doubt the shamans, among whom there is consensus.

After outlining the deceit, folly and destructiveness of carbon taxes and cap-and-trade ruses Foster concludes on a hopeful note:

We are indeed facing a tsunami of needless policy destruction. Fortunately, people are finally beginning to appreciate what this charade will cost them: an arm and a leg.

It would be nice if that were true, but tribal chief Baird is still pushing CO2 as a pollutant and measures that will still cost us an arm or a leg. Maybe it would be worth while to drop him a note.

Kyoto - Speaking of heads in the sand!

Global warming as religion. Dogma as 'science'.

In today’s National Post is an article by Timothy Ball and Tom Harris on the Kyoto non-debate. Conservative MP Bob Mills, as opposition environment critic, once put forward a very sensible motion:

"That given the importance and impact of the Kyoto Protocol on Canada and the entire world, and given that this committee has never studied the science behind the Kyoto Protocol, that several prominent climate (and other related fields) scientists from both sides of the issue be invited to testify on the science behind the Kyoto Protocol before the Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development at a mutually agreeable time and date."

Very sensibly, Mills argued:

"To just hear one side of an issue is certainly not what I think a committee should do and it's not in good conscience that we can do that."

But Liberal MP Charles Cassia, disagreed:

"I couldn't think of a more undesirable use of the committee's time."

And "the motion was soundly defeated."

Now, with the Conservatives in power, Mills has done a complete about face. Apparently he, like the opposition Liberals, NDP and BQ, has become a Kyoto "true believer". There is no longer any need to hear from anyone who might have different ideas on climate science.

Well, as disappointing as this is, I suppose we shouldn’t be too surprised. Kyoto never was about sound science. Despite the facts that the GHG hypothesis remains unproven, that there are good reasons to doubt it and that there are compelling alternate theories, human-induced global warming has become an article of faith. So, as with any religious dogma, it's sacrilege to question it. And since 'Kyoto' has been so effectively ‘sold’ to the public, it is now completely politicized. The Tories know if they don’t manage it carefully their re-election prospects could be seriously damaged.

So, non-true-believers are in a bind. Beyond continuing to delude ourselves that there will ever be real debate on the science, we can only hope our government doesn't do anything to wreck the economy for negligible effect. Because, even if Kyoto science were accurate, given the small size of our economy, no matter what Canada does, or does not do, its effect on global climate will be somewhere between unmeasureable and nil.