Important Message for Canadians – Compiled from the deliberations of The Friends of Science Society and many other Scientists who honour and abide by the tenets of science.

Contributed by Roger Edmunds, B.Sc. Geological Engineering, retired and a member of the Friends of Science Society.

‘Science is the search for the truth through the application of the scientific method’ (‘a systematic, iterative process for exploring observations, forming testable hypotheses, and answering questions through experimentation and analysis of data’)

LINK to video Richard Feynman on the scientific method.

The Green’s Manifesto, according to Wikipedia, states ‘there is a nearly unanimous scientific consensus that the Earth has been consistently warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution (IR), that the rate of recent warming is largely unprecedented, and that this warming is mainly the result of a rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) caused by human activities. The human activities causing this warming include fossil fuel combustion, cement production and land use changes such as deforestation, with a significant role from other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide. This human role in climate change is “unequivocal” and “incontrovertible.” (Wikipedia).’ The green activists employ the ‘Anthropogenic Climate Change Hypothesis’ to justify the demands of their Manifesto. The term “Greens” encompasses a large powerful amorphous body of well-endowed environmental NGOs, a group of self-centred billionaires and various Western Governments that are signatory to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and which accept “the science” as reported by  the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The foundation for The Green Manifesto is the assumption that the Earth’s current warming trend extending back to 1700 AD, just before the Industrial Revolution (IR), is nearly wholly the result of human industrial emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2).  The Greens cite as evidence; the increasing CO2 emissions are concurrent and therefore are the cause of nearly all the damaging extreme weather events we are presently experiencing. They contend that the continued use of CO2 emitting fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) will steadily increase its atmospheric concentration, causing catastrophic climatic conditions. 

Those scientists who hold to the tenets of science, recognize CO2 as a greenhouse gas (GHG) which provides beneficial warming, but affirm that there is no empirical scientific evidence to support the claim that increased amounts of CO2 will cause extreme destructive weather events. Nature has in the past, in the present, and will in the future, drive climate change. Any evidence, beyond CO2’s warming effect, that CO2 will cause catastrophic weather is lacking.

These scientists have, on a few occasions, been allowed to debate, however, the Greens, generally avoid debates because they typically have lost. Instead, they rely on ad hominem attacks, censorship, and boycotting to bolster their Manifesto.

The Manifesto must be examined in detail particularly because it contains assumptions, misrepresentations and omissions as follows. The green references key points from the Green’s world view and thesis; rebutted by Facts.

– Assumption , ‘that the Earth has been consistently warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution (IR)’. …. this warming is mainly the result of a rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) caused by human activities. (Green Manifesto)

Facts:  The accompanying graph plots temperature from 1660 AD to the present. Overall, there is a 3 °C temperature anomaly rise. Historically this graph covers the coldest time of the Little Ice Age (LIA) (aprox. 1400 – 1850 AD), the Maunder Minimum (1670 – 1710 AD) to the Modern Warm Period (1920- 2026+ AD).

We are in a period of Inter-glacial warming following the fourth continental ice age. It is obvious that Nature, the Sun, for which its variable output best correlates with the global temperature changes, has governed climate change. Human emissions of CO2 weren’t significant until 1950 (in orange) and temperatures remained flat until 1990. In and after 1990 El Nino weather events have warmed the globe, and at this time human’s CO2 has added to this recent beneficial warming. It is a misleading to say that the Earth’s warming since the start of the IR (1750 AD) is caused by human activities (post 1950), and that ‘the rate of recent warming is unprecedented,’ a cursory glance at the graph belies the statement.

– Misrepresentation. This human role in climate change is “unequivocal” and “incontrovertible.” That the human’s role in global warming leaves no doubt and is not open to question’.    

Facts: These statements are the complete antithesis of what science is all about. The truths of science are reinforced by scepticism. A strong tenet of science is that it is never settled, as new instruments, new discoveries, new knowledge and understandings are formulated and finding scientific proof an ever-evolving process. This statement is propaganda and not supported by scientific evidence.

– Misrepresentation, The Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE). Many temperature monitoring stations that were once out in the country, have been engulfed by urban growth; with buildings, concrete sidewalks and asphalt roads absorbing and emitting heat elevating temperature readings well above the actual temperature.               

Facts: The global temperatures applied by the IPCC for many urban readings need further downward adjustment than has been taken.

– Omission, Reduction in air pollution.     

Facts: Air pollutants block sun rays from reaching the earth resulting in global cooling. It is reported that there has been a 75% reduction in East Asian sulphate emissions and also industrial emissions reductions made in the Western World have contributed considerably to global warming by not blocking as much sunlight. Peter Cox, University of Exeter says “most of the planet’s warming this century is not due to greenhouse gases, but reductions in air pollution, mainly sulphur dioxide. Two-thirds of the global warming since 2001 is [sulphur dioxide] reduction rather than [carbon dioxide] increases”.

– Omission, Disregarding the CO2 Saturation effect.

Facts; According to Lindzen and Happer “CO2 becomes less effective at higher concentrations of CO2 because of what in physics is called “saturation.” Each additional increase of CO2 in the atmosphere causes a smaller and smaller change in temperature.’ At today’s CO2 concentration of 430 ppm additional amounts of CO2 have little ability to absorb heat and therefore. In higher concentrations CO2 becomes a weak greenhouse gas incapable of causing dangerous warming. Climate scientist Michael Mann said “If we continue to burn fossil fuels at accelerating rates, if we continue with business as usual, we will cross the 450 parts per million limit in a matter of maybe a couple of decades. With that amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, we commit to what could truly be described as dangerous and irreversible changes in our climate.”

– Misrepresentation, the “Hockey Stick” was heralded as the ‘smoking gun’ supposedly convincingly proving human caused climate change. It is a widely-cited graph that plots (temperature vs time) of proxy data from tree rings, commencing from 0 AD extending to the present. The plot is a straight line (shaft) running, with a slight dip from warm to cooler, ending at the beginning of the IR and then the blade projects a dramatic uptick, resembling a hockey stick blade angle from the shaft to its end at the much higher present day temperature position. The inference is that the blade’s posture conclusively showed the human’s IR suddenly providing the higher temperatures.

Facts: Critical examination showed the proxies to be sparse and unreliable and the mathematics quite flawed. The IPCC subsequently removed the hockey stick as the show piece of their presentations.       

– Omission, Disregarding the Geological Past. The Greens, in time have only gone as far as 1 AD when they presented their hockey stick. Delving back beyond the LIA provides no support for their Manifesto.

Facts: The IPCC ignores that CO2 concentrations in the past Palaeozoic and Mesozoic Eras have averaged 2000 ppm and reached at one time a high of 7000 ppm, but life flourished. This is strong evidence that the saturation phenomenon has abated the CO2 GHG warming.

There were warmer periods; the Eemian Warm Period (130 to 115,000 yrs. ago) the Roman Warm Period (300 BC to 300 AD) and the Medieval Warm Period (950 to 1250 AD) when the Vikings farmed in Greenland. The Greens concentrate on only on recent cherry-picked events to support their predetermined conclusions.

Quoting Winston Churchill “The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see“. The Green’s myopic Manifesto purposely does not extend its examination into geologic time so their cherry-picked events would make the Modern Warm Period appear as the warmest one the Earth has ever experienced.

The Anthropogenic Climate Change Hypothesis and its Green Manifesto, to sum up, are not supported by empirical evidence. Their scientific credence is further weakened by not entertaining an examination of contradictory evidence, particularly the saturation effect, and their failing to broaden their examination particularly of the Tertiary and go as far as the Cambrian. However, the Greens probably wished to avoid the inconvenient evidence that a larger time period would have exposed.  There is no scientific evidence to show that humans’ emission of CO2, will cause catastrophic weather. 

– Social Proof, One of the main arguments the Greens put forth to support their Manifesto is that there is a 97% to 100% consensus in the Scientific Community in respect to the Manifesto. This is a ‘social proof’ – a tool of persuasion, not a tool of science.

Facts: The eminent scientist and author, the late Michael Crichton declared that ‘There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.’ Consensus is a political concept, truth in science is established by empiricism not consensus. A meaningful illustration of this goes back to the 17th Century, when Galileo was declared a heretic for asserting the Earth revolved around the Sun. A consensus of church and state authorities of that time proclaimed the Earth the centre of the Universe because of their religious beliefs and the obvious observation of the rising and setting of the Sun over the Earth. It was a case of obvious observation, authority, and consensus versus Galileo’s more accurate observation, at that time, using the newly invented telescope to be able to observe the true nature of the solar system. Consequently, Crichton’s declaration that consensus is not science.

– Emotional Alarmism, On the assumption that the warming over the last 100 years is of humanity’s doing, the Greens proclaim this is causing dire problems such as glaciers melting, causing a sea level rise, flooding low coastal areas and drowning many Pacific Islands, an increased ocean acidity destroying the Great Barrier Reef, increased extreme weather events, such as heat waves, hurricanes, tornadoes, high winds, floods, droughts, more and more intense forest fires.

Facts: The most recent IPCC AR6 report shows in Table 12.12 that there is no trend toward any of these things, and in fact only uses the words “climate emergency” and “climate crisis” once each, in reference to media coverage.

The late satirist H. L. Mencken would have categorized these this way,  “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” These ‘climate crises’ for the most part are hobgoblins considering that currently: the glaciers have receded uniformly since 1830 AD and the global sea level has risen uniformly since 1860 AD and most of the Pacific Islands, particularly the larger ones are growing in size, not shrinking; the Great Barrier Reef is as healthy as ever, particularly at its north portion, where it is warmest; the hot 1930’s with its dust bowl, although a few skewed reports have attempted to say otherwise, was warmer than the present day, the Eemian, the Medieval and Roman Warm Periods, well before the IR, were warmer; and for the oceans of the world, because they lie in a quite alkaline environment, to become more acidic would require vastly more CO2 (forms a quite weak acid) than human’s could ever generate.

– Models are not Predictive. Climate models (complex computer simulations of atmospheric interactions) are used by the Greens as if accurate prophecy.

Facts: To predict the future weather and determine if the weather may become catastrophic, the IPCC has employed some 102 General Circulation Models (GCMs). Quoting Lindzen and Happer; “Models are a type of theory; they predict physical observations. The scientific method requires models to be tested by observations to see if they work. If a model’s prediction disagrees with observations of what it purports to predict, it is wrong. The models supporting the climate-crisis narrative simply do not align with observations of the phenomena they are supposedly designed to predict. Instead, they consistently overestimate the warming effect of CO2 emissions, often predicting two or three times more warming than has been observed.” Further, “Fail the Key Scientific Test: They Do Not Work and Would Never Be Used in Science.” The models fail to provide any credible scientific evidence of impending catastrophic weather.’

– Media Activism and Censorship. The media has failed to publish or make any mention of three important science papers by six eminent American Climate Scientists, and an eminent Canadian economist, which are the ‘Greenhouse Gases and Fossil Fuels Climate Science by Richard Lindzen and William Happer; ‘A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U. S. Climate’, this paper was commissioned by the Trump Administration, but solely reflects the scientists’ views; and ‘Energy & Climate at a Glance, Canadian edition ’ by Ron Davison; The Friends of Science Society – Calgary, and H. Sterling Burnett; the Heartland Institute, USA. The three papers point to the scientific complexities governing climate change and the failure of the Greens to abide by the tenets of the scientific method. To restore scientific integrity, many scientists have formed societies: in Canada, The Friends of Science Society (Calgary); in the United States; The Heartland Institute; The Netherlands; CLINTEL, also societies have formed in Ireland, Great Britain, France, Germany, and numerous individual prominent scientists have added their voices. The Friends of Science Society, The Heartland Institute and CLINTEL continue the publication of scientific articles and papers and multi-media, user-friendly materials on climate change. The three previously mentioned papers and these three societies’ observations and conclusions in respect to Climate Science are the basis for this message.

– Gaia Worship – a Twisted Religion In summation, the Green Manifesto, in depicting CO2 as a prime polluting villain (arising, the Greens would say, out of the ‘evils’ of the Industrial Revolution!!!), has been constructed, from misconstrued scientific evidence mixed with propaganda and emotion, reliant on assumptions, misrepresentations and omissions. Like Galileo’s detractors, the Manifesto, is the product, not of science, but of consensus, very substantial dark green money, the appearance of authority and tones of religiosity. These have been co-opted to the cause with strong, emotional feelings and apocalyptic phrases. Although religious authority is not strong today, it seems that the need for religion is still strong in many humans, especially for those who believe that humankind, by burning of fossil fuels, has sinned. Redemption for them will come when Net Zero is reached! But the force behind the Green Manifesto lies with those authorities wishing to usurp the power of the fossil fuel industry which provides 80% of the Earth’s energy. Some of those people want to sell more ‘clean energy’ versus ‘dirty fossil fuels;’ some are actual Malthusians who want to depopulate the planet; many who are in between are simply alarmed by the rhetoric and fearful of today’s ‘cancel culture,’ where being called a ‘denier’ might mean you don’t have a job.

– The Real Danger  The danger to life on Earth is not too much CO2, but too little! All life on earth will cease to exist if CO2 concentrations fall below 150 ppm.

Facts:  At 150 ppm, plants will die followed in turn by all animals and humans. Atmospheric CO2 concentration hasn’t been as low as 180 ppm since the end of the last glaciation 12,000 years ago. (See page 81 of “Energy and Climate at a Glance). The CO2 concentration has increased from this dangerous low of 180 ppm (during the coldest of the Last Ice Age, (roughly 18,000 years ago) to presently 430 ppm. This increase has been very beneficial, not only in avoiding a possible extinction of life on Earth, but there has been a 15% increase in greening of the Earth, observed by satellite, and a marked increase in crop yields worldwide. In 2016, a NASA study put the greening from 2000 to 2020 at 10%. An earlier study put the greening from 1982 to 2010 at 5 – 10%. This Information comes from the Heartland Institute.  CO2 is being injected into greenhouses at an optimal concentration of 1200 ppm. Science tells us that rather than spending trillions of wasted dollars to get rid of CO2 emissions, we should be doubling our atmospheric concentrations. If this were to happen worldwide the deserts would be much greener, and crop yields much higher increasing enough possibly to eradicate hunger in Asia & Africa.

-Shamelessly claiming the Moral High Ground! The Greens have successfully, for a large part, gained the moral high ground and present themselves as crusaders to save the Earth. They act like Luddites, trying to dismantle the Industrial Revolution by invoking the Net Zero use of fossil fuels.

Facts: However, this so-called Green Movement is an undemocratic authoritarian movement whose aim is to put the ‘Elites’ in control because they believe common humankind is incapable of properly governing themselves. The late Maurice Strong, the principal architect of the movement and top adviser to the UN Secretary-General readily expressed this belief and admitted it was not important if the thesis of ‘Anthropogenic Climate Change’ was false, but that it was very important that mechanisms like de-industrialization (subsequently framed as ‘Net Zero’) be exercised to enforce a top-down rule.

-What happens if we get rid of fossil fuels; If the use of fossil fuels is eliminated, then after 2050 supposedly the climate will be idyllic till the end of time. How unlikely that would be! Undoubtedly the climate will be as it was before the human’s activities. Nature will again bring on the droughts, floods, and other extreme damaging weather as it has throughout the ages.

Unfortunately, we will have rid ourselves of the wherewithal for mitigating the loss of life and property damage. There will be no fuel to fly the planes, helicopters nor move the heavy equipment required for the rescue. So, loss of life and property damage will be extreme, but supposedly we will enjoy a cooler climate!

                                                            SUMMARY REMARKS

From the beginnings of the ‘Anthropogenic Climate Change Hypothesis’ and claims that human industrial emissions are causing catastrophic weather, the persistent voices of the scientists showing that this thesis is false have been censored by very strong political forces. Canadians must recognize that catastrophic ‘Anthropogenic Climate Change’ is not science, but a ploy to gain power. In our opinion, Canadians thus must elect those who are institutionally for a ‘bottom-up government’ providing inclusive innovation and freedom of choice for all Canadians.