Check the science
It's not too late to stop Kyoto. It requires a program that highlights the problems with Kyoto science and letting Canadians decide for themselves

By: Tom Harris
National Post

Thursday, September 05, 2002

As a child, I used to "help" my parents in the garden by picking the tops off dandelions. It seemed like an effective strategy -- the lawn quickly looked better and I didn't even have to get my hands dirty.

However, the dandelions soon came back, accompanied by the next generation of weeds. Only when I learned to dig up the dandelions' roots did my efforts amount to anything useful.

Those who attack the Kyoto Protocol on climate change by focusing primarily on the economic and societal problems it would cause are merely picking the tops off the Kyoto weed. Their warnings may scare Canadians into opposing ratification for a little while, but in the long run, Kyoto, or a made-in-Canada variant, is bound to quickly grow back as a recipe for "saving the planet from human-induced global warming."

This should surprise no one. Who wouldn't support a treaty to save the Earth from environmental Armageddon? While others at the Premiers' Conference in Halifax were focused on the cost of implementing Kyoto, Paul Okalik, territorial leader of Nunavut, clearly summed up the environmentalist position when he described climate changes in the North and told the premiers, "You can keep your money!" The extensive coverage given his statement shows how this attitude resonates well with the media and the public, many of whom have little patience with a "profits before environment" approach.

But statements like Mr. Okalik's only have power if people really believe human activity has a significant negative impact on global climate. Do away with that doctrine and Kyoto reduces to another cost/benefit pollution debate, one that the treaty's supporters would quickly lose.

So the real question is, do all climate scientists support the doomsday scenarios of environmental extremists such as David Suzuki and others who have misled Environment Minister David Anderson?

Of course not. Here are just a few of the many mistaken ideas in circulation, and what real scientists have to say about them:

Humanity is causing climate change. Tim Patterson, Carleton University professor of earth sciences, explains that this is very unlikely. Long before our species inhabited the Earth, there were far more extreme changes in climate than what we see now. Mr. Patterson and others show that, even in the past thousand years, there were much warmer and colder periods than today.

Global temperature is now rising rapidly. Only selected ground level monitors report that global temperatures are rising. Mr. Patterson, Pat Michaels, professor of climatology at the University of Virginia, John Christy, associate professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama, and many others explain that far more accurate and comprehensive satellite temperature sensors reveal no appreciable global warming since measurements began in 1979.

Carbon dioxide is the major contributor to global warming. Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics blame variations in the sun's brightness, not CO2 levels, for most of Earth's climate change. Tim Ball, retired climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, and Jan Veizer, professor of geology at the University of Ottawa, show that CO2 merely responds to temperature changes; it does not cause them. "[G]lobal average temperature will go up and down during the future years regardless of what we do," concludes Petr Chylek, professor of physics and atmospheric science at Dalhousie University.

Human activity is a major contributor to world CO2 levels. Messrs. Veizer, Patterson, Ball and others show that over 95% of the CO2 that circulates through the atmosphere is produced by nature.

CO2 is a pollutant. CO2 is a nutrient vital for plant photosynthesis, and prevents Earth from being locked in a perpetual ice age. Real pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxides, can be reduced with far less expensive methods than a greenhouse gas treaty.

Global warming will be disastrous for the environment and human society. Mr. Patterson and climate historian Hubert H. Lamb demonstrate that during warm periods civilization flourished, while in cold periods, there was more drought, famine, wars and disease. Messrs. Michaels and Patterson explain that weather should be more moderate in a warmer world.

Sea levels will rise catastrophically if polar ice melts. Just as the melting of ice cubes in a glass of water does not cause the glass to overflow, so too the melting of polar sea ice will not result in ocean level changes. Only if massive quantities of inland Antarctic and Greenland glaciers melted would sea levels rise enough to submerge coastal settlements. Mr. Patterson and University of Hawaii professor of earth science Charles Fletcher maintain that this did not happen when the Earth was three degrees warmer 5,500 years ago. They also explain that sea level was only two metres higher 120,000 years ago when temperatures were almost six degrees warmer than now.

With so many technical flaws to choose from, why do the treaty's opponents attack the economics but not the science root of the Kyoto weed? After all, if the emperor has no clothes, then what is the point of debating the cost of his cape or where to get his shirt dry-cleaned?

Intimidated by the science and environmental extremists, many of Kyoto's opponents believe climate-change science is too complicated for them or the public to understand. Indeed, climate is very complex -- probably the most difficult problem ever tackled. But one need not get deeply into technical details to effectively oppose Kyoto. After all, most of the activists who support Kyoto are not formally trained in science and so are unable to deliver more than superficial sound bites when interviewed by the media. When seriously challenged, they simply parade their own climate "experts."

With a greater pool of scientists to choose from, and more solid evidence to cite, such an approach would be relatively easy for those opposed to Kyoto to follow as well. They could simply reference the scientific uncertainties and refuse to take part in implementation discussions until the treaty is thoroughly examined by an unbiased panel of scientists and engineers.

Yet, most of those opposed to Kyoto still won't bring up the science -- they are afraid of confrontation with environmental lobbyists and bad press coverage. Environmental extremists have been working for years to foster a climate in which anyone who dares doubt even the smallest part of Kyoto 's science is viewed as anti-environmental. Referring to skeptics in this fashion, David Suzuki impatiently dismisses suggestions that the science be revisited. "We're past the science," he chastises those who want to examine the faulty roots of Kyoto.

Others lobbying for Kyoto's quick ratification also become severely agitated when presented with contrary science. They know this is the treaty's weak point and so they do everything possible to avoid opening the science to public discussion.

This is exactly why those who seriously oppose ratification must not abandon the high ground of climate science to pro-Kyoto forces. Doing so will almost certainly lead to Canada being burdened with a continuing series of draconian greenhouse gas treaties, Kyoto being just the first and least severe. After all, Mr. Suzuki and other environmental lobbyists advocate far more drastic cuts in emissions than those imposed by Kyoto.

Emboldened by the success of their greenhouse gas campaign, environmental extremists will bully a gullible public into accepting even more severe penalties in the guise of saving the planet. Funds otherwise allocated to well-understood environmental problems, as well as education and health care, will be siphoned off into progressively more oppressive, and unrealistic, ecological crusades. The realities of science and technology will be swept aside as governments scramble to cash in on the fashionable new wave of irrational environmentalism.

Some may consider this scenario sensationalist. But until very recently, most of those opposed to global warming treaties didn't take the threat of Kyoto very seriously either. Surely Kyoto was just a fad, they thought, one that would fade away when people realized how improbable its basic premise really was.

However, Kyoto's opponents grossly underestimated the determination of environmental groups. While society's attention was focused on fighting terrorism and healing the economy, Kyoto advocates continued to recruit new supporters and developed surprisingly sophisticated communications strategies in preparation for the final push for ratification.

Many believe it is now too late to stop Kyoto. It is not. If the public and the media come to understand how they have been manipulated by the treaty's supporters, support for the accord will quickly wither and government plans may change radically. Recent surveys reveal that, as the public learns more about the accord, its support for ratification drops.

A well co-ordinated communications program, highlighting the problems with Kyoto's science and encouraging Canadians to come to their own conclusions, could entirely alter the situation almost overnight.

It is also important that Kyoto opponents ask themselves: "Are we really trying to kill the accord or do we just want to appear to be trying to stop Kyoto to please our constituents?"

These two objectives are not compatible. In the first case, one focuses on doing what is best for the country -- both its environment and economy -- exposing the real state of climate science in the hopes that Canadians can be led into making rational choices. This approach requires leaders with the courage to address the root of the issue despite inevitable criticism from green lobbyists.

The second approach is focused primarily on spin -- saying what sounds acceptable in the press while carefully avoiding the science. While giving the appearance of fighting Kyoto, it is a strategy that has already failed.

As the government rushes towards ratification, Kyoto opponents have a choice. They can dig up the roots of this flawed treaty and kill the Kyoto Protocol once and for all. Or they can throw in the towel and resign to living in a state-regulated, greenhouse gas-controlled economy, one driven more by environmentalist dogma than serious science.

back to NRSP People