FELDSTED - We need something more scientific, and stable, to use in navigating how to deal with climate change

The honest conversations we need to have are about our energy use, our environment and climate change. While the three topics are interdependent, they each have separate considerations.

Let’s start with environment – maintaining excellent quality air, land and water are just the basics.

Our environment includes cityscapes, the urban jungles where an increasing proportion of our society resides. In that environment, wind tunnels, sunlight, neon lights, artificial lighting, streetlights, traffic lights, traffic noise, and many other factors play a large part in “environment”.

In rural areas, livestock operations, natural water drainage, maintain wetlands, weed control, use of pesticides and fertilizer and maintenance of roads and bridges, all play a part in “environment”.

“Climate Change” is a different topic altogether. Changes to our climate can influence our environment, but we are not certain of what drives climate change. That is not acceptable.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change insists that the driving force is atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO²). However, its theories are suspect and under increasing pressure from the scientific community. We cannot take the chance that the IPCC theories are wrong. 

We need solid scientific investigation of the calculations the IPCC used in 1988 to develop its theories.

The climate is changing, and we need to prepare to mitigate the results of those changes. Pouring all our efforts into reducing carbon dioxide emissions is foolhardy unless there is clear evidence that the reductions will reduce climate change. After three decades, there is no evidence of a link between CO² emissions and climate change. IPCC warming predictions have not proven to be accurate.

Energy is also a separate topic. Plentiful and reliable energy is a fundamental requirement for a healthy economy. Canada is growing – still a work in progress. With growth is an increased demand for energy. We cannot change to new energy sources in the foreseeable future. We can undertake conversion which will fill part of the increased demand, but we cannot replace the 90% of our energy needs that are supplied by diesel and gasoline in the next two decades.

Worse, the demand for so-called ‘clean energy’ is predicated on the IPCC theory which may very well be wrong. It is more likely that the amount of atmospheric CO² increases or decreases as our climate changes rather than the other way around. Historical records show far higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide during warm periods long prior to the industrial revolution.

We owe it to ourselves and to future generations to lead the way in investigating IPCC theories and claims. If we can prove that their calculations and predictions are credible, we can move forward with some assurance that we are on the right path.

Canadians are a common-sense, logical and reasonable people. Many are skeptical of IPCC claims as they see no evidence of its prediction taking place. The IPCC keeps moving the goal posts with altered predictions, excuses and changes in language.

Our governments cannot avoid an honest debate on climate change, energy and environment. It is not relevant what the IPCC has to say. Our governments are responsible for verifying the accuracy of IPCC prediction before they take any action to follow IPCC directions.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious concept that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."

Every other year or so a few thousand people gather at an IPCC climate change conference, link arms, sing Kumbaya and declare: “It is so!”

We need something more scientific and stable to use in navigating how to deal with climate change.