TRUDEAU’S ‘CARBON TAX’ BASED ON A FALSE PREMISE BASED ON FALSE SCIENCE
by Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris, ©2019
Nobody exploits this approach better than environmentalists working as bureaucrats for a government. Normally, the false premise is an integral part of a policy document. However, in an extreme example of this approach, on December 20th, the Government of Canada published a document entitled “Estimated impacts of the Federal Carbon Pollution Pricing System,” subtitled, “What carbon pricing means for pollution and the economy.” The goal is to justify the federal government’s ‘carbon tax’ policy, which goes into effect on April Fools’ Day, by claiming it will save money. The problem is that this assumes there is a problem in the first place.
The authors of this document demonstrate their lack of scientific knowledge and political bias even in the title. They are not talking about ‘carbon,’ which is a solid. They are incorrectly using the word as a substitute for carbon dioxide (CO2), which, of course, is a gas. This is part of the propaganda used by the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to sway the public to regard CO2 as a noxious substance such as soot, which really is carbon. They magnify this distortion by adding the word pollution, even though CO2 is the very opposite of pollution. Indeed, it is an invaluable gas because it enables plant growth, which produce oxygen that enables animal life. Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) would earn a failing grade even at the Elementary School level, for “Estimated impacts of the Federal Carbon Pollution Pricing System.”
The government bases their carbon tax plans on the assumptions that atmospheric CO2 is increasing, that it will continue to increase because of human emissions, and that this will result in dangerous planetary warming. These claims are based on the work of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Since the government of Canada is a major player in the IPCC through ECCC, it sets up a deadly incestuous situation. All government departments must accept, without question, ECCC science. A similar situation applies in all countries and was deliberately orchestrated in the creation of the IPCC.
The IPCC was established through the World Meteorological Organization which comprises the bureaucrats from every national weather agency from member nations. This put government bureaucrats firmly in control. No politician dares challenge their hegemony. This is mostly because few politicians understand the science, but also because it is easy for the bureaucrats to marginalize the few who do.
Contrary to the common assumption that the IPCC examines all climate change, its charter directs it to examine only human causes of climate change. Yet, it is impossible to determine the human effect unless you have an accurate measure of natural climate variability—and we don’t. Nevertheless, their skewed mandate allowed them to focus very narrowly and effectively predetermine the result.
Some basic facts illustrate what’s wrong:
- There are three major greenhouse gases (GHGs): water vapor (H2O, by far the most important at 95% of total GHGs), CO2 (4%), and methane (0.36%). The IPCC focus on CO2. They admit humans produce H2O but assume it is constant because the amount is so small relative to the atmospheric total.
- The human portion of all CO2 is just 2% of the total. H2O varies from a trace quantity up to 4% of the mass of air, a variation that is more than any other gas in the atmosphere. A mere 2% variation in H2O equals the combined effect of all human CO2.
- The IPCC assumes, and program their computer models accordingly, that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. Yet, in all records, temperature increases before the CO2.
- Every morning the sun rises, and the temperature increases to an afternoon maximum. The sun then sets and the temperature declines. CO2 concentrations do not change during this time frame. This completely contradicts the IPCC claim that 95% of temperature change since 1950 was due to human CO2.
- Every IPCC model prediction since their first report was issued in 1990 was wrong.
- 432 million years ago the Ordovician Ice Age occurred when the CO2 level was over 4000 ppm. The current level is approximately one-tenth of that.
The Government of Canada argument that a carbon tax will be a net gain to the economy is false no matter what the science shows. All countries and regions that pursued the “Green Agenda,” which includes all the components of the Canadian proposal, failed. Germany is the most recent example. As a result, we are seeing a heavy backlash against environmental policies in Italy, the United States, Britain, and of course, France, which saw widespread social unrest largely as a result of climate change-related fuel taxes. So far, most Canadians have not reacted to our coming carbon tax. It’s high time they did.
Dr. Tim Ball is an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba. Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.