The Kyoto Battle

With Environment Minister John Baird's recent salvo against Kyoto the strategy of the Harper government towards the Kyoto Protocol is becoming clearer.

Under Rona Ambrose the tact was simple. The science was phony. The protocol was a joke. It was better to ignore and legislate to clean up pollution - a word never used once in the protocol.

Somewhere along the line the Harperites came to the realization that the strategy wasn't good. The environment was becoming the number one issue for Canadians in the void of anything else for anyone to talk about. Somewhere after the stunning rise of the Green Party in London-North-Center the strategy got a revamp.

The environment overnight became a non-winnable issue for the Conservative Party. Now the same way Harper strategists viewed Health care they were looking a the environment: wherever the Liberals are so are we. Or at least that's the way things appeared to this oft mistaken blogger.

Now we are learning that there was a strict stipulation on that strategy - we would not buy into the lie that Kyoto is a realistic treaty with achievable results. Baird's tact all along seems to have been to build up Conservative credibility on the issue while attacking the treaty.


  1. ... which was the best tactic he ever could have come up with. Now, we have credibility on the environment as grudging accepters of global warming, plus we're realistic enough to show the lie behind Canada meeting Kyoto. We're telling the truth AND moving up in the polls.

  2. Rona was right on the science. The famous hocky stick graph that was featured in the 2001 IPCC report was torn apart. The major points of error were a faulty statistical method and an inclusion of bristle cone pines as a temperature proxie. The contraversy caused the National Academy of Science to investigate. They and a panel of statistical experts agreed that the method was in error and bristle cone pines should not be used. In 2006 both the method and bristle cone pines were used in more papers than ever before.

    None of these papers should have been written. Any reviewer should have automatically rejected these papers. Yet they were published and form part of the evidence that makers this years IPCC 95% sure that global warming is caused by CO2.

    Cryosphere publishes the amount of arctic ice as determined by satalite observations. Alaska also publishes the amount of ice in its segment of the arctic from these observations and reports from fishing boat captians. Fishing boat captains are very interested in the extent of ice; they've heard about the Titanic. Alaskan ice extent has exceeded Cryosphere ice extent. On or about April 6 this year Cryosphere reduced the amount of ice in the arctic by over one million sqare kilometers. The old graph showed that there had been no real change in the summer minimum since 1990. The new graph has a definite decline in he summer ice coverage. This is not the only time that data has been adjusted to support global warming theory. These are just two examples of the "science" that supports global warming.