Uh oh ... the NRSP is Praising Harper's Climate Change Bill
The "newly-launched environment organization" NRSP has issued a press release praising the Conservative government's new Clean Air Act for ignoring Kyoto and for failing to establish a cap on CO2 emissions.
But the NRSP still found a way to be critical. For example, it expressed disappointment that the feds are alleging even half-hearted efforts to address CO2 in the atmosphere.
"CO(2), the greenhouse gas of concern in most climate control schemes, is almost certainly not a significant driver of global climate change," said geology professor Ian Clark of Ottawa University, an environmentalist with stunning disregard for the environment. Clark, a scientific advisor for the NRSP, added, "Recent research points to natural factors, such as changes in the output of the Sun, as being the most significant drivers" - a statement that is so out-of-step with serious science that it would be laughable were it not so potentially toxic to the political discussion.
NRSP Executive Director Tom Harris launches a further argument against government regulation by saying, "Besides the hard caps that already exist on emissions for many industries, current provincial standards are generally working well. With some exceptions, pollution levels across Canada have been dropping for the past three decades and the establishment of further emission standards should be set at the most local level possible, not nationally."
That argument, if I understand it correctly, is:
1. that we should abandon government regulation because it has been so successful in the past; and
2. that any regulation that does occur should be limited to levels of government that are powerless to affect companies like Syncrude or ExxonMobile, whose resources and reach are multinational in scope.
As we have said before, NRSP: Not Really Serious People.
But the NRSP still found a way to be critical. For example, it expressed disappointment that the feds are alleging even half-hearted efforts to address CO2 in the atmosphere.
"CO(2), the greenhouse gas of concern in most climate control schemes, is almost certainly not a significant driver of global climate change," said geology professor Ian Clark of Ottawa University, an environmentalist with stunning disregard for the environment. Clark, a scientific advisor for the NRSP, added, "Recent research points to natural factors, such as changes in the output of the Sun, as being the most significant drivers" - a statement that is so out-of-step with serious science that it would be laughable were it not so potentially toxic to the political discussion.
NRSP Executive Director Tom Harris launches a further argument against government regulation by saying, "Besides the hard caps that already exist on emissions for many industries, current provincial standards are generally working well. With some exceptions, pollution levels across Canada have been dropping for the past three decades and the establishment of further emission standards should be set at the most local level possible, not nationally."
That argument, if I understand it correctly, is:
1. that we should abandon government regulation because it has been so successful in the past; and
2. that any regulation that does occur should be limited to levels of government that are powerless to affect companies like Syncrude or ExxonMobile, whose resources and reach are multinational in scope.
As we have said before, NRSP: Not Really Serious People.
It seems to me that the "it's all the sun's fault" people should check their logic. If they admit that the greenhouse gas effect exists (that is, that GHGs act like a blanket to warm our planet, and have done so for millenia even prior to human-induced increases or enhancement of the GHG effect), and they believe that the sun is heating up, then they should presumably want even greater action on getting GHGs out of our atmosphere. Aren't they otherwise saying, "Hey, the sun's heating up but lets not slow down the weaving of extra fabric into our blanket"? I suppose they could say that the GHG effect (as opposed to the enhanced greenhouse gas effect) doesn't exist either, but that would be like denying gravity at this point.
I don't believe that they really care about science or truth, but if they actually believed what they're saying, they should be upset with the latest announcement, not happy with it.
"The Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), a new non-profit organization that seeks to promote "sensible environmental and natural resources policies based on science, engineering and economics," points out there is "no reference to the Kyoto Protocol or purchasing 'carbon credits' from foreign governments in (the) announcements today."
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/columnists/story.html?id=e749cc60-2e9d-4326-be3a-afdcd3a1a83a
Nice try, but not factual. A recent paper in Nature confirmed the results of previous papers, including one in Science back in Nov, 1998: the sun is not varying enough or in the right way to be responsible for climate warming. Clark might actually find these "Nature" and "Science" magazines of interest. They are available in the University of Ottawa library, and quite handy. Scientists read them.
Study acquits sun of climate change, blames humans
Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:52pm ET19
By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent
OSLO (Reuters) - The sun's energy output has barely varied over the past 1,000 years, raising chances that global warming has human rather than celestial causes, a study showed on Wednesday.
etc. etc.
Here's a helpful link for Dr. Clark, just in case he actually DOES want to check the literature.