Editorial – Climate change alarmists declare Canada next hotspot

Tom Henihan

A motion to declare a national climate emergency in Canada passed in the House of Commons on June 17.

Changing the term “climate crisis” and adapting the more alarmist term “climate emergency” may be a means of paving the way for an additional tax that will save us from ourselves.

Environment and Climate Change Minister, Catherine McKenna, tweeted: “Tonight, we’ll vote on the climate emergency. The science shows that Canada is warming at twice the global average and that we need to meet our international obligations. That’s why I’m voting for the motion and that’s why Canada’s already taking action.”

It is not enough to say, “The science shows,” if Canadians are not shown the science in some graphic, empirical and comprehensible fashion.

Photographs of disconcerted but happily vindicated climate change enthusiasts on the Arctic tundra pointing to shale where there ought to be ice, is not graphic evidence but instead just another selective, anecdotal display to support one’s doctrine.

To trust anything politicians say as factual is naïve: passively accepting what they say as scientifically factual is to be willfully stupid.

Government ministers and climate change enthusiasts appear to have a back channel to science to which the rest of us, even scientists are not always privy.

To suggest that Canada can unilaterally influence climate change and protect the sky over its own jurisdiction is a losing battle economically and environmentally when, let’s say, America and Russia remain indifferent.

I am not disputing the gravity of environmental concerns but one jurisdiction warming at twice the rate of other jurisdictions is a slightly confusing prognosis, as if Trudeau, Elizabeth May, Neil Young and David Suzuki willed such a scenario into being.

Canada has also been twice as cold as most other jurisdictions for millennia, without declaring an emergency.

People should be educated on the issue of climate not overwhelmed by alarmist terminology from self-ordained environmentalists and dubious politicians.

The best manner to address environmental issues is the same as addressing any other issue: educate people on the subject, discuss economic and environmental issues in the same conversation and convenience others of your position rather than using tactics to overwhelm and denigrate the uninitiated who happen to disagree or even question the conventional doctrine.

In most instances, we are encouraged to think objectively in order to make informed decisions but with climate change issues, we are encouraged to passively follow the environmentalists apocalyptic dogma.

A report published last April by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) found that Canada is warming twice as fast as the rest of the world, and that this warming trend is “effectively irreversible.”

Approximately 40 scientists worked on the report that said Canada is in for extreme aberrant weather, such as violent storms and excessive heat waves if nothing is done to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

I doubt that an organization called Environment and Climate Change Canada is going to report a positive outlook on the environment when its very name suggests the matter of global warming is fait accompli.

It is also curious that on the one hand the report says that Canada’s warming trend is “effectively irreversible” while at the same time recommending action to reverse the warming trend.

Science mixed with advocacy is a very unstable compound where science becomes subsumed by the fervor of advocacy, rendering both properties unreliable.

Share this post