Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Canadian government’s April Fools Day hoax

By Tim Ball and Tom Harris - posted Thursday, 17 January 2019

The standard method of environmentalists in setting forth a policy position is to begin with a false premise. From this, they then set out a completely unnecessary policy. It appears to solve the problem because the problem never existed in the first place. The process allows activists to achieve their real objective, which is to control the public using the powerful emotions of fear and guilt. The fear is that if you don't act, the sky will fall. The guilt is that your behavior is part of how humans are destroying the planet.

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.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

8 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Authors

Dr. Tim Ball is a Victoria, British Columbia, Canada-based climatologist and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. His Website is

Tom Harris is an Ottawa-based mechanical engineer and Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition.

Other articles by these Authors

All articles by Tim Ball
All articles by Tom Harris

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 8 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy