Global cooling after a short period of global warming

" Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in history. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." — United Nations IPCC Scientist Dr. K. Itoh of Yokohama National University

I am in agreement with Dr. Allegre, a member of the French and U.S. Academies of Science, recipient of the Goldschmidt Medal and numerous other awards, and one of the best known researchers in this area, that the the cause of climate change is "unknown. And further that as he says, much of the global warming hysteria is motivated by money and political manipulation. This is not to say that the climate today is not different from what it was a couple of centuries ago. It is different. But there is oh so much more to it.

Global Warming

Currently our planet is warming up. The Republic of Maldives is in danger of disappearing. The Arctic ice is melting. Industry continues to pump CO2 into the atmosphere. Despicable greed has destroyed 50% of the planet’s tropical forests - the main oxygen supplier (plankton, the other main supplier, are being destroyed at a similar rate, as described below). By 2030 at the current rate of deforestation a mere 10% of these forests will be left. Over 90% of large fish in the sea have been destroyed thanks to overfishing. Over 50% of the planet’s wetlands have been destroyed in the last 100 years. 80% of the worlds rivers are dying and/or polluted. As much as 80% of the coral reefs - the source of much of the ocean’s diversity of life - have died. Fresh water is for the first time in human history, unavailable to the majority of humanity. Species extinction is occurring at the highest rate in human history.

And we are, in many parts of the world, going through the hottest years in recorded history. Commercial but chiefly military aircraft are destroying elements necessary to life in everything from the troposphere upwards. Acidification of the ocean is the highest in history, and is increasing exponentially. Media are filled with stories of flooding, rising water levels, and other clear signs of world wide warming trends. Forest fires are breaking out world wide. The Dead Sea is evaporating. Drought is the becoming norm throughout much of the planet. Every indication is that the warming of the planet is likely to continue for the next fifty years, bringing with it mass starvation, thirst, and death.

And yet none of this means that tropical temperatures will be the permanent situation for centuries. Instead it may be that this apparent warming is a precursor to an ice age of unknown duration or depth. For the planet has regularly experienced cooling periods followed by rapid warming periods. an image - please see terms of use

Chaotic Systems

Firstly, it is important to understand that the mathematics of chaotic systems (needed to understand climate) are in their infancy.

Such large chaotic probabilistic systems as weather and climate cannot be properly modelled with any degree of accuracy, regardless of the computing power available. The mathematics is insufficiently robust and the models too primitive.

Climate is a non-linear chaotic system. Such systems, particularly those involved in cybernetic feedback cannot at this point, be modelled with any accuracy at all. (Chris Monckton’s paper in the APS regarding mathematical errors in the IPCC models demonstrates some of the difficulties involved.)

For example, consider a strange attractor system wherein glaciation and inter-glaciation are two stable poles. If this overall system is displaced past some arbitrary point of stability, the system will orbit onto a different set of strange attractors than glaciation/inter-glaciation.

But the key point here, is that our current understanding of complexity theory does not allow for prediction of how much displacement will cause this shift, or in what direction, or even if the strange attractors are bi-polar or multi-polar, or what the orbits around them may be.

The Sun

Secondly, if climate patterns are poorly understood, the complex interactions of solar cycles and their interaction with planetary climate are even less well understood.

Consider the (simplified) example of the Malenkovich Cycle which produces major ice ages every 11,500 years or so in conjunction with solar activity. During the advent of a peak in the cycle – i.e. prior to a major ice age - the earth temporarily heats up. This causes oceans to release more moisture as glaciers and ice melts. This extra moisture falls in winter forming more snow than usual, causing glaciers to grow in high regions. Sure enough, this is exactly what is occurring – 90% of the earth’s glaciers are growing and have been for the last several decades. Of course some glaciers are melting - viz. the Greenland melt - but not the major percentage of them which are in fact, doing the opposite. The period 1980-98 saw rapid warming with average temperature increasing 0.5o C. However although CO2 has continued to rise from 370ppm to 380ppm, overall temperature increase has been flat. But it will not be for much longer - just as the Pacific decadal oscillation cooled the planet in the years 1945-1977, the PDO is again entering a reverse phase - the oceans are cooling.

Further, the Maunder Minimum (from a much shorter solar cycle of just a few centuries) is currently approaching. Sunspot activity for the eleven year cycle has not reappeared following normal cyclic diminution. This is very unusual. Sunspot lows have been highly correlated with global cooling, although of course there is some dissent from such a viewpoint. Regardless, local cooling may be similar to that which froze much of Europe between 1650 and 1715. Note that like the Malenkovich Cycle this may generally be foreshadowed by a short period of solar warming, which the Max Planck Institute has found to be occurring over the last half century. This is sufficient to account for the warming on earth and also Martian ice caps.

TSI (Total Solar Irradiance - i.e. estimated average solar energy received) is roughly 1,368 Watts per square meter at earth surface. This of course changes with these cyclical solar activities. TSI has increased in the past two and a half decades by roughly 0.1%. Note that a TSI of a mere 0.2% is approximately the same as the energy usage of all of humanity per annum. Hence even a small change in TSI is sufficient to warm or cool the planet. And to precipitate calamitous climate change.

Whilst the HADCRU series shows a clear warming trend, the series is IMHO insufficiently lengthy for any meaningful autocorrelative work and certainly not predictive (in the Bayesian rather than Fisherian sense). Of course human exploitation of the planet has raised CO2 and causes warming. But such inclusions may be slowing the rate of cooling... Snow has been falling for the first time since the year 1918 in Buenos Aires, as most of South America cools. In Peru people have for the first time in recorded history died from exposure to cold temperatures and thousands more developed respiratory diseases. The Peruvian government declared a state of emergency as crops failed and livestock died from the cold. South Africa has major snowfalls. Australia has experienced the coldest weather on record. New Zealand has seen vineyard die offs from cold. Tibet had suffered its worst snowfalls in recorded history. In California billions of dollars in crops have been lost to freezing temperatures. Over 95% of South Carolina’s peaches have been lost and over 90% of its apples due to unseasonable and lasting frost. South Carolina experience the coldest April temperatures on record. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found 63 local snowfall record over the past year coupled with 115 of the lowest recorded temperatures for over the last 114 years. Overall the United States has experienced the most snow of any winter on record. In Seoul, Korea, temperatures fell to the coldest on record. In Canada the government meteorological service has predicted more and more cold and longer lasting winters. The Ers-2 satellite shows Arctic sea levels have continued to fall. Antarctic ice is growing. Satellite imagery confirms increases in Arctic ice of 30% - more than that "lost" in the warming trend of recent years.

Add to this the US DARPA research stating that decades long freezing expected for all of Britain and much of the EU. The probability that we are rapidly entering a Malenkovich point grows.

Cyclic Events

Further, the Holocene climatic cycles for North America from roughly 12,000 BCE to the present rather strongly indicate a periodicity (probably solar forced) culminating in a modern climatic optimum between 1890-2000 CE. What happened last time? The dawn of the medieval glaciation of 1200-1460 CE which destroyed crops (British vineyards disappeared completely) and brought disease and death (bubonic plague, epidemic respiratory ailments) to large sectors of humanity.

Just as in modern times, during the Holocene the majority of humanity lived adjacent estuaries and coastlines, and where hence vulnerable to even slight alterations in water level. During the warming prior to the freeze at that time, water rise destroyed many of these settlements. Perhaps the warming trend we are currently experiencing is precipitate to a rapid cooling, just as it was in the little ice age of that time. Or perhaps given the glacial increase temperature versus year, the ice age this time will not be so small. an image - please see terms of use

This is of course in partial contradiction to IPCC’s news releases. The releases claim panels of 2,500 climate scientists all agree with the IPCC models and hypotheses. This is not the case. The 2,500 scientists were asked to review the report, but a mere 62 completed the review, 55 evidenced serious concerns with the models, data, and conclusions, with a sum of seven in complete support. A very significant number declined to sign the report. In a letter to Ban Ki-Moon Secretary-General of the United Nations over 100 academics from around the world argued for a shift in emphasis concerning climate change. Various lobby groups have since argued that the letter signatories were both biased and in the pay of those who wished to ignore climate change. (Update: 650 internationally known scientists now dispute IPCC claims.)

Yet there the IPCC reports do not attempt to explain or contradict the points made supra, in the letter, or in the additional research of the 650 disengage.

Carbon

CO2, CH4, CFCs, etc. have increased due to human activity. Maybe. Current rates of CO2 production resulting from burning fossil fuel is roughly the same as the rate of anthropogenic animal CO2 production from breathing. Anthropogenic animal metabolic rates therefore may have as great or greater effect as all the fossil fuel burning throughout the world. The implications are obvious.

Is CO2 really a problem? Humans use roughly 2.11e17 kWh/yr. (Note that here I use an amalgam of UN reports, rather than the more commonly used 1.07e17 level). Suppose we use coal to generate this amount. Each kWh generated distributes roughly 1/4 kg or carbon into the atmosphere as CO2. Hence coal-only sourced energy would pump 52.75 Pt ( petatonnes) of carbon into the atmosphere every year. Since atmospheric CO2 is only slowly absorbed by the world’s oceans, dissipation of even a single year’s worth of this CO2 would require a few hundreds of thousands of years. And all the while the accumulating CO2 would act as a giant heat trap - the planet’s temperature would, according to the IPCC, rise.

Yet the degree to which these gases have warmed the planet is very much subject to debate as are overall planetary temperature vectors. The many climatologists who dissent from the IPCC opinion have asked for further data - many have raised the issue of global cooling being masked by greenhouse gas emissions. Further, data sources have been problematic - one small example: at time of writing GISS anomaly maps are drawn from data streams which are not checked or audited, and from a varying number of stations which themselves are open to fluctuation due to lack of consistent and regular calibration. Yet the IPCC claims the greenhouse hypothesis is accurate. The version they use is ultimately based upon work of G.S. Callendar, C.D. Keeling, and of course S. Arrhenius. Yet it should be noted that IPCC publication contains only small subset of this data which appears at least to my reading, to contain only selected data points from this older literature which serve to support the greenhouse hypothesis. Callendar, Keeling, and Arrhenius however support a pre-industrial CO2 level higher by 50ppm more than the levels used by the IPCC in modelling the rise.

"My opinion is that there is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide has anything to do with any impending catastrophe. The science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science. There’s no proof, it’s just projections and if you look at the models people such as Gore use, you can see they cherry pick the ones that support their beliefs." - Dr. David Bellamy, banned from presenting science contrary to the CO2-man-made-global-warming hypothesis on the BBC

The hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 is a significant factor remains IMHO unproven. Even so, suppose that anthropogenic CO2 emissions could be dramatically decreased. How might one do so? Rather than focusing on such intellectually vacuous as "carbon offset (politician-speak for eliminating corporate responsibility) funding must be augmented for research into non-traditional sources of energy. Low-cost low-carbon technologies must be funded. Below I suggest some practical means of accomplishing this iff (if and only if) sufficient evidence builds to indicate this is more important than, say, halting the acidification of the oceans which I discuss below.

Magnetic Pole Shift

The earth’s magnetic pole is moving at over 60Km per annum - in 1904 it moved at 9Km. Looking at deep earth core samples the earth’s magnetic poles appear to shift from north to south ever 250,000 years of so. It has been roughly 250,000 years since the last shift occurred. When the poles do shift, the data indicates three things:

The strength of the fields weaken;
The movement of the fields speeds up;
Multiple magnetic poles occur until the poles realign (i.e. multi-polar).

The first two of these events are already occurring. Now, it is the nature of magnetic fields created by rapidly moving molten metal to suddenly change their polarity. For example this shift can be reproduced by rapidly moving liquid sodium. But predicting when the shift will occur and by what amount is not currently possible. Nor is it possible to to predict the vector of the shifts. But we are certainly due for a change in field polarity.

What might this mean for life on the planet? It will be effected. There are two primary forces at work keeping high radiation cosmic rays away from vulnerable items such as electronics and humans: 1) The Sun’s magnetic field - which embraces the entire solar system and 2) the earth’s magnetic fields. At the current time both of these are weakening. A weaken field means more cosmic rays and associated radiation. There is a theory which IMHO seems quite valid, that cloud formation is strongly effected by the amount of radiation in the form of cosmic rays penetrating deeply into the atmosphere. Increase the radiation and, the theory goes, cloud formation is increased. Since clouds reflect sunlight, the more clouds there are, proportionately less sunlight will reach the oceans. Saying it prosaically, there is the possibility for a nuclear winter event - i.e. mass global cooling - if the field strength of the two protective magnetic fields continues to abate.

While there can be little doubt that human activity is currently influencing climate, that effect pales before the potential effects of loss of magnetic field strength. To say nothing of the possibility of mutation and other biological effects from increased radiation. Proto-humans survived the last flip of the north and south magnetic poles. It is unknown however whether or not the Sun shifted its polarity at the same time, as seems to be the case now.

Recycling

While the urge to recycle and the legions of school children being sent out to convince parents not to waste is laudable, the seed change necessary for humanity to really positively impact climate is not likely to occur [C] [C] One tiny example: military interference with the planet - depleted uranium, high altitude flights, dumping from vessels, mass deforestation during invasions, and so on - counter all the good from home recycling efforts by many orders of magnitude..

Consider the so-called ecological footprint analysis. The technique allows calculation of the number of hectares necessary to sustain a human, taking factors such as geographic location, lifestyle, etc. into account. Most humans live in large cities such as that monument to the absence of nature,Tokyo. Tokyo contains roughly 33,000,000 humans, or 1/4 of Japan’s population. Tokyo’s population (exclusive of the millions of pets that must be fed), has a collective ecological footprint of 142 million hectares. This is greater than 1.6 times the productive capacity of their entire country in which they live. In other words, reduction to levels where the ecological footprint was sufficiently small for all of humanity to survive, is singularly unlikely, particularly should the current predicted rate of cooling freeze the world to a greater extent than occurred in the 17th C AC.

This I believe to be the case, since the contribution of human stupidity and waste in regards to pollution and removal of the natural atmospheric buffers can be shown to, should solar cooling occur, exacerbate the cycle to such and extent that a small ice age is likely.

On average, the human ecological footprint regardless of place of dwelling is 2.2 hectares. Yet simple analysis shows that the planet contains >1.8 hectares of productive land and water per person. Simply raising all humans currently on the planet to North American material standards would require four additional Earths. That is to say, there is no manner in which the earth can support the current human population in comfort if at all, especially as pollution levels rise. As the global extreme weather continues there is likely to be tremendous death and destruction. Ocean acidification will likely lead to mass death for most humans if nothing is done to mitigate the problem.

Should global cooling then suddenly occur as it has done so often in the past following a rapid period of warming, the likelihood of humanity’s survival is moot.

Extinction events

The planet has been through a number of extinction events. But the worst known was the end-Permian mass extinction 252.28 million years ago. Roughly 95% of all marine life was destroyed, and roughly 70% of all life on land. All within a short period of time, many species dying within a mere 20,000 years. This is an eye-blink in geological time - an astonishingly short period.

This mass extinction of most life on earth was triggered by a rapid rise in carbon dioxide and methane. Possibly from the Siberian traps - volcanic lava flows in northern Russia. The end result was ocean acidification very similar to that which we are seeing in our own time. A dry climate, many forest fires, and mass soil erosion also occurred. Again, very similar to that which we are seeing now. In our own time as you know, we are experiencing the most rapid death of biodiversity since end-Permian times... and it is accelerating.

What really needs to change?

It would appear that a seed change is necessary. IMHO this would consist of the following:

Population: The planet may be able to sustain a maximum of one child per woman should humanity decide to spend its resources not on military but upon mutual aid and benefit. But it most assuredly cannot sustain the current birth rate, which is of course higher than the death rate by a factor of 2.7 - depending upon cited source. Every industrialized nation has explored and is exploring massive population control methods.

Biodiversity: Re-establishing the biodiversity existing 500 years ago (I.e. stopping all monoculture, particularly those pertaining to wood, genetically engineered corn, and the massively wasteful transition to monoculture soy production).

Food: Meat production as you may know is responsible for much of the world wide deforestation, the monoculture of crops, factory farming, and similar waste. Should humanity adopt vegetarian diets, more climate benefit would entail than possible from all the curb-side recycling projects and other similar false-flag feel-good initiatives combined.

Energy: Eliminating all use of fossil/carbon fuels. Focus on dramatically increasing the funding alternative energy research to produce low-cost low-carbon technology. If the price of renewable energy dropped below the cost of fossil fuels by mid-century, everyone - including China and India - would switch to the greener alternatives.

War: War is a major cause of pollution. Consider for example the massive amounts of pollution in the form of carcinogenic, depleted uranium residue currently carried by the jet stream around the planet. This particular residue was generated by the wholesale destruction of ecosystems via saturation bombing with internationally banned weapons by certain rogue countries. Or consider the continued use of biological weaponry, high altitude UVA flights (highly destructive of the atmosphere), and similar egregious genocidal devices by so many nations. All of this is a leading cause of environmental destruction on a world wide basis.

Shelter: Currently most of humanity lacks affordable shelter from the elements. Every human could be housed in environmentally friendly sustainable shelter for a mere fraction the cost of sustaining the current weapons stockpiles of western countries. For a little more, the resource-wasting heating/cooling systems used in houses in most of these same countries could be replaced with greener systems. Proper shelter would massively reduce the amount of pollution produced in both rich and poor nations, for obvious reasons.

Peak-oil: This has already occurred. The earth’s supply is rapidly being depleted, despite known huge underground reservoirs which are simply too expensive to exploit. With global cooling, heating will be problematic unless solar, wave power, wind power, and similar technologies are invested in to the same or greater extent than is currently the case with oil.

Ocean-Acidification: Dead zones - areas where no life can exist - are now offshore of all continents . Giant zones larger than most countries. In these zones, and in the ocean in general, Ph is rising - the water is turning toward becoming acid. The acid is eating the coral reefs which sustain a plethora of species; it is destroying the plankton upon which all life on the planet depends. And yet essentially nothing is being done to curb ocean acidification. At the current exponentially rising rate, the oceans will not be able to sustain any life within a mere century. A dead ocean means a dead planet. And no human race. Meanwhile malignant narcissism at the seat of power in most of the world’s governments continue to do business as usual.

Despotic-greed: Currently essentially all of the worlds financial resources are being funnelled into the hands of a few warmongering despots. 90% of the worlds economic wealth is held by less than 1% if its inhabitants, 94% of whom live in the United States or one of its major colonies (Britain, Canada, and well, you know which ones).

Sadly the probability that any of these points will be considered in time to save humanity, approaches zero. Additionally the exponentially increasing use of coal fired burners in China, India, and the United States coupled with the current birth rate of three humans per second is guaranteed to soon poison the atmosphere before climate change causes the probable mass starvation and death of billions. Not that 1st world countries have anything to crow about. Consider the UK for example. The amount of energy the UK produces from four primary sources are currently as follows (note that coal is far in the lead):

Coal: 21.42 GW
CCGT 12.23 GW
Nuclear 7.29 GW
Wind 2.9 GW

Money is not a problem. There is a very large supply available. The trillions given to the banking industry to enrich a few already wealthy robber barons, or the tens of trillions given to the U.S. war machine, could instead be put toward saving humanity from the IMHO highly likely extinction event climate collapse would entail.

Global climate change is real. Humans are affecting climate. But the extent of the effect is unknown. Compared to solar flux and planetary albedo, they may be very small. Regardless, it is the long term direction of the thermometer however, which is IMHO questionable. And so while such strategies as the Copenhagen Consensus and other purposefully sabotaged (primarily by Canada and the United States) initiative could potentiality greatly benefit humanity.

However it is in my opinion pointless to pretend that humans can reverse climate change with current technologies any more than the inhabitants of Troy could battle the ebbing of the sea.

Junk Science

The blind belief by many that new technologies will prevent climate disaster is an appalling naivety. The most dangerous of these technologies is proposed large-scale geoengineering. Ideas currently being considered by IPCC groups:

- Orbiting mirrors to reflect sunlight away from the planet
- Salting the oceans to alter their acidity levels
- Mandating that all rooftops be white to reflect sunlight
- Roving robotic ships to spray saltwater onto the underside of clouds
- Seeding the stratosphere with sulphuric acid
- Covering Greenland with a polymer blanked to prevent melting
- Genetically altering trees to increase CO2 removal
- Creating artificial volcanoes to spray sulphate particulates into the stratosphere
- Creating millions of tiny reflective parasols all over the planet
- Bio-engineer microscopic flora and fauna to alter the air
- Spraying iron filings onto the ocean to stimulate algae absorption of CO2
- Creating mechanical biological hybrids to alter composition of air
- Chemically seeding clouds to alter their albedo
- Chemically spraying clouds with nano-size aluminium and boron

The UN Convention on Biological Diversity declared a moratorium on geoengineering experiments in several areas, with the exception of small scientific studies. Yet there are some very infulential lobby groups demanding massive injections of public funds into geoengineering. There is a lot of money to be made. CEOs of companies whose track records in ethical and moral operation are heavily lobbying for geoengineering. Bill Gates has added his voice - two scientists heavily involved in research to geoengineer the upper atmosphere to provide earth with a reflective shield have to date received in excess of $4.6 million from Gates. As have many others.

And so the extremely high-risk ideas listed above are currently being discussed for implementation around the world. What could possibly go wrong, for after all scientists and politicians have never made mistakes. No, nothing could possibly go wrong, because the mathematics of complexity theory and the chaotic interactions between biosystems is completely and utterly understood. Right?

And should an insane country (name your favourite one here) begin geoengineering on its own, how would others countries

know it was happening before it was too late to stop them, and
retaliate (please think about this one)

The many heads of state who are planning to use geoengineering, cloud seeding, and such in this regard are fooling themselves. And wasting time. They - particularly the wealthiest nations - have repeatedly scuttled efforts to mitigate the devastation by common sense means such as decreasing carbon emissions, limiting population growth (tax rewards for fewer children for example), and so on. Instead these heads of state carry on acting as if it is all business as usual.

Or worse acquiesce to the hair-brained belief that mass geoengineering is better than any of the approaches just mentioned.

An example: Appalling behavior of government

"The Minister of Science is a creationist who thinks the Flintstones is a documentary" — Gilles Duceppe, leader of one of Canada’s political parties, discussing the scientific qualifications of a then Federal Minister of Science, and alluding to the fact that most of his colleagues in Cabinet were evangelical Christian fundamentalists.

"We don’t have to protect the environment, the Second Coming [when Jesus takes all Christian to heaven] is at hand." — U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Responsible for National Policy regarding the Environment

This staggering and wilful ignorance in governments around the world is dismaying.

But few things may be worse on the world stage at the political level concerning environment, than the apparently wilful ignorance of science displayed by the ultra-right wing government Prime Minister Steven Harper, head of the Republican Party of Canada. (See here regarding citations.) Amongst their many accomplishments in dismissing and ignoring environmental science:

Allegedly dismantled climate initiatives both at home and in international meetings, and with the sole help of the United States destroyed the original Kyoto Accord. Then when the second accord was about to be signed, withdrew from the accord yet again. The Kyoto accord albeit with several flaws, set targets for reducing pollution, something which would have interfered with Tar Sands profiteering (see next bullet point).
Allegedly continued the allegedly deadly Tar Sands project which is now one of the worlds biggest polluting mega-project. This despite studies published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences which indicated that industrial air pollution and watershed destruction directly caused by the Tar Sands project contaminated the Athabasca River and Lake Athabasca with heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Additional studies showed that pollution from the Tar Sands project resulted in the equivalent of an annual 5,000 barrel oil spill in the area. And yet another study showed that alleged leakage of very high levels of heavy metals into water in the area such as arsenic, thallium and mercury at levels as high as 30 times those permitted by the government’s own pollution guidelines. Birds and fish were found covered with tumours far downstream from the project. Allegedly 11 million litres of toxic tailings leaked into the area daily. Greenhouse gas emissions from the Tar Sands were alleged to be, by 2020, equivalent to emissions of 26 million cars. A number of scientists, researchers, communities, and members of parliament signed a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper requesting a monitoring program by an independent oversight committee. In response to these and many similar studies and requests, a process termed “greenwashing” was allegedly entered upon by both government and oil companies - media were flooded with commercials extolling the “clean” Tar Sands project and government Ministers when asked allegedly responded that the project was carefully supervised and held no dangers. No independent monitoring was undertaken by that government. Eventually the Tar Sands Project will become an obsolete, abandoned, white elephant whose only legacy wil be an ecological disaster almost impossible to clean. But petro-states are based only upon current electoral cycle, with little if any care for the future. Very sad.

“The Prime Minister [Mr. Harper] is keen to keep control of the message, I think to ensure that the government won’t be embarrassed by scientific findings of its scientists that run counter to sound environmental stewardship, I suspect the federal government would prefer that its scientists don’t discuss research that points out just how serious the climate change challenge is." — Prof Thomas Pedersen

Allegedly heavily subsidizing nickel and sulphur mine extractions which have made vast tracts of land inhabitable for millennia.
Most of the world’s countries have signed the Rotterdam Convention which restricts how the known carcinogen asbestos may be sold. The Convention requires all signatories to place the international skull-and-crossbones symbol on all asbestos packaging so that when the product is sold to third world countries (the only countries that are willing to purchase the poison), those who use it will recognize the symbol and take precautions. But in Canada, the same government which allegedly denied climate change and allegedly allowed the allegedly massive pollution of the Tar Sands to continue unabated, allegedly refused to sign the Rotterdam Convention. Because the government and the Republican Party of Canada allegedly gained revenue and corporate aid from selling the toxin to third world countries, allegedly ignoring the advice of its own scientists about the dangers involved.
Allegedly sabotaged Bill C311 - the Climate Accountability Act - science based legislation which would have placed limits and penalties upon Canada’s many polluting industries. On a proportional basis Canada allegedly produced more pollution than any other country, the Tar Sands project allegedly adding significantly to this - the Bill would have ensured the country mended its ways.
Allegedly scuttled several other bills on environment, leaving Canada with no scientifically based climate legislation whatsoever.
Allegedly allowed hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in Canada. Fracking emits more greenhouse gas pollution during its life cycle than coal. Fracking also introduces toxic chemicals into ground water - in a study of 352,000 Canadian wells sustained casing pressure and gas migration were found. Natural gas extracted by fracking is 105 times more powerful as a global warming contributor over a 20-year period than coal. Shale gas wells in fracking have on averages a much higher leakage rate than conventional gas wells. None of the facts were considered in allowing extracting by hydraulic fracturing.
The Prime Minister as well as members of his Cabinet allegedly repeatedly called those who protested or even dared to speak up or write against the government’s lack of action on climate change as “extremists” and “not in tune with the majority”.

“... And finally, Mr. Prime Minister, because I am an extremist, a mom and a school teacher who cares about the future of our young people, I, like 75 per cent of Canada’s eligible voters did not vote for you. ... Mr. Prime Minister, I have paid close attention to the lessons of the 20th and 21st centuries. I have learned that leaders blinded by ideology or misguided by greed, either their own or that of their corporate backers and bankers, must be confronted non-violently with a courageous, determined population. The majority of Canadians are ashamed that our country is now intimately associated with indifference to the greatest threat humanity has ever faced: Climate Change. That indifference is embodied by you, Mr. Prime Minister.” — Katharine Cukier wife, mother, and teacher in an open letter to Prime Minister Harper following her arrest for peacefully and legally marching with many others in support of the Kyoto Accord and similar pro-environment initiatives. Prior to her arrest Mrs. Cukier’s brushes with police had consisted of a sum total of four parking tickets over more than thirty years.

Allegedly sabotaged the Copenhagen Consensus on funding real action to stave off climate disaster.
Allegedly suppressed science that a deadly virus that had infected Canadian sockeye salmon and was a threat to salmon all over the Pacific Northwest. Even to the extent of allegedly prohibiting publication by investigating scientist Dr.Kibenge regarding the virus. Dr. Miller, another lead scientist, was also allegedly subject to enormous political pressure and censorship by the government. The Canadian government allegedly suppressed this in an attempt to ensure that the outbreak of infections salmon would not harm its profits from the more than five billion dollar per annum aquaculture industry (allegedly invested in by several prominent politicians). The ISA virus had already has decimated fisheries in Norway, Scotland, Chile and other countries when this information was allegedly suppressed by the the Canadian government.
Allegedly fired 700 environmental and climate scientists effectively shutting down scientific investigation of environmental problems in that country.
Signed a non-tendered contract (without parliamentry approval) for purchase of environmentally destructive F-35 fighter jets at a cost of billions (roughly $3,800 per Canadian family), whilst stating a mere two weeks following the announcement that there were insufficient monies to continue to fund several environmental studies around the country
Allegedly dispensed with the post of scientific advisor to the Prime Minister, allegedly leaving no members of Mr. Harper’s government or direct advisors with a background in not just climate science, but any scientific discipline at all.
Allegedly reduced the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency budget by 43% - this was the agency which monitored industrial pollution.
The Standing Committee on Environment dominated by members of Mr. Harper’s Republican party allegedly destroyed all copies of the scientific testimony about the Tar Sands project presented to the committee.
Stated that the cost to Canadians of adhering to the Kyoto Protocol, stating a cost of ~$14G - without providing any cooberating material to back up the claim. They neglected to state however, that this figure included the more than $9 billion in fines for failing to act on Kyoto primarily due to failing to act to curtail pollution from the egregious tar sands project. A project from which they had allegedly withdrawn funding for independent environmental monitoring.
Allegedly removed funding for the Canadian Environmental Network.
Allegedly began building a pipeline from the allegedly environmentally disastrous Tar Sands project to carry oil products away from Canadian markets to the United States. The construction was in the words of a joint communiqué from several climate scientists, “an environmental disaster in waiting” [D] [D] The United States government was no better. The U.S. State Department allegedly outsourced the environmental impact study for the pipeline across U.S. states to a corporation alleged to have strong financial ties to the pipeline builders. .
The Prime Minister allegedly stated to a group of environmental scientists that the government’s only priority was the economy.
Allegedly shut down monitoring of caesium levels in Canadian soil (which adjacent U.S. studies had allegedly shown to be at above safe levels) following core breaches of a Japanese nuclear plant.
"Environmentalists and other radical groups threaten to hijack our regulatory system" - Canadian Federal Natural Resources Minister Oliver. He also allegedly announced that "radical" environmental groups who received money from “foreign special interest groups to undermine Canada’s national economic interest” - i.e. building a pipeline of highly sensitive wilderness and shipping it along salmon spawning grounds from the egregiously polluting tar sands to China and the U.S. This mantra of demonizing opposition to the potentially destructing pipeline and shipping route was allegedly repeated by other federal ministers and even the Prime Minister. When repeatedly pressed by reporters no one in government was able to name any such groups or individuals. Reporters however were able to name dozens of oil company and business groups which contributed vast sums toward funding the pipeline and shipping channels. Oil spills from pipelines and shipping routes along wild unspoilt environmentally sensitive terrain are inevitable. Less than 50% of oil spills are ever recoverable. Allegedly the Prime Minister, several Cabinet members, senior advisors, and appointed government department heads formerly worked for so-called ’Big Oil’. A poll conducted at the time found, roughly 75% of Canadians polled were concerned about U.S. monetary control of Canadian natural resources.

"... we’ve seen the petroleum industry advocates use misleading U.S.-style attack ads in an attempt to discredit the fierce local and First Nations opposition. There have been a number of signals of a threat that federal environmental assessment legislation is on the cutting block. It would be a very sad thing indeed if the misleading information and attack ads from petroleum lobby groups were to create the political space for what would be a very sad turn of events." — J. Clogg, West Coast Environmental Law

A Canadian National Energy Board hearing was set regarding construction of a “sour gas plant”. The literature is replete with the many dangers to humans and animals from the emissions of such plants. The Federal Government sent in a team of lawyers at taxpayer expense to support the plant. The Oil companies also sent in a team of lawyers to support the plant. The “radical environmentalists” as the then Minister Oliver terms them, consisted of property owners in the area concerned for the health of themselves and their children. They received no help from anyone, had to take time off work to attend hearings, and pay all of their own expenses. They lost and the plant was built. The 56 year old property owner directly adjacent to the plant had a heart attack and died just weeks after the hearing. Environmental democracy in action.

And oh, so much more.

The government allegedly attempted to justify withdrawing funds from environmental initiatives in economic terms. Yet they found $1.7 billion to fund a G20 summit; $28 million to commemorate a few weeks of battles between French and English which took place in 1812; $15 million to an alleged media agency "to clean up the dirty oil image of Canada’s oil sands”; $1.4 billion in tax breaks to oil companies (arguably the most profitable businesses in the world); and $50 billion no-bid contracts for some untried, untested, war planes which even the Canadian military did not want.

Overall it has been alleged by a number of researchers and NGO groups that Canada’s government had done more to sabotage international efforts at elevating and preparing for the mounting destruction from climate change than any other government on the planet.

To quote from Andrew Weavers, an internationally known and much respected Canadian climatologist:

"The level of scientific illiteracy in the [current] government is mind-boggling."

A statement which would nicely apply to many governments around the world.

Conclusion

Ideologically driven politics is anathema to science. And to the environment.

Yet despite this wilful ignorance on the part of the political elite in many countries and their rulers in the boardroom, there is much that current technology could to do obviate or at least mediate the most severe aspects of climate change, and indeed save much of humanity. For example, free distribution of birth control pills throughout the world, lower tax rates for those with zero-to-one children, and so on.

Sadly the window of opportunity for alleviation of suffering that current technologies could bring (better insulation, alternate forms of heating, transportation systems that can operate in extreme cold, etc.. ad nauseam) is rapidly passing. With the only political response to all of this dominated by the tautological psychopathologies of neo-Straussian demagoguery, it will be interesting to see if anyone survives.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them" — Albert Einstein.

Update:

Decades ago Big Tobacco argued the cigarette smoking was safe. They did this in part by selectively using the science that showed cigarettes were carcinogenic and twisting it to their own ends. Currently Big Oil and the Coal Lobby have begun to do the same with climate study. But with far more money at their disposal, and with many of their former executives in positions of power in government.

Notable in this assault have been the singularly unscientific disinformation sallies of certain powerful countries. The result has been a twisting of the global cooling hypothesis to argue that emissions from oil, coal, and similar toxic products and production methods for these products have no relation to climate. By so doing the industries who own and operate the heads of state of these countries are IMHO likely to cause greater pain and sorrow to more humans than Big Tobacco ever did.

If humanity survives the current relatively short warming period with its droughts and floods, their lies will have made government even more ill-prepared for the highly likely sudden and massive cooling to follow.

“And to what shabby hells of our own making do we rush? A poisoned gutted planet, rolling through dark noxious air?” — Nancy Newhall

(Citations...)