Following the Canada Free Press in what is becoming a tradition of having to clear up the mess left after Tim Ball speaks, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy has scrubbed the offending interview from their website. 

Desmogblog has more on the story.

The suit claims Tim Ball libeled Weaver in his article “Corruption of Climate Science Has Created 30 Lost Years”, published on the Canada Free Press website between January 10th – 19th, 2011. The suit can be read in its entirety at DeSmogBlog, which also reports that Canada Free Press has “stripped from its publicly available pages pretty much everything that Ball has ever written.”

Perhaps they shouldn’t have printed his nonsense in the first place.

Read more here.

On January 10, 2011, Canada Free Press began publishing on this website an article by Dr. Tim Ball entitled “Corruption of Climate Change Has Created 30 Lost Years” which contained untrue and disparaging statements about Dr. Andrew Weaver, who is a professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, British Columbia.

Contrary to what was stated in Dr. Ball’s article, Dr. Weaver: (1) never announced he will not participate in the next IPCC; (2) never said that the IPCC chairman should resign; (3) never called for the IPCC’s approach to science to be overhauled; and (4) did not begin withdrawing from the IPCC in January 2010.

As a result of a nomination process that began in January, 2010, Dr. Weaver became a Lead Author for Chapter 12: “Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility” of the Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC.”  That work began in May, 2010.  Dr. Ball’s article failed to mention these facts although they are publicly-available.

Dr. Tim Ball also wrongly suggested that Dr. Weaver tried to interfere with his presentation at the University of Victoria by having his students deter people from attending and heckling him during the talk.  CFP accepts without reservation there is no basis for such allegations.

CFP also wishes to dissociate itself from any suggestion that Dr. Weaver “knows very little about climate science.”  We entirely accept that he has a well-deserved international reputation as a climate scientist and that Dr. Ball’s attack on his credentials is unjustified.

CFP sincerely apologizes to Dr. Weaver and expresses regret for the embarrassment and distress caused by the unfounded allegations in the article by Dr. Ball.

That’s a welcome piece of news, although I don’t know how or to what extent this apology was prompted by Dr. Weaver’s libel case against the National Post. No news on that as yet.

CBC reports that crews have already started pulling up some tulip beds a week before the festival is even due to start.

It isn’t all bad. The late blooming beds are still going strong, although they might not last the full two weeks of the Festival. And there are some beds that have yet to flower.

Yes, this winter it snowed in Europe and the U.S. But it was damn hot up here.

Weaver Seeks Unprecedented Order to Remove Stories That “Poison” the Internet

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA–(Marketwire – April 21, 2010) – University of Victoria Professor Andrew Weaver, the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis, launched a lawsuit today in BC Supreme Court against three writers at The National Post (and the newspaper as a whole), over a series of unjustified libels based on grossly irresponsible falsehoods that have gone viral on the Internet.

In a statement released at the same time the suit was filed, Dr. Weaver said, “I asked The National Post to do the right thing – to retract a number of recent articles that attributed to me statements I never made, accused me of things I never did, and attacked me for views I never held. To my absolute astonishment, the newspaper refused.”

Dr. Weaver’s statement of claim not only asks for a Court injunction requiring The National Post to remove all of the false allegations from its Internet websites, but also seeks an unprecedented Court order requiring the newspaper to assist Dr. Weaver in removing the defamatory National Post articles from the many other Internet sites where they have been re-posted.

“If I sit back and do nothing to clear my name, these libels will stay on the Internet forever. They’ll poison the factual record, misleading people who are looking for reliable scientific information about global warming,” said Weaver.

The suit names Financial Post Editor Terence Corcoran, columnist Peter Foster, reporter Kevin Libin and National Post publisher Gordon Fisher, as well as several still-unidentified editors and copy editors. It seeks general, aggravated damages, special and exemplary damages and legal costs in relation to articles by Foster on December 9, 2009 (“Weaver’s Web”), Corcoran on December 10, 2009 (“Weaver’s Web II”) and January 27, 2010 (“Climate Agency going up in flames”), and Libin on February 2, 2010 (“So much for pure science”).

The Statement of Claim was filed April 20, 2010 at the BC Supreme Court Registry at the Vancouver Courthouse: Weaver v Corcoran and others, SCBC No.102698, Vancouver Registry. Court record information and documents are publicly accessible online at Court Services Online: https://eservice.ag.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do.

Good luck to Professor Weaver with the suit. Even if the Post is forced to remove the false allegations, they will be up against the Streisand Effect when it comes to taking down reposts on other websites. Which may be the point of the court injunction; the Sisyphean task may be onerous enough to make them think twice about defaming him.

“As in any day where we symbolize a matter of significance, Earth Day highlights the cause, it highlights the importance of all of us making individual efforts, and so yes, it’s important,” he said.

“I would like Canadians to think about our responsibility as stewards as one of the most remarkable landmasses on the earth and the obligation we have to leave Canada, cleaner and better than we found it,” he said.

To make that a reality, he said, Canadians should think about whether they should reduce the size of their car, recycle more, leave their phone chargers plugged in or if they need to keep that flat-screen TV on all the time.

“It’s a question of the individual choices we make,” he added. “How many televisions are you going to have in your house? Are you going to shop and try to get the most efficient appliances in your home? It’s about choices.”

If Canadians should think about changing anything it is their laws and politicians, not their behaviour. We have tried Prentice’s approach before, after all. The One Tonne Challenge was an abject failure of a policy for reducing carbon emissions, and would not have made much of a dent considering the sources of most of this country’s emissions (see chart).

Note: The grey portion of the chart represents GHG emissions from the energy sector. The activity sectors reflect the UNFCCC methodology. Source: Environment Canada, 2007a. National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada, 1990–2005. Greenhouse Gas Division, Ottawa, Ontario.

And besides, if Prentice really wants to change Canadians’ behaviour, he should do more than exhort them to just think about doing so for one day a year. A price on carbon, as economists will agree, would do more to change behaviour than would simply thinking a little on Earth Day.

The opt-in climate policy he suggests offers a realistic way of dealing with the Alberta problem. There’s no way of getting around the fact that Alberta is increasingly dependent on the tar sands, and it is not willing to come close to making, or meeting, an effective emissions reduction target. However, other provinces, like Ontario and Quebec, are committed to making reductions and the Federal government could have a role to play in helping them meet the reductions targets.

A key change in Canada has been the shifting of population, political power and wealth to the west. The West got in, and don’t expect them to put in place federal policy that it would perceive as being against its own interests. Indeed, if politics is shaping up to mean a shift in power away from the federal government to the provincial, the sort of role the federal government can play in climate change will need to reflect and respect that shift. An opt-in program is a good compromise.

Unfortunately, should all the provinces except Alberta choose to opt in and meet targets, there could be little benefit for Canada on the international stage if Canada as a country fails to make overall emissions reductions. Nonetheless, as Prof. Donner points out, “it would be a vast improvement on the status quo” and “break the stalemate that has stalled progress on emissions reductions”. I’ll take it as a good start.

More: http://www.themarknews.com/articles/1183-working-around-alberta-on-climate-change

Winter 2009/2010:

• 4.0°C above normal
• Warmest winter since records began in 1948
• Driest out of the past 63 years, 22% below normal
• Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan had 60% less precipitation than normal

It really has been extraordinary. Says David Phillips, a senior climatologist with Environment Canada:

"I think it’s a combination of a strong El Nino and the shrinking and disappearance of the ice at the top of the world," says Phillips, adding that changing "pressure spots" in the Arctic and Atlantic also played a role. "They’ve all been working in cahoots to create this unbelievable winter."

Oh yes, and it looks like the tulips are coming up already. That could mean poor timing for the Tulip Festival here in Ottawa, May 7th to the 24th. We usually have snow coverage on the ground until early April, which would delay growth, but not this year. As far as the tulips are concerned, it feels like spring.

First, a promise about creating The Economy of Tomorrow [p.55]:

In designing Canada’s Economic Action Plan, the Government incorporated measures to help create the economy of tomorrow. In 2010–11, the Action Plan will invest almost $1.9 billion in post-secondary education, infrastructure, research, technology innovation, and environmental protection. This builds on 2009–10 investments of over $2.1 billion to support these strategic investments.
In 2010–11, the Government will provide $1 billion to support deferred maintenance, repair and construction at Canada’s colleges and universities. This investment will help keep Canadian research and educational facilities at the forefront of scientific advancement and will help to ensure that high-paid jobs are maintained and created in Canada.

New shiny labs, jolly good. Operational funding would be even better.

Funding to create the economy of tomorrow will also extend access to broadband Internet in remote communities, develop carbon capture  and storage technology, and fund other strategic investments in science, technology and research.

That’s a bit vague. CCS gets a mention: a technology investment that promises to mitigate the tar sands. Never mind if it doesn’t work.

The Canadian High Arctic Research Station gets a push:

Canada’s Economic Action Plan laid the groundwork for delivering on the Government’s commitment to build a world-class Canadian High Arctic Research Station by providing $2 million over two years for a feasibility study for the proposed facility. Budget 2010 is taking a further step by providing $18 million over five years to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to commence the pre-construction design phase for the station.

So that’s still more infrastructure funding, and it is still some time away from even being constructed.

“Arctic research infrastructure” overall has $35 million committed under the 2009-2010 economic action plan, and $52 million committed for 2010-2011 [p.247].

There’s “$126 million over five years to strengthen the world-leading research” at TRIUMF, which is something for the operational funding side. And for more like that: the research councils NSERC, CIHR and SSHRC get an additional $32 million per year [p.79]. It breaks down as follows:

• $16 million per year to the CIHR to support outstanding health related research and development.
• $13 million per year to NSERC, including $8 million per year to strengthen its support for advanced research, and $5 million per year to foster closer research collaborations between academic institutions and the private sector through NSERC’s Strategy for Partnerships and Innovation.
• $3 million per year to SSHRC to support world-leading research in the social sciences and humanities.
• $8 million per year to the Indirect Cost of Research Program. This enhanced funding will help institutions support the additional research activities enabled by the new resources provided to the federal granting councils through Budget 2010.

Small dollar amounts compared to what is going in to infrastructure, and this after last year’s budget cuts.

Genome Canada gets a mention, after being omitted from the previous budget; they get an additional $75 million in 2009-2010 “to launch a new targeted research competition focused on forestry and the environment and sustain funding for the regional genomics innovation centres.”

The Economic Action Plan directed funds toward “Clean Energy and the Environment” [p.245]. And by funds, I mean a staggering $1 billion for the Clean Energy Fund, which includes “$150 million for clean energy research and $850 million for clean energy demonstration projects.” These include the following:

• $120 million for a Shell Quest CCS demonstration project
• $315.8 million for the TransAlta Keephills Project to attach CCS to a coal-fired power plant near Edmonton
• $30 million for the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line project.

I remain to be persuaded that these are good investments. A better investment was made through the ecoENERGY Retrofit-Homes program, which disbursed $205 million under the Clean Energy Fund to finance 120,000 retrofits for Canadian homeowners.

Notable omission from the budget: The Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS). Their funding ends in 2011 and research projects are already being dismantled.

There’s a good argument to be made that with this budget, the government is trying to pick winners, rather than the hands off approach of letting the research councils direct funds. The emphasis on funding practical research with profit potential rings alarm bells; the UK is heading down a similar path, and the scientific community rightly has concerns.

Michael Ignatieff comments:

“An Arctic strategy can’t be only a military strategy.” Spot on. A couple of new icebreakers to keep the rowdy Danes in check would be nice and all, but there’s a lot more to the Arctic than sovereignty issues. As for that: “We have to directly involve Arctic people… we have to reactivate Arctic diplomacy.” The circumpolar region is a culture unto itself and with the ice melting, there’s going to be a lot more marine communication. Let’s keep it friendly.

“We are stewards of the global refrigeration system.” A fascinating line to use, and not all that outrageous, although I had to stop and think about it for a bit. The phrase ‘Global refrigeration system’ appears in An Introduction to Geographical Hydrology, ed. Richard J. Chorley, 1969, so it’s been around a while. Ignatieff first used it in speeches back in 2006. For example:

“The Canadian Arctic is a crucial piece of the global refrigeration system. This system is breaking down. The science is clear. Global warming is happening. Working with other nations in the Arctic Council, we must take leadership in stabilizing the global climate system.

In understanding Canada’s place in the world, we need to think of ourselves not just as defenders of our own sovereignty, but as stewards of the global commons.”

Back to the present: it was gratifying to hear a politician connect the dots on the Arctic. Ignatieff also said: “the Arctic is globally significant. We need to stop going to international conventions on climate change and having nothing to say. We are the stewards of the global refrigeration system. We need to have something to say!” Agreed. At the very least, I would like us to be informed on climate change related perturbations in the Arctic and be in a position to report on them. Permafrost melt, carbon and methane release from land and ocean, changes in boreal forest, tundra, etc. etc.

Also mentioned during discussions:

The Arctic, and Canada, need policies for climate change adaptation. All well and good to offer money for developing countries for adaptation, but the Arctic is already experiencing the effects of climate change. In 2008, a flash flood split the town of Pangnirtung on Baffin Island in two, separating residents from essential services that took days to restore. Tuktoyaktuk is experiencing the fastest rate of coastal erosion in Canada, losing 2m of shoreline every year. The effects of climate change have begun to be felt, and it is the height of irresponsible governance to ignore it right here in our own country.

CFCAS on research in the North:

It is cheaper to get to New Zealand than to Resolute. That poses some logistical problems…

Climate change is significantly affecting the Mackenzie Delta, where there is a lot of infrastructure. We need more knowledge to be able to plan for further changes.

Killer whales will be able to enter the Arctic once the ice barrier is gone. That should make life interesting.

All of CFCAS research ends in 2011, and there’s no more funding in the pipeline.

Food prices:

Food costs a lot more in the North. $10 for a bag of flour, for example. Average price of a basket of food: 44% higher than in Ottawa. Country food remains important in the North, but I think we can count on climate change to bugger up that food supply.

Ghost stations:

As someone mentioned afterwards, lots of infrastructure funding available for building shiny new Arctic research stations, but not a lot of money available for researchers to actually go there and research. Oh well. The ghost stations could be used instead for annual remakes of The Thing.

John England of the University of Alberta had a piece in Nature on Arctic research: we need an overarching research policy, like the States have, and better integration between NSERC and PCSP. Researchers who do get funding to work in the North run into serious logistical problems when it comes to actually conducting their research. Worth a read.