Ecojustice has taken the Ontario government to court on behalf of a group of youth #GENClimateAction kids. In this, Part 3, we assess the climate claims made in court documents, showing that they are based on outdated science, are misleading or disputed. We show that Ontario's existing Green Energy Act violates Section 15 of the Charter by imposing crippling costs on pensioners. We show that GHG reduction targets are impossible to meet due to mass immigration policies. And we show that while there is warming occurring this does not explain the cause. Ontario is not driving climate change and children should not be exploited for commercial purposes, such as the school wide activist program where Ecojustice's executive director was a board member. This would appear to be an unstated Conflict of Interest. The power point will be posted on our blog for your review. If you like our work, consider a $20 donation or more, to celebrate our 20th year. Etransfers: contact@friendsofscience.org Thank you! ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW-PVP1OBiU

On Oct. 16, 2023, the Office of the Superintendent for Financial Institutions (OSFI) (which regulates all financial institutions in Canada) released its Standardized Climate Scenario Exercise (SCSE) methodology for consultation. There is ever more pressure on banks, financial institutions and corporations to report on climate risks related to their investments and operations. Thus, the OSFI developed this mathematical model that all financial institutions will have to use for reporting climate risk. They tell financial institutions that: “The SCSE aims to measure climate risks that are arguably not reflected using traditional risk quantification techniques, e.g., models that use historical experience to measure risks." Ironically, historical experience are the principle database for financial investments and risk assessment. Why would this useful information be set aside? Unfortunately, in the new model, the OSFI employs a series of computer simulated scenarios known as the “Representative Concentration Pathways” as baseline scenarios, and one of which, the "RCP 8.5" scenario is described as 'business-as-usual.' In fact, RCP 8.5 is an implausible future scenario which includes parameters like the world having 3-6 billion more people than the UN projects for 2100; using more coal than exists on planet Earth, and burning more oil than is estimated as being recoverable. Thus, the climate risks will be wildly exaggerated and skewed. This will directly affect investment in Canada's energy security, GDP and employment. This video explainer walks the viewer through a rebuttal report that Friends of Science Society submitted to the OSFI as part of their consultation. The RCP 8.5 scenario is where the notion of a climate emergency originates. Once removed from consideration (as it is implausible) there is no justification for high carbon taxes or NetZero targets. The climate emergency is over. We do have time. See more of our work: http://www.friendsofscience.org ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsQkLerKIZY

Climate change has become a polarizing issue. What should be a scientific discussion has turned into one of right-left ideology. Dr. Ronan Connolly talks about the research of his book on the topic, and that there is no ‘97% consensus’ and that those consensus surveys are flawed in their design, and potentially driven by a desired outcome. “We shouldn’t be deciding what should be a scientific issue, based on our political ideologies.” ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTFB5ARZ1j0

[Version 2. To fix a typo in the original] What happens to a society when children become nothing more than a carbon footprint to be avoided? Should this concept be taught in schools? Researchers Wynes and Nicholas (2019) did a survey of climate change curricula in secondary schools in Canada. In their opinion the schools are not doing a good enough job of 'convincing' students of the 'scope and urgency' of climate change, or that 'expert agree'. They were disconcerted to find that Friends of Science materials were even referred to in some school curricula, showing examples of the 'polarized' debate on climate, which Wynes and Nicholas say does not exist. Michelle Stirling wrote a rebuttal paper that shows that not all experts agree and that Wynes and Nicholas are advocating for pink slips for teachers and humanicide for Canadians. Their previous research that suggested having one less child would 'save the planet' - particularly sad this is their view when the real polluters and emitters are things like container ships and developing nations. Container ships: Container Ship - How to reduce effect on Climate and Pollution Developing Nations: https://blog.friendsofscience.org/2019/05/05/futile-folly-canadas-climate-policy-goals-in-the-global-context/ Stirling's paper: Climate Diversity is Our Strength: Responding to Wynes and Nicholas (2019) by Michelle Stirling :: SSRN ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXYyCWX2uYY