Energy
Welcome to “Oil & Gas Silencing” Bill C-59: Where Trudeau’s Science Court Rules, Not Real People With Real Science
![](https://www.todayville.com/edmonton/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/11/tvrd-fraser-institute-trudeau-image-2023-11-10.jpg)
From EnergyNow.ca
By Jim Warren
Follow those who seek the truth. Run from the man who says he’s found it.
-Václav Havel, first president of Czechoslovakia after the 1989 Velvet Revolution.
In addition to its threat to the right of free expression, Bill C-59, stands as a threat to the free spirit of inquiry that sustains modern science. Many of the efforts undertaken today to reduce the environmental footprint of the gas and petroleum industries are based on scientific research conducted by professionals whose efforts are guided by a set of well-established philosophical and methodological principles. The efforts of climate change scientists who attempt to more accurately assess the causes, pace and intensity of anthropogenic global warming operate under similar guidelines.
Science regulates adherence to its philosophical and methodological standards through a system whereby research methods and the findings of research are published and reviewed by panels of experienced practitioners in its various disciplines – the famous scientific peer review process. In this way the quality of findings can be assessed. Findings that are based on flawed methodology can be outright rejected or researchers can be asked to adjust their methods and try again. Even if a statistical study or experiment has made it through peer review once, ongoing efforts are made to check the work against new information and experiments are subjected to replication efforts.
Rejections of flawed research can happen quickly, but, unfortunately, can sometimes take years. For example, it took the leading medical journal, The Lancet, 12 years to debunk a fraudulent 1998 study it had published linking vaccinations for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) to colitis which was in turn linked to autism.
Bill C-59 proposes to establish a government appointed agency with the capacity to launch prosecutions which will presumably be adjudicated by a quasi-judicial panel or tribunal with the ability to impose jaw-dropping penalties in the millions. The tribunal will assess claims made by conventional energy companies about improvements regarding things such as emissions levels. Judgments will similarly be made regarding the claims of journalists and individuals who publish the claims of those companies. This is a process that will lead to dividing the findings of science into a government approved body of work and heretical unapproved science.
The Soviet Union adopted the practice of recognizing only politically-correct government-approved science. One of the many reasons Soviet agriculture was so backward was because the approved method for improving crop genetics to develop varieties with greater tolerance to drought and early frosts was based on the “Party-approved” theory, Lamarckism. This was the idea that a trait that developed due to use or disuse during an organism’s lifetime could be transmitted to its offspring. If you grew a plant during a drought, its offspring would be drought tolerant.
Prosecutions under the Bill C-59 legislation will place a reverse onus condition on the accused. Those charged will not be presumed innocent until proven guilty. They will be required to prove what they said was true.
Willy Pickton and Paul Bernardo obtained the benefit of a right not available under Bill C-59. Those two outstanding citizens were presumed innocent until being proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. What comes next, reviving the evidentiary tests used in medieval witchcraft trials?
There is a mismatch between the philosophy of science and a quasi-judicial process that demands true or false certainty for scientific claims. The philosopher Karl Popper famously argued that the findings of scientific investigation can never be assumed to represent some sort of absolute immutable truth, in part because we can never know the future with absolute certainty. We are blind to whether new, not yet imagined, developments will arise in the future that falsify a scientific claim made today. According to Popper, researchers can refute or falsify a pre-existing claim but cannot claim that a new finding is absolutely true now and forever.
New research results always have a conditional status. Even after they have survived one or more tests and efforts to replicate their experimental results, they remain valid only until such a time as the next attempt proves them incorrect. This is why one of the principal tasks of good science is to critically assess the theories and findings of what is sometimes erroneously referred to as “decided science.” We often hear the claim that some science is so widely accepted it can be considered decided. The claim is false though it is made by people who should know better like the celebrity scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson. He claims the science on climate change is decided science.
Claiming that many or most scientists believe in the science around climate change does not make it correct. First of all which parts of climate science do they believe? It is a large and complex field with many streams of investigation. Furthermore, that huge body of work itself includes numerous contradictory research findings.
Publication and peer review are the principal means that allow scientific knowledge to change and hopefully improve over time. That is why the testing of theories and research findings is an ongoing, potentially never-ending scientific process. Why not allow the process to unfold as usual rather than giving the government the authority to own the unvarnished scientific “truth?”
Einstein shared many of Popper’s views. And he also had a few things to say about so-called “decided science.” The Nazis were always uncomfortable with the fact that although Einstein was German-born he was also a Jew. They were embarrassed that Einstein’s scientific achievements were overshadowing the work of “Aryan” scientists. In 1931, a group of scientists sympathetic to the Nazis published the book, 100 Authors against Einstein. Einstein was not impressed with the fact they had found so many critics. He had several criticisms of the book including his assertion that science is not done by taking a poll.
Clearly it would not be possible to state you can prove your scientific claim is true as a defense in climate court and remain consistent with Popper and his fundamental principles of science. All you can do is show that you followed a suitable methodology and logically assessed the evidence you found. But what assurance do we have the Trudeau court of science will be satisfied with this sort of assertion. A lot will hang on who the Liberals appoint to the bench.
Another reason reviewing the work of other researchers is considered critical to the scientific process is because even when studies and experiments are conducted with the utmost integrity they can generate erroneous findings. People are fallible, a decimal point winds up in the wrong place; lab equipment fails, and so on. And, unfortunately, as is the case in many fields of human endeavor, there are fraudsters and incompetents working in science. Nonetheless, while it may be imperfect in many ways, the process of scientific inquiry is the best system we have yet devised for coming as close to approximating objective truth as is possible.
In these enlightened days, when honest errors are made, we expect them to be corrected. For the past two centuries the task of reviewing and correcting scientific errors has been done by the scientific community. There are exceptions. There are authoritarian states like the former Soviet Union that have “official science” and “illegal science.” It goes back to Galileo and the Inquisition.
Under the peer review process developed by scientists, lab-coated lynch mobs are not dispatched to hang, draw and quarter scrupulous scientists whose results are rejected. Lying and cheating are another matter entirely and sanctions are imposed on those caught doing it. That is why even Dr. Fauci is said to be looking over his shoulder these days.
It hardly serves the public good to stifle the spirit of free scientific inquiry. If scientists become worried that conducting an experiment and publishing the findings could result in large fines and possible imprisonment if their results are subsequently falsified, science as we know it would cease. Conceivably, every physicist prior to Einstein had imperfect ideas about light and gravity. They weren’t rounded up and fined or imprisoned after Einstein came up with specific and general relativity. If any of Einstein’s scientific work is one day found wanting, the Nobel Prize committee won’t ask for the return of his prize.
We might reasonably expect a similar reaction from publishers and journalists who currently inform the public about developments in science. If they can be punished because the scientific developments they report are later claimed to be in error or have simply been improved upon, they are apt to quit telling the public about new science. Why assume the risk? This would no doubt be a particularly worrisome possibility if the new science involved innovations in petroleum production that are found to reduce emissions.
There is no single “accepted,” version of our climate future claimed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – only a pile of speculations and probabilities based on hopefully accurate climate models and many assumptions about social and economic conditions in the future. And, as mentioned previously, claiming anything is “decided science” is ridiculous – science by definition is never fully decided, it is an ongoing process that does not presume to arrive at final absolute truths.
What if one of the predictions about the pace of climate change and its impacts made by the IPCC, or journalists from the alarmist camp is proven incorrect, shouldn’t the same rules apply? Should they not be subject to prosecution by the science inquisition? That’s not likely going to happen. It appears the intention of the Trudeau-Angus rules is that the only science subject to punishment will be the science that produces results they don’t like.
Who decides?
It is unclear exactly who will be passing judgment in the Trudeau court of science. Will Charlie Angus be appointed to the bench? Will experts in the philosophy and methodology of science be appointed to the review tribunal?
Or will the principles of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion guide appointments? Sure, that will fix everything. Science could be adjudicated by a PhD in gender studies who claims science was designed by the patriarchy, and therefore oppresses women and should be replaced by science as understood by oppressed identity groups. Justin will love it.
Let’s hope the Trudeau science court will include some people with legal backgrounds who believe in due process under the law. Maybe they could come up with a workaround for the reverse onus rules under Bill C-59.
Some of us find it quite difficult to be optimistic about a science court. There is concern that in the woke and virtuous world inhabited by Justin Trudeau and Steven Guilbeault the “truth” about the science of climate change has been decided and can be found on the CBC and Greenpeace websites. Those who beg to differ can tell it to the judge.
Energy
BC should revisit nuclear energy to address BC Hydro shortages
![](https://www.todayville.com/edmonton/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/09/tvrd-rw-nuclear-power-station-image-2024-09-03.jpg)
From Resource Works
The short-term costs of nuclear SMRs are preferable to paying hundreds of millions to import foreign energy in the long-term.
British Columbia takes great pride in its tremendous hydroelectric resources, which result from the province’s many long, powerful rivers. For decades, BC has found it easy to rely on hydroelectricity as a clean, renewable source of power for homes, industry, and businesses.
However, the ongoing viability of hydropower in BC should be called into question due to worsening summer droughts and declining snowfalls, which have negatively impacted the annual supply of hydropower. BC has not seriously entertained the possibility of alternatives, even though other provinces have begun to embrace one particular source of energy that has been illegal here for over a decade: nuclear power.
By refusing to strike down the law passed in 2010 that prohibits the mining of uranium or the building of nuclear reactors, BC has made itself an outlier among its peers. Since last year, Ontario has announced plans to expand its existing nuclear capacity, which already provides the majority of the province’s electricity.
Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia have also begun to explore the possibility of expanding nuclear power to help power their growing provinces. BC has prohibited nuclear energy since passing the Clean Energy Act of 2010, which bans the building of reactors or mining uranium.
This prohibition is a barrier to diversifying BC’s energy supply, which has become more reliant on foreign energy. Due to energy shortages, BC Hydro had to import 15 to 20 percent of the energy required to meet the province’s needs.
Do not expect the situation to improve. Snowpacks are shrinking in the winter months, and summer droughts have become more frequent, which means BC’s dams will see a reduction in their power capacity. Power shortages may be on the horizon, leading to vastly more expensive purchases of foreign energy to meet BC’s growing electricity demand, driven by the construction of new homes and projects like LNG facilities on the coast.
Energy diversification is the solution, and nuclear power should be included, especially Small Modular Reactors (SMRs).
Low-carbon and reliable, SMRs can provide steady nuclear power in any season. They are flexible and much more cost-effective than traditional, large-scale nuclear reactors.
For a vast province like BC, filled with small communities separated by mountainous terrain, SMRs can be deployed with great ease to ensure energy stability in remote and Indigenous communities that still struggle with energy access. The Haida Nation, for example, is still reliant on diesel to supply its energy, which goes against the BC government’s clean energy goals and relies on fuel being shipped to the Haida Gwaii archipelago.
While SMRs are cheaper than massive nuclear reactors, they are still expensive and require strict safety regulations due to the ever-present risks associated with nuclear energy. However, is the cost of building nuclear facilities in the short term more expensive than importing energy for years to come?
In 2023, BC Hydro spent upwards of $300 million USD on imported energy, while the cost of the smallest SMR is $50 million, with the more expensive units costing up to $3 billion. Building SMRs now is the right decision from a cost-benefit perspective and in terms of BC’s clean energy goals because SMRs guarantee low-emitting energy, unlike imported energy.
The Clean Energy Act stands in the way of nuclear power’s emergence in BC. Amending it will be necessary for that to change.
BC is not going to need any less energy going forward.
It is high time to get over old fears and stereotypes of nuclear energy. Hydroelectricity need not be displaced as the cornerstone of BC’s energy supply, but it alone cannot face the challenges of the future.
Alberta
AI-driven data centre energy boom ‘open for business’ in Alberta
![](https://www.todayville.com/edmonton/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/08/tvrd-cec-alberta-data-centres-image-2024-08-29.jpg)
From the Canadian Energy Centre
By Deborah Jaremko and Will Gibson“These facilities need 24/7, super-reliable power, and there’s only one power generation fuel that has any hope of keeping up with the demand surge: natural gas”
Data centres – the industrial-scale technology complexes powering the world’s growing boom in artificial intelligence – require reliable, continuous energy. And a lot of it.
“Artificial Intelligence is the next big thing in energy, dominating discussions at all levels in companies, banks, investment funds and governments,” says Simon Flowers, chief analyst with energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) projects that the power required globally by data centres could double in the next 18 months. It’s not surprising given a search query using AI consumes up to 10 times the energy as a regular search engine.
The IEA estimates more than 8,000 data centres now operate around the world, with about one-third located in the United States. About 300 centres operate in Canada.
It’s a growing opportunity in Alberta, where unlike anywhere else in the country, data centre operators can move more swiftly by “bringing their own power.”
In Alberta’s deregulated electricity market, large energy consumers like data centres can build the power supply they need by entering project agreements directly with electricity producers instead of relying solely on the power of the existing grid.
Between 2018 and 2023, data centres in Alberta generated approximately $1.3 billion in revenue, growing on average by about eight percent per year, lawyers with Calgary-based McMillan LLP wrote in July.
“Alberta has a long history of building complex, multi-billion-dollar infrastructure projects with success and AI data centres could be the next area of focus for this core competency,” McMillan’s Business Law Bulletin reported.
In recent years, companies such as Amazon and RBC have negotiated power purchase agreements for renewable energy to power local operations and data centres, while supporting the construction of some of the country’s largest renewable energy projects, McMillan noted.
While the majority of established data centres generally have clustered near telecommunications infrastructure, the next wave of projects is increasingly seeking sites with electricity infrastructure and availability of reliable power to keep their servers running.
The intermittent nature of wind and solar is challenging for growth in these projects, Rusty Braziel, executive chairman of Houston, Texas-based consultancy RBN Energy wrote in July
“These facilities need 24/7, super-reliable power, and there’s only one power generation fuel that has any hope of keeping up with the demand surge: natural gas,” Braziel said.
TC Energy chief operating officer Stan Chapman sees an opportunity for his company’s natural gas delivery in Canada and the United States.
“In Canada, there’s around 300 data centre operations today. We could see that load increasing by one to two gigawatts before the end of the decade,” Chapman said in a conference call with analysts on August 1.
“Never have I seen such strong prospects for North American natural gas demand growth,” CEO François Poirier added.
Alberta is Canada’s largest natural gas producer, and natural gas is the base of the province’s power grid, supplying about 60 percent of energy needs, followed by wind and solar at 27 percent.
“Given the heavy power requirements for AI data centres, developers will likely need to bring their own power to the table and some creative solutions will need to be considered in securing sufficient and reliable energy to fuel these projects,” McMillan’s law bulletin reported.
The Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO), which operates the province’s power grid, is working with at least six proposed data centre proposals, according to the latest public data.
“The companies that build and operate these centres have a long list of requirements, including reliable and affordable power, access to skilled labour and internet connectivity,” said Ryan Scholefield, the AESO’s manager of load forecasting and market analytics.
“The AESO is open for business and will work with any project that expresses an interest in coming to Alberta.”
-
Crime2 days ago
Hunter Biden pleads guilty to tax charges, avoids public trial
-
Addictions1 day ago
B.C. addiction centre should not accept drug industry funds
-
National1 day ago
Four years, $10,000, one frog: Inside Parks Canada’s costly frog cull
-
Crime2 days ago
Officials Arrest Father Of Suspected Georgia School Shooter
-
National1 day ago
Unemployment Surges as Trudeau’s Policies Wreak Havoc on the Economy
-
Education1 day ago
Toronto-area Catholic school hid ‘trans’ identity of 10-year-old girl from her parents
-
Censorship Industrial Complex1 day ago
Canada wants to add DEI measures to globalist WHO pandemic treaty
-
Agriculture1 day ago
P&H Group building $241-million flour milling facility in Red Deer County.