Uploaded August 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Some years ago, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) had a T-shirt theme promotion called "Change Climate Change." At that time, one assumes that they thought "the science was settled". The AAAS describes itself as "One of the world's largest multidisciplinary scientific societies and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its Science family of journals, AAAS has individual members in more than 91 countries around the globe." Well, climate changed in 2026 when the climate catastrophe scenario that drove much of Net Zero policy-making, was officially deemed to be implausible. Climate (science assumptions) changed in 2026, the official climate modelling group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared that a climate scenario known as RCP 8.5 (also known as SSP5-8.5) was implausible. This scenario, RCP 8.5, had been used as the "business-as-usual" case in thousands of climate science studies, and because of its wildly exaggerated outcomes, this is the source of the fear of a climate catastrophe. This means that many of the Net Zero climate action plans are off the table - no longer relevant. For instance, Canada, like many countries in the EU, is planning to 'electrify everything' - to change out natural gas furnaces for heat pumps in homes, to build out Canada's power grid and double it by 2050. In Alberta, just to implement heat pumps for the residential sector alone would require us to double the power grid! This doesn't account for the push for EVs, or 'green' industrial applications using electricity instead of conventional fuels for thermal processes. However, if there's no climate emergency, then Friends of Science Society says these Net Zero plans must be reconsidered - we must "Change Climate Change" thinking, radically so. While there is a need for more power generation, advocates of a 'clean energy grid' are pushing wind, solar and batteries, claiming that these can do the job of conventional power with the enhancement of upgraded transmission lines. Advocates claim wind, solar and batteries are faster to implement (i.e. one or two years) compared to conventional power plants (like natural gas, coal, nuclear or hydro) which may take 10 years or more to build and commission. The difference is that after 10 or 15 years, the wind, solar and battery facilities will have to be replaces with new wind, solar and battery devices, while the conventional power plants will operate for 60 to 100 years, with proper maintenance. AND, conventional power is 'dispatchable' - the plants can ramp up or down power as needed and can meet peak demand. Wind, solar and batteries cannot meet peak demand because they are not dispatchable/controllable - they are weather-dependent. With the climate catastrophe scenario off the table, we need to have a careful rethink of what is the most practical step in build out more power generation in Canada. These plans must be led by qualified engineers, not ideologues. For more information, read our reports, available on our blog. friendsofscience.org
Some years ago, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) had a T-shirt theme promotion called "Change Climate Change." At that time, one assumes that they thought "the science was settled". The AAAS describes itself as "One of the world's largest multidisciplinary scientific societies and a leading publisher of cutting-edge research through its Science family of journals, AAAS has individual members in more than 91 countries around the globe." Well, climate changed in 2026 when the climate catastrophe scenario that drove much of Net Zero policy-making, was officially deemed to be implausible. Climate (science assumptions) changed in 2026, the official climate modelling group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared that a climate scenario known as RCP 8.5 (also known as SSP5-8.5) was implausible. This scenario, RCP 8.5, had been used as the "business-as-usual" case in thousands of climate science studies, and because of its wildly exaggerated outcomes, this is the source of the fear of a climate catastrophe. This means that many of the Net Zero climate action plans are off the table - no longer relevant. For instance, Canada, like many countries in the EU, is planning to 'electrify everything' - to change out natural gas furnaces for heat pumps in homes, to build out Canada's power grid and double it by 2050. In Alberta, just to implement heat pumps for the residential sector alone would require us to double the power grid! This doesn't account for the push for EVs, or 'green' industrial applications using electricity instead of conventional fuels for thermal processes. However, if there's no climate emergency, then Friends of Science Society says these Net Zero plans must be reconsidered - we must "Change Climate Change" thinking, radically so. While there is a need for more power generation, advocates of a 'clean energy grid' are pushing wind, solar and batteries, claiming that these can do the job of conventional power with the enhancement of upgraded transmission lines. Advocates claim wind, solar and batteries are faster to implement (i.e. one or two years) compared to conventional power plants (like natural gas, coal, nuclear or hydro) which may take 10 years or more to build and commission. The difference is that after 10 or 15 years, the wind, solar and battery facilities will have to be replaces with new wind, solar and battery devices, while the conventional power plants will operate for 60 to 100 years, with proper maintenance. AND, conventional power is 'dispatchable' - the plants can ramp up or down power as needed and can meet peak demand. Wind, solar and batteries cannot meet peak demand because they are not dispatchable/controllable - they are weather-dependent. With the climate catastrophe scenario off the table, we need to have a careful rethink of what is the most practical step in build out more power generation in Canada. These plans must be led by qualified engineers, not ideologues. For more information, read our reports, available on our blog. friendsofscience.org
