Dear Editor:

The scientific community and the UNFAO have known for many years that the UNFAO 1990 Fossil Fuel Model was totally flawed. Problem is that virtually everything that the Climate Warming Group (CWG) have done to date is based on/dependent on the UNFAO 1990 Model. The UNFAO, subsequent to 1990, spent tens of millions of dollars and 25 years researching the various factors that determine atmospheric CO2 levels. We now know, for example, that forest fires have a greater impact on CO2 levels than fossil fuels. The UNFAO 2015 Carbon Flux Model literally relegated their UNFAO 1990 Model to the science fiction comic book level ….and I am being kind.

Back in 1990, the UNFAO world believed that fossil fuels were responsible for controlling 85% of atmospheric CO2 levels. The CWG concluded that the only solution to controlling CO2 levels was a reduction in fossil fuel GHGs. Having made that decision, they had only four options for displacement of fossil fuels: 1) nuclear, 2) hydro, 3) solar, and 4) wind. They picked solar/wind with it’s massive price tag. Problem is that we now know that fossil fuels (per the UNFAO 2015 Model) are only responsible for 1.5% of atmospheric CO2 levels…not 85% as per the UNFAO 1990 Model. We also know, that solar/wind is not even a viable contender compared to other options.

If you are really interested in climate change, email me at and I will email you three pages of 2015 to 2017 climate warming facts and an overview diagram of the 2015 Fossil Fuel Model. Canada’s total ghgs per our government is 722 megatonnes. Forest fire emissions in 2015 were 600 megatonnes plus. Confused…don’t be. Forest fire ghgs are outside of the 722 number per CANNR…our government still reports ghgs using the UNFAO 1990 Model!

Jim Mackinnon