Ontario’s Liberal Wynne government is abusing children with a television ad deliberately aimed at kids, crafted to instill fear and anxiety about (non-existent) manmade climate change. In it, the ogre-like manmade global warming huckster, David Suzuki, is on stage in front of an audience of obviously frightened grade school boys and girls. A slide show of climate doom-and-gloom plays on the big screen behind him. He hectors them with this:
We’re in trouble, and not enough adults are listening.
Who will have to live with the consequences?
So you’re going to have to solve it.
Is Wynne’s government propaganda a form of emotional child abuse? It would appear to be the case. The Red Cross defines child abuse as follows (emphasis added):
Child abuse is any form of physical, emotional and/or sexual mistreatment or lack of care that causes injury or emotional damage to a child or youth. The misuse of power and/or a breach of trust are part of all types of child abuse.
Is Wynne’s government propaganda-targeting of little kids in this manner even permissible under Canada’s standards for broadcasting to children? Consider the following, contained in Advertising to Children in Canada/A Reference Guide (emphasis added):
Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children
The special characteristics of the children’s audience have long been recognized by Canadian broadcasters and advertisers.
In 1971, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children (Children’s Code) was created. As enunciated in the Background to the Children’s Code, its purpose is to “serve as a guide to advertisers and agencies in preparing commercial messages which adequately recognize the special characteristics of the children’s audience. Children, especially the very young, live in a world that is part imaginary, part real and sometimes do not distinguish clearly between the two. Children’s advertising should respect and not abuse the power of the child’s imagination.”
Does Wynne’s government propaganda violate the following articles in the Guide (emphasis added)?
8. Professional or Scientific Claims
Advertisements must not distort the true meaning of statements made by professionals or scientific authorities. Advertising claims must not imply that they have a scientific basis that they do not truly possess.
11. Superstition and Fears
Advertisements must not exploit superstitions or play upon fears to mislead the consumer.
Does Wynne’s ad disparage the parents of children and thus violate the following article of the Guide (emphasis added)?
14. Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals
(c) demean, denigrate or disparage any identifiable person, group of persons, firm, organization, industrial or commercial activity, profession, product or service or attempt to bring it or them into public contempt or ridicule;
The ad tells children that the adults are not listening and places the onus on them “to solve it.” Would that be a violation of the following article (emphasis added)?
5. Avoiding Undue Pressure
(a) Children’s advertising must not directly urge children to purchase or urge them to ask their parents to make inquiries or purchases.
Concerned parents can complain to Advertising Standards Canada (ASC): “ASC carefully considers and responds to all written complaints from members of the public about advertising.”
The Wynne government has a second television ad that is truly heartbreaking child actor abuse. Little children recite evil, scaremongering greenie propaganda, doing their best to carry out Suzuki’s marching orders from the first ad to convince adults that manmade climate change is real:
Dear adults, you’re not listening to children. […] Climate change is serious. It’s not like it’s fake or anything. It’s not like it’s an April Fool’s joke. It’s real.
But it IS fake. We know the Wynne Liberal government in Ontario is working in lockstep with the UN diktats of Agenda 21 and the 2030 Agenda. The UN’s globalist plans are rationalized by a fictitious planetary climate emergency. They are designed to deindustrialize, depopulate, redistribute wealth, halt prosperity and development, control everyone and everything, and impose an unelected, unaccountable global governance.
The resultant corrupt and phony “green” policies have always included an element of emotional blackmail—we must “fight climate change” for the sake of the next generation, the children and grandchildren. And the manmade climate change propaganda has an evil history of brainwashing and deliberately frightening children in order to get them to convince their parents to toe the line. This heinous and horrendously horrific ad is the worst of the worst.
The Wynne Liberals appear to be following UNICEF’s prescriptions:
… underneath all of the UNICEF pleas to “save the children” is a covert, insidious agenda to use, exploit, and brainwash your children into becoming pliant, militant “climate change agents.”
The best way to get adults to act like environmentalists is by brainwashing their children, according to research published…by Oregon State University.
Canada’s Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna is in on the brainwashing game, too:
“It’s so critical that we act now because we’ve been going in the wrong direction,” she told an audience of dozens in Grades 9 through 12. “I have to come up with a climate plan that has to be presented to the prime minister. This is why I need your help.”
And then there is this:
Climate activists are targeting children through a new range of ‘cli-fi’ – climate fiction – novels which seek to highlight the dangers of global warming.
David Thorpe, author of the book Stormteller, said that children were more open minded and claimed that writers could ‘infect’ their minds with ‘seriously subversive viral ideas’.
Of course, the Ontario schools are also expected to brainwash the children. The document Environmental Education: Scope and Sequence of Expectations for Grades 9-11 mentions “climate change” 56 times, “global warming” 21 times, “greenhouse gas emissions” 14 times. Every subject from Arts to English to Mathematics to Technological Innovation presents “opportunities for teachers and students to make connections to environmental topics or issues in various ways.”
The policy framework emphasizes the necessity of ensuring that young people become environmentally active and responsible citizens. […] To help achieve this goal, the Ministry of Education is working to embed environmental education expectations and opportunities in all grades and in all subjects of the Ontario curriculum…all disciplines provide opportunities to incorporate environmental education to some extent…
Not surprisingly, the alarmist, manipulative, deceitful propaganda aimed at children is profoundly damaging to their emotional and psychological health:
Fear of an impending Climate Apocalypse apparently afflicts millions of children and adolescents worldwide.
Further, in a 2014 report by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, “Surveys show that many children are upset and frightened by what they are told is happening to the climate.”
Some children – perhaps most according to some surveys – have been frightened by what they have been led to believe about climate change. All are at risk of being deprived of a more thorough treatment of subject-matter basics in exchange for time spent on conditioning them for political or personal ac- tions. This conditioning and the associated reduction in basic education are liable to reduce the autonomy of the children as well as of the parents they are encouraged to influence: both are essentially being told what to think and what to do. Children are being treated as political targets by activists who wish to change society in fundamental ways. This is unacceptable whether or not they are successful.
The chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri has suggested that a focus on children is the top priority for bringing about societal change, and that by ‘sensitising’ children to climate change, it will be possible to get them to ‘shame adults into taking the right steps’.
The seriousness of what we have seen is hard to overstate. The fact that children’s ability to pass their exams – and hence their future life prospects – appears to depend on being able to demonstrate their climate change orthodoxy is painfully reminiscent of life in communist-era Eastern Europe or Mao’s China.
Government must not be allowed to terrorize children with fear propaganda that psychologically scars their young minds, creating despair over their future. Exhorting powerless children to influence their supposedly complacent elders is cruel and morally, ethically reprehensible.
The people of Ontario ought to be enraged—and extremely worried about the mental well-being of their children. They must demand a stop to the callously calculated, evil, extremely damaging brainwashing of their children, the exploitation of malleable young minds, and psychological abuse of impressionable youngsters for political ends.
Ontarians, protect your children from Wynne’s evil abuse of “the power of the child’s imagination” and her government’s despicable mind-control assaults damaging your youngsters’ psychological health!
Canada’s broadcaster, the CBC, chief propagandist for the manmade climate change/manmade global warming cabal, featured Canada’s Minister of the Environment and Climate Change, Catherine McKenna, and the Administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Gina McCarthy, on yesterday’s The Current, with host Anna-Maria Tremonti presiding.
Pontificating about a non-existent problem, and prescribing a punitive tax remedy for it, McKenna and McCarthy, with Tremonti providing the cues, manage to parrot all the usual tired, alarmist, untrue, irrational manmade climate change tropes—multiple times—as listed further below.
At the same time, the Mc-Robots want you to believe that:
…technology choices…are competing effectively against fossil fuels; in many cases they are less expensive, so let people…choose, let the market capture…technologies that are are most able to compete…mostly renewables.
…when you look at the markets and market forces, numerous renewables are now at par, in many cases, with fossil fuels and so…there’s a shift right now towards renewables.
…continue to allow fossil to be in the mix until it’s no longer the one that’s viable or cost-effective…let the market decide, as long as we send the right market signals.
…they have to successfully compete in the market.
It’s not as much about EPA regulations but it is about the industry themselves and whether they can remain competitive.
No reasonably-informed person swallows any of this drivel
For example, in Ontario, “renewables” such as industrial wind turbines can spring up seemingly overnight, thanks to tailor-made, obstacle-free special legislation. Their owners go on to enjoy 20 years worth of guaranteed, significantly above-market rates of return. On the other hand, anti-oil, anti-gas, anti-coal, anti-pipeline regulations, rules, and strictures mean an unlevelled competitive field for the fossil fuel industry.
As for Mc-Eco-Bots and their automated disinformation, read on . . .
“Feel” the manmade climate change
There hasn’t been any global warming for at least 19 years, but, according to the Mc-Fibbers, manmade climate change is really here, is really happening right now. They can feel it, they can see it, so why can’t you?
…we know the climate is already changing, we can feel it, we can see it, we can measure it
…on the front lines of climate change, they can see it every day
…the real impacts of climate change
…a major impact
…understand what is the real impact
…impacts of climate change
…because you can really see it and feel it
…we see impact there
…very real changes to the climate that are impacting their lives
…climate changes that are already happening
Yes, climate changes all the time, always has, always will—naturally.
“Fight” and “tackle”
Lest you aren’t feeling the desired degree of urgency, the Mc-Deluded wish to remind you at every turn that something supposedly needs to be done, and pronto. Hence, the following (hubris-filled) action points:
…tackling climate change
…tackle climate change
…how we tackle climate moving forward
…tackling climate change everywhere
…challenge of tackling climate change
…the fight for climate change
…have to take action
…take action on climate
…the challenge of climate change is an immediate one, we have to take action on it
…we all know that we need to act
The Mc-Deluded actually think that they can control the climate. The 11th century King Canute had more common sense, integrity, and honesty than McKenna, McCarthy and their political masters combined.
“Low-carbon” future or bust
And why do we need to take action? The Mc-Fake-Enviros’ objective for their fool’s errand is simple-minded, backward:
…reduce our carbon pollution
…capture the carbon that is damaging the planet
…move towards a low-carbon future
…decarbonizing, moving to lower-carbon future
…a low-carbon future
…we need to move to a lower-carbon future
…moving to a low-carbon future
…moving to a lower-carbon future
A “low-carbon” future is code for de-development, de-industrialization, de-population, anti-democracy, anti-personal-freedoms, and consigns the poor to even deeper poverty, despair, and deprivation.
Carbon price and tax thin air
And how do the Mc-Punishers think they can make us comply? Put a price on it, again, and again:
…price carbon and tackle the problem
…putting a price on carbon
…a price on carbon
…price on carbon
…we need to be putting a price on carbon
It really is a tax on air. Think about it.
Of course, these are not mere whims on the part of the Mc-Pseudo-Scientists and their masters. These draconian measures are supposedly based on empirical evidence, on sound science, don’t you know, and therefore righteous and good:
…our science-based efforts
…the best science
…absolutely looking at the science
…Paris agreement is based on science
…a science-based approach
…the science is really good today
…we’re doing things based on science
Just in case you’re worried about the economic consequences of their “evidence-based” plans, the Mc-BSers assure us that everything will be hunky-dory:
…done in a sustainable way
…make sure they’re done in a sustainable way
“Sustainability” is code for anti-prosperity.
Of course, when providing the rationale for the manmade climate change insanity, never forget to play the “next generation” card, and the Mc-Eco-Preachers do not disappoint:
…we need to protect our kids
…we need to keep our kids future healthy and safe
…create the jobs that my kids will have
…protecting our kids
…keeping the world safe for future generations
…necessary for our kids
The truth is that the kids will be far sicker, poorer, and more at risk if insane anti-human manmade climate change policies are implemented.
Greenhouse gas demonization
Finally, there may be an additional manmade climate change villain in the offing. Is methane being groomed as the new CO2? The fabrication that CO2 is the demonic driver of manmade climate change may have become too much of an awkward argument for the eco-fantasists. Too many people know that CO2 is carbon dioxide, a non-polluting, indispensable trace gas that nourishes plants, without which there would be no life in earth. So, methane may now need to be the satanic, planet-destroying gas:
…curbing methane gas emissions
…capture that methane
…you have to capture the methane
…capture the methane that otherwise would be damaging the planet
The UN-led deliberate, evil deceit of manmade climate change continues unabated
The scientific fiction, fuelled by a $1.5 trillion climate change industry, continues apace, scarcely hindered by the truth, or valid science, or the scientific method.
We need more courageous and honest leadership in the political class. We need more common sense, more mainstream media investigative journalism, more reason. We need more public awareness that the cry-wolf, pretend-green potentates of the manmade climate change narrative are liars, utterly lacking in clothing and any scrap of integrity.
Dr. Ross McKitrick is a Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph, and Research Chair in Energy, Ecology and Prosperity at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He specializes in environmental economics.
Dr. McKitrick spoke (starting at :19) on the topic of Green Conservatism at the Manning Centre Conference in February.
In his brief talk, Dr. McKitrick gives a brilliant, succinct overview of the current absence of rational, logical, empirical evidence-based thinking and planning on the part of the Canadian political class when it comes to the environment and economic policies.
Dr. McKitrick argues that our “very high-level” decision-makers are churning out “extremely distorting” policies based on their false, alarmist environmental beliefs. The results of their scientific illiteracy and ideological alarmism are environmental over-regulation and “green” taxation overkill.
Reading between the lines, we’re in a big, fat, fake-green mess and heading for continued fiscal and economic misery.
The following is a partial transcription (bolding added for emphasis).
On illogical “green” taxes:
The trouble in the Canadian context is, the economic logic only works if they used “instead of,” and not on “on top of” a command-and-control regime….repeal the onerous regulations that we’ve already got in place, like for instance, the Green Energy Act in Ontario, and the federal ethanol mandate, and the proposed coal fadeout in Alberta.
Unless you’re willing to roll up your sleeves and work against those things in a very vocal way, you’re not really in a position to make a credible argument for green taxes in Canada.
Otherwise, it’s just going to be one thing piled on top of another.
On real and imaginary climate graphs:
The mayor of Montreal is so worried about the state of the environment that he’s leading a campaign to block the Energy East pipeline from reaching Montreal, presumably because he thinks that the contents of that pipeline will be damaging to the local environment. He has in mind, I guess, a graph like this, except that it would slope up instead of sloping down, and lots of other graphs, presumably in his imagination, that slope up rather than sloping down.
If you want to see what all the other graphs look like, I’ve put them online at a website called yourenvironment.ca. It’s very easy to navigate. You can look up the complete air quality records for every city in Canada, and lots of other information besides—climate information, CO2 emissions, all sorts of stuff.
On regulatory overkill and pipeline blockades:
Once you get a handle on what’s actually happened to the environment in Canada, you’re going to think the problem is a little different. It’s regulatory overkill.
We’re at a point where we have controlled conventional air pollutants to an extremely low level in Canada, and yet we’re seeing an acceleration of new and extremely distorting policies, including the various attempts to blockade all pipeline development and keep the western fossil fuel reserves in the ground.
On false environmental thinking embedded in high-level decision-makers:
I can only conclude that a lot the decision-makers—and this kind of thinking is embedded at very high levels—have in mind a completely false picture of the Canadian environment. They’ve been convinced that it’s much worse than it is and that the trends are going in different directions.
On irrational, ideological environmental alarmism:
The real target today is environmental alarmism. It’s this irrational but popular ideology that the environment is bad and getting worse, that we face an emergency and that we have to take radical measures.
It’s easy to defeat once you start showing people the data, and it’s easy to defeat if you can get a hearing for the idea that if you get specific about what you’re really talking about, we can measure these things. In fact, we do measure them, and in Canada we have decades and decades worth of measurements. So you can get the discussion on a very rational footing.
On the phony “97% consensus”:
We should encourage people to discuss the science, and we do it in a deep way—and not with the slogans like the “97% consensus,” which is another one of these phony statistics that emerges.
On huge regulatory overkill and unnecessary coal phase-outs:
What we need to do is to get people to think clearly about what it is they are talking about. Are you concerned about air pollution? Well, we have the data on all the major air contaminants. We can measure it, this is what it looks like…It’s not one big thing. It’s a lot of little things and most of them are actually being handled very effectively by our current regulatory systems in Canada.
There isn’t a huge opening to come in with some silver bullet like emission taxes that are going to have a big effect on the state of the environment…
We have a problem of overkill in some areas, including, for instance, the coal phase-out in Ontario. That was a huge overkill in response to the air emissions issue…They didn’t need to phase out those coal-fired power plants. But it’s the alarmism that made it impossible to have that debate at the time.
On “extreme weather” fibs:
When governments start to hauling out the issue of extreme weather, there is nothing mainstream about that kind of science. The mainstream science, including the IPCC, does not draw a connection between greenhouse gas emissions and extreme weather events. So, politicians need to be called on that sort of thing.
On climate propaganda and browbeating:
And also, finally, don’t overstate the challenge. I was struck this week by research that came out of Yale University, that even after all these years of propaganda and browbeating, Canadians are roughly evenly-split on whether global warming is mostly anthropogenic, but so is the scientific community…Once you try to move to something more specific than that—like, is it the most? or if it is responsible, is it even a problem?— that’s where that kind of consensus breaks down. So don’t overstate the problem!
On false beliefs:
You need to understand that the problem is actually alarmism, and the raft of false beliefs, and not the need for little tweaks to the tax code.
Watch Dr. McKitrick’s whole presentation here, starting at :19.
I’m going to turn on every damn light I can find when the Earth Witching Hour approaches—this year at 8:30 pm on Saturday, March 19.
Why? To spotlight the insanity and dishonesty underlying the phony greeniness of the WWF’s Earth Hour—a supposedly “grassroots movement” to “save the planet” and “shine a light on climate action” where the stated aim is: “…to encourage an interconnected global community to share the opportunities and challenges of creating a sustainable world.” A “sustainable world”—UN Agenda 21 ideology dictates coerced deprivation—in which you’re supposed to get used to sitting in the dark rather than providing (not preventing, as is the case these days) fossil-fueled electricity for the $1.3 billion people living in real darkness every single night.
The Witching Hour, according to Wikipedia, refers to “the time of night when creatures such as witches, demons, and ghosts are thought to appear and to be at their most powerful and black magic to be most effective.”
That would be about right for the Earth Witching Hour:
- witchy, bullying, hectoring ENGOs, often foreign-funded, supposed “charities” such as WWF, with evil powers by means of unelected, unaccountable influence over government antic-democratic legislation and mainstream media disinformation;
- demonic vilification of plant-food carbon dioxide and life-enhancing, life-saving fossil fuels;
- black magic practised in a cloak of putrid, fake green, pumping out climate change ideology, “save the planet” propaganda, and professionally manufactured and financed “grassroots movements.”
Let’s turn on all the lights we can find on Saturday and celebrate our good fortune. Switch off the manmade climate change indoctrination and the “carbon pollution” dogma. Lead the 1.3 billion souls sitting in the dark into the light and fossil-fueled prosperity and a good life.
Bob Lyman, March 18, 2016 at 12:45 pmLet’s see. If we all turn off our lights, there will be a lower quantity of Ontario electricity consumption over which the regulated utilities can average their costs and, other things equal, a larger quantity of energy that has to be curtailed or exported at a loss. Consequently, the costs of the electricity supply system will rise and the utilities will apply to have these costs reflected in increased rates to (guess who?) Ontario electricity consumers. So, by turning off the lights, we collectively increase our electricity bills. This is in addition to making a meaningless bow in the direction of the false thesis that electricity consumption harms the environment. Just great.
The new Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, Dianne Saxe, celebrates and looks forward to punishing you (she Orwellian-newspeaks it as “give a financial incentive to people”!) with the Ontario Liberals’ planned cap-and-trade carbon tax scheme for the greenhouse gas “pollution” that you “create”:
Hallelujah! It’s really about time. Again, the entire world recognizes that we need to put a price on carbon if we want to give a financial incentive to people to reduce the pollution that they create, the greenhouse gas pollution that they create. We have to put a price on it. If it’s free, if doing the wrong thing is free, and the right thing [is] expensive, the people are more likely to do the wrong thing.
Earlier in her interview with Steve Paikin on TVO’s The Agenda, Saxe was asked what had been the highlight of COP21, the UN’s mega climate conference that she attended in Paris last December. She said:
The highlight was reaching the agreement. That was an extraordinary achievement…it was an incredible achievement…in terms of a real tipping point for both national governments, and sub-nationals and non-state actors around the world. It was astonishing!
Of course, we all know it was a total non-agreement, but one that nonetheless will be used by the powers that be to rationalize imposing further coercive, extortionist measures to “save the planet.”
When Paikin asked Saxe what were some of the “neat ideas” that came out of the conference, she replied:
Portfolio decarbonization initiative, which is the recognition by big money managers around the world that ignoring the risk of carbon is now impermissible because there are physical risks, there are liability risks, there are stranded asset risks, and there are reputational risks which are now a necessary part of fiduciary duty of any money manager in the world.
Insanity! It’s a UN-led initiative, of course. Bear in mind, that “carbon” is carbon dioxide, i.e. plant food. So, money managers are supposed to advise clients to divest themselves of any stocks associated with the production of a harmless trace gas, without which there would be no life on earth.
Of course, no TVO discussion about the climate would be complete without the usual scaremongering idiocy about how we are all climate-doomed. Saxe obliged:
The most frightening thing in Paris was learning about the science. I thought that I was pretty up-to-date with how bad things are and how fast things are moving when in fact things are much worse than I thought.
And one of the biggest factors is that in this entire process of planning ahead of how bad it’s going to be, we have left out one of the biggest sources of carbon in the world, which is the melting of the permafrost. So the challenge is even bigger than we knew, the urgency is greater.
But climate changes naturally all the time. And there has been no global warming for almost 19 years now. So if the permafrost is melting, it ain’t your fault. There are other reasons for it, such as natural climate phenomena and fluctuations.
And please, don’t neglect to mention recent weather events as being proof of manmade climate change! Saxe had a good one:
It probably helps that right in the middle of the conference there were $5 billion worth of floods around the world, $4 billion alone in India, the huge flood in northern England…it seized people’s attention.
“Helps”? That’s a rather cruel, callous, opportunistic view of what the poor Brits endured, losing their possessions and homes on their water-logged Boxing Day. Actually, the floods in northern England were caused not by manmade climate change but by government negligence, mandated by the EU directives (based on misbegotten UN-driven “climate change” ideology) to stop the traditional flood-control dredging of rivers. But don’t let facts get in the way of a sensational phony narrative.
And, of course, don’t forget to wring your hands over the grandchildren—again! Saxe made sure they got the usual warmist’s shout-out:
In 1992 when I went to the Rio conference we thought we were talking about a problem that would matter to our grandchildren. In 2015 we realized it’s a problem for us all right now, and moving fast.
Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner checked the usual boxes in the “climate change” catechism:
- the evils (imaginary) of greenhouse gas “pollution”
- it’s your fault, and you must be punished and pay
- put a “price” on “carbon,” i.e. tax you, and then tax you again
- decarbonization of everything, i.e. stop economic growth
- believe “the science,” but only if it’s UN-authorized
- weather is proof of manmade “climate change”: heavy rain causing floods, etc
- urgency (because “the science” is supposedly beyond debate and settled)
- think of the poor little grandchildren, i.e. emotional blackmail
Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner is obviously a devoted believer in the church of manmade global warming. (She has to be—it’s the second mandate listed on her job description.) So, Dianne Saxe will have to help the Liberal government that appointed her force Wynne-beleaguered Ontarians to do the wrong “right thing.”
No-one has died because of the non-existent problem of manmade climate change. But, as a direct result of the group-think focus and the $1.5 trillion annually being piled on the UN’s climate fabrication, combined with the willfully irresponsible neglect of the real problems in the world, people are dying* needlessly, callously sacrificed on the altar of the most massive scientific fraud ever perpetrated.
This is reprehensible.
Proponents of manmade climate change pretend and posture that they are nobly helping the poor, the disadvantaged. Nothing could be further from the truth. For example, they deny people the life-giving, life-enhancing benefits of fossil fuels, condemning some 1.2 billion folks with no electricity, and another 2.6 billion without clean cooking facilities, to further horrific human misery, severe quality-of-life deprivation, and early death. They co-opt agricultural, food-growing land to cultivate polluting biofuels, adding to food shortages and starvation. Perhaps that’s all just fine with the warmists, because part of their agenda includes de-population. Just let ‘em rot, let ’em die—problem solved.
Here’s another example of manmade climate change-obsessed negligence in addressing genuine, serious problems facing the disadvantaged. According to the CBC’s The Sunday Edition, the World Health Organization says that 70% of the 35 million people living with HIV/AIDS are situated in sub-Saharan Africa.
Although the African AIDS epidemic no longer makes the headlines, tens of millions are still living with HIV, and many more are at risk of infection. A disproportionate number of those affected are young women and children. In some countries, girls are more than five times more likely than boys to become HIV positive.
Two HIV/AIDS activists and community leaders, Vuyiseka Dubula of South Africa and Dorothy Onyango of Kenya, spoke to The Sunday Edition’s Michael Enright about their difficult work.
CBC host Michael Enright asks (at 27:25): “There has been a limit to the amount of money coming in from other governments…it’s flatlined in a sense. Why is that?”
Good question, CBC, and here is the answer:
What they are saying is that HIV is no longer a disaster, but for us we know it is, because the communities that have been affected are still suffering. We have orphans, we have grandmothers taking care of persons living with HIV, orphans living with HIV…the young are being affected every other day. So for us, there is still a lot of work, we still need money for HIV. But they have other priorities. They are looking at global warming. They are looking at environmental things.
The host interrupts Vuyiseka Dubula as she tries to get that last sentence out. Manmade climate change propagandist CBC probably would prefer not to hear anything like that.
Vuyiseka Dubula goes on to make the point that if the people like her and their boots-on-the-ground activist communities and grass roots organizations disappear due to lack of international government financial support “there will be no change” in the fight to prevent and eradicate HIV/AIDS.
CBC: “And what will happen then?”
The stark, chilling answer from Dorothy Onyango:
People will die. We’ll go back to where we were before. It means everybody…who is on treatment will actually die. So it means we will be starting again…the epidemic will continue.
Unfortunately everyone is in the hype of climate change… By the time you come back from climate change to AIDS, there is nobody. People have died. You now have to repair the whole of society.
How many more lives are going to be stunted, tormented, sacrificed and lost while in Paris the world’s leaders bask and pose blindly, devoutly in the sickly, fake, corrupting “green” glow of the UN climate emperors sans clothes?
…the solutions we’ve already rushed into are doing real harm, not only to poor people but to the environment – the biofuels programme has probably killed 190,000 people a year by…increasing the price of food and putting pressure on rainforests and things like that, and we are at the moment constraining aid to developing countries for building fossil fuel power stations. Well, that’s keeping a lot of people mired in the problem where they cook over open wood fires, which not only destroys rainforests but also kills more than three million people a year because of the effects of indoor air pollution.
Climate change shocker: “It’s not a scientific question, it’s connecting what’s in our heads with what’s in our hearts”
Who knew that the UN’s IPCC two-degree Celsius threshold for manmade global warming, above which the earth will supposedly burn up, is a “values” proposition, not an evidence-based, scientifically-derived, empirically-established number!
The two-degree threshold doesn’t really come come from climate scientists… What we consider dangerous is not a scientific question—it’s a values question. It has to do more with…what’s in our hearts and what’s in our heads… We knew all the facts we needed to take action fifty years ago… People are starting to recognize this isn’t just a science issue, this isn’t just a policy issue. Climate change is an issue of connecting what’s in our heads with what’s in our hearts.
So says Canadian Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University.
This is the latest, perhaps the kookiest attempt by believers in the Church of Manmade Climate Change to minimize and sideline science and the scientific method.
Hayhoe is in effect saying that the two-degree Celsius threshold is a made-up number, without the benefit of scientific investigation. And that is exactly how it was arrived at: Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the Pope’s special science advisor, described as the father of the two-degree target, has admitted it. “Yes, I plead guilty. Two degrees is not a magical limit—it’s clearly a political goal.”
As the UN’s Ottmar Edenhofer has conceded, climate policy is about redistributing wealth: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
The UN’s climate high priestess, Christiana Figueres, has imperiously stated that the UN is “setting…the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
In other words, forget any pretense that there is a global climate emergency based on rigorous scientific inquiry. It was and is a deliberately fabricated rationale for an unprecedented grab for global governance, coercing pernicious wealth transfer, erasing national sovereignty, and ending personal freedoms. That’s what the UN’s Paris climate fest, COP21, is all about. Not to “save the planet,” not to lift billions of people out of abject, electricity-free poverty, not to make a better world for your grandchildren.
Think about that as the crazed emissions waft out of Paris over the next two weeks: the posturing, the fawning, the preening, the dramatics, the apocalyptic predictions, the mendacity, the hypocrisy, the propaganda, the deliberate evil of it all.
Perpetuating the massive deception of a planetary climate emergency
It goes without saying that most rational people with a reasonable amount of common sense worry about pollution and want to keep our environment healthy and habitable. So why do the radical environmentalists and the man-made climate change/anthropogenic global warming (AGW) alarmist crowd choose to outright lie about the problems facing us?
The UN’s IPCC, the extreme-green groups, the mainstream media, the UN-dependent scientists, academia, and politicians are all perpetuating the massive deception of the unproven hypothesis of man-made climate change/anthropogenic global warming, and use it as supposed evidence of a cataclysmic global emergency demanding extreme measures and the surrender of our rights, freedoms, and money.
The AGW movement, a quasi-religious, political, ideological one, is supported by many celebrity acolytes who, by virtue of being famous people, garner huge publicity for the cause whenever they parrot the climate change dogma. This high-minded entertainment fodder has ripple effects that are far from trivial. Mindless celebrity regurgitation of the man-made climate change/AGW catechism, in the seeming absence on their part of any serious effort to study the issues, has grave consequences that affect people, the environment, the economy, wildlife, human rights, and democracy. The celebrity flag-waving on behalf of the AGW movement also serves to exacerbate the corruption of science and the scientific method for political purposes. That’s when things get dangerous and evil. Michael Crichton explained:
When we allow science to become political then we are lost. We will enter the internet version of the Dark Ages, an era of stifling fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don’t know any better.
Celebrated author and poet Margaret Atwood has over half a million Twitter followers; Elizabeth May is an MP and the leader of the Green Party of Canada; Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist, syndicated columnist, and bestselling author. The three of them enjoy extensive national and international media exposure and public speaking opportunities. They are high-profile Canadians who have earned fame, honours, public respect and trust. They choose to voice their opinions on the subject of man-made climate change/AGW, a matter of public interest, on a variety of public platforms.
That being the case, shouldn’t the moral onus be on them to get at all the facts before they presume to preach to the people? Don’t they have an ethical duty to do their best to tell the truth if they want to try to influence public opinion and policy with their lecturing, moralizing, castigating, laying blame, and telling us how to live?
Atwood, May, and Klein appear to believe that the unproven hypothesis of made-made climate change/AGW is a fact beyond doubt. They tend to ascribe any and all weather events to AGW, even though the five standard global datasets (GISS, HadCRUT4, UAH, RSS, NCDC, comprising two satellite and three terrestrial datasets) that measure global warming have not recorded any increase for the last 18 years. Apparently, Atwood, May, and Klein are not aware of this 18-year-long development, or if they are, they choose not to mention it—because if they did, their doom-and-gloom exhortations would fall flat. They don’t explain that climate changes all the time, always has, always will—it’s natural.
The three celebrities demonize “carbon” and carry on about our “carbon footprint” and “carbon credits” and “carbon pollution” but never explain what they mean by “carbon.” They don’t seem to know, or choose not to acknowledge, that the “carbon” involved in the climate change debate is carbon dioxide (CO2), a harmless, invisible trace gas (constituting 0.04% of the atmosphere), vital to life on earth. Carbon dioxide is plant food—not a pollutant. And since they don’t mention that there hasn’t been any warming for 18 years, they also don’t tell you that during that time, the levels of carbon dioxide (allegedly the cause of global warming) have gone up. That’s a rather inconvenient fact if you want to demonize CO2 as the driver of man-made global warming/climate change!
Margaret Atwood: Hell on earth, a scary scenario
Last November, Margaret Atwood published an odd article on climate change in Huffington Post, in which she asserted:
Conditions around the world are being altered much faster than was formerly predicted…It’s a scary scenario, and we’re largely unprepared.
If, by “formerly predicted,” Atwood is referring to the dire prognostications of the UN’s IPCC faulty climate models, the truth is that every single one of them has actually turned out to be spectacularly wrong. Undeterred, Atwood doubles down and fast forwards the occurrence of the predicted conditions (she does not specify what they are) that have failed to materialize, providing no sources for her claims. The truth is that whatever weather and climate events have occurred within the last decade and a half cannot be blamed on AGW, because there hasn’t been any warming for 18 years and counting.
In the same article, Atwood makes a bizarre, not to mention irresponsible and naive suggestion. In reference to absorption of excess rainfall, she opines that “In cities, depaving could help.” (What? Would she advocate “depaving” and turning her hometown Toronto into Muddy York again?) Atwood obviously does not seem to know (or care?) that a major source of particulate pollution is unpaved roads!
Margaret Atwood regularly tweets about things related to “climate change,” by which she means man-made climate change. For example, in one tweet she asserts that climate change is partly “at root of Toledo water pollution.” In another, she urges her 529,000 Twitter followers to sign and re-tweet a petition to phase out “carbon pollution to zero,” lest “climate change accelerate beyond our control, threatening our survival.” She is also joining David Suzuki’s Blue Dot tour (she’s an honourary member of the board of the David Suzuki Foundation), designed to “see every Canadian’s right to live in a healthy environment legally recognized” (emphasis added—sounds reasonable, but you can be sure that whatever “legally” really means, it will probably entail “depaving,” along with edicts, diktats, and intrusive, Big Brother smart-controls on how you may live your life).
Margaret Atwood is a President of the Rare Bird Club of BirdLife International and she has tweeted about saving vultures from poisoning, and spoken out about protecting Amherst Island (and Ostrander Point) in Ontario from industrial wind turbines:
I was horrified to hear of the proposal to blanket Amherst Island with wind turbines…The need to reduce our carbon footprint is widely known, but the destruction of rare natural habitat and species is not the way to do it. Amherst Island is the wrong place for a windfarm. It is a very wrong place.
Of course, as anyone who has taken a good look at the wind energy industry knows, there is no right place for the useless satanic white windmills, which kill birds and bats in catastrophic numbers wherever they are located. Why doesn’t Atwood tell the whole truth about how all industrial wind turbines brutally slice and dice any avian creatures that get in their way (ironically while actually adding to CO2 emissions)? What kind of activist bird lover is she? And doesn’t she see all the other devastating environmental, social, and economic evils the monster machines represent? (Talk about “depaving”! Each industrial wind turbine requires an 800-ton concrete platform, and that is just the beginning of how un-green those useless, eco-dirty things really are.)
The terrible irony is that Margaret Atwood has written novels about dystopian worlds, and that with her AGW activism she seems to be helping to create a real one. She says her novels are “speculative fiction” about worlds that “could really happen.“ Atwood has written that speculative fiction can:
…explore proposed changes in social organisation, by showing what they might actually be like for those living within them. Thus, the utopia and the dystopia, which have proved over and over again that we have a better idea about how to make hell on earth than we do about how to make heaven.
But Atwood seems unable to recognize that the man-made climate change movement, in which she is a celebrity activist, and the AGW ideology for which she is a high-profile advocate, have been deliberately conceived and engineered as the phoney rationale for a dystopian UN objective (“hell on earth”), as outlined in its master plan for world governance, Agenda 21. This plan would curtail, if not eliminate, not only our democratic rights but also our country’s very sovereignty; it’s a plan to inventory and control everything and everyone on the planet. And this plan not only “could really happen”—it really is happening right now; in fact, it began to be slowly, stealthily implemented more than 20 years ago.
That is the real “scary scenario.”
Margaret Atwood and all the other AGW celebrity acolytes seem to be completely oblivious to the big picture as they go about aiding and abetting the greatest scientific deception of our time. Atwood has written: “There’s a new term, cli-fi (for climate fiction, a play on sci-fi), that’s being used to describe books in which an altered climate is part of the plot.” With her high-profile AGW activism she is helping to perpetuate the real-life AGW climate fiction—a fiction that in Ontario has already cost billions of dollars in the name of green energy, diverted attention and resources from genuine, urgent problems facing us, inflicted untold suffering on people, stalled the economy, blighted the environment, killed wildlife.
Those are real “hell on earth” consequences.
Elizabeth May: Giving voice to nonsense
Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada, claims:
The Green party is the only party that bases its policies on evidence. That is why we may take positions ahead of the “group-think” curve…We have been consistent about climate policies, while other parties treat the greatest threat to our children’s future as a passing fad.
If May’s claim about her party’s evidence-based policies is true, and she sees it as her job “to communicate the science,” why hasn’t she admitted that the evidence and science show that there has not been any global warming for 18 years? It appears that May is “consistent about climate policies” to the extent that she consistently and mindlessly (as in “group-think”) repeats false, long-ago debunked predictions (“greatest threat to our children’s future”), while apparently failing to understand, or deliberately ignoring, the latest scientific findings.
In an April interview on CBC TV, Canada’s public broadcaster, Elizabeth May lauds the IPCC, which is actually a political body masquerading as a scientific one, for part three of its Fifth Assessment Report:
It’s science, it’s evidence, it’s not someone’s opinion…based on evidence, based on science, these aren’t a group of people who get together and look in a crystal ball…this is scientific warnings that are based on what is happening now.
As we have mentioned, all of the climate model predictions the IPCC uses to formulate its reports for policy makers—predictions which are actually nothing more than opinions, the equivalent of looking into a crystal ball—have failed. None of the climate models have agreed with the observed data, i.e. the empirical scientific evidence.
Does May not know this, or is she deliberately obfuscating the truth? Either way, it doesn’t make her look good. And by “what is happening now,” does she mean that the “serious threat,” with which she tries to scare Canadians, and “the risk for security, the risks of failed states, the risk of a collapse of civilization” are actually unfolding now, at a time when global warming, supposedly the cause of all the doom-and-gloom, has not happened for 18 years? If there hasn’t been any global warming for almost two decades, how can whatever is “happening now” have been caused by it? May’s rhetoric, misinformation, and apocalypse-mongering are deeply irresponsible, reckless, and harmful.
In the interview (see it to believe it), and in what seems like a breezily sanctimonious, arrogant, holier-than-thou tone, Elizabeth May goes on to make the astonishing statement that “99.5% of the scientists who know the issue” agree that climate change is man-made. This claim has been debunked many times over (and just like Pinocchio’s nose, the original phoney statistic of 97% seems to get bigger every time someone cites it). And yet, here is Elizabeth May on national television telling viewers something that is simply not true. Perhaps she thinks she’s in good company because everyone from President Obama down with a vested interest in maintaining the fiction continues to make the same bogus claim. Needless to say, and as usual, the CBC interviewer, in this case Peter Mansbridge—probably because he isn’t informed but given his position certainly ought to be—doesn’t challenge her on the untruth.
And it gets worse. May says that the “denier industry was invented by the fossil fuel industry lobby.” She seems to be proud of her knowledge of “the science,” as she calls it:
I learned the climate science when I was a senior policy advisor for the Minister of the Environment in the 1980s. We were looking at all the science that was coming in from all around the world, and it was before anyone had “invented”* the idea that there was doubt. The “invention”* of doubt was a product of the fossil fuel lobby that decided after the Earth Summit and after the Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed…then they decided, oh oh, this could cut into profits, we’d better invent doubt…
*[May employs air quotes.]
What’s astonishing here is May’s smug, self-satisfied conviction that the doubt could only have been manufactured by an avaricious, manipulative fossil fuel industry bogeyman, and not perhaps have come out of the rigorous research of honest climate scientists, (as, for example, Canadian Dr. Tim Ball), who adhere to the scientific method in which healthy, questioning, intelligent scepticism plays an indispensable role. And, if she really does know “the science” as she claims, why is she not telling the truth that there are sound scientific findings out there that invalidate the AGW hypothesis?
May also displays an unbelievably patronizing attitude about people who question the fiction that she promotes:
So when I talk to people who aren’t convinced, I’m very respectful because I understand that a lot of good people have gotten one little bit of information that seems plausible and have allowed that to morph into their head into some level of large-scale doubt about the science. If we had a lobby that wanted to deny the laws of gravity and the media decided to give them equal voice…that’s the level of the science debate. We shouldn’t be giving voice to nonsense.
Wow! Look at the poor saps who have that one little “plausible” thing morph into a huge, doubtful balloon in their heads! Let’s censor the ones who let it fester and want to talk to the media about it! Who is actually being granted a national platform and given voice to nonsense here? The irony is that the mainstream media, including our taxpayer-funded national broadcaster the CBC, have given scant, if any voice to the fine scientists and other experts who have not been corrupted into toeing the party line of man-made climate change.
Elizabeth May is a national political figure who holds herself out to be an expert who knows “the science,” but seems to be getting away with disseminating serious misinformation, with the CBC’s vaunted Peter Mansbridge uttering nary a peep of a challenge. This is a national disgrace. Pity the young people, because as she indicates in the interview, she speaks to (indoctrinates?) them in places where they are a captive audience, as she puts it, and they are forced to listen to her nonsensical, apocalyptic view of their future.
Naomi Klein: A death sentence for the planet
In the media and in her latest book, This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, Naomi Klein does a good job as an AGW alarmist, with what some might even say is histrionic fear mongering. A sampling:
…keep warming below catastrophic levels,” “…this crisis continues to be existentially terrifying,” “…in the midst of a climate emergency,” “…we’re on a four-to-six-degree temperature trajectory. To be in decade zero, and out of time,” “…a clear and present danger to civilization, “…a death sentence for the planet,” “…a weapon of mass destruction,” “…the road we’re on…will lead us to a greater brutality..to a world of a kind of disaster apartheid I think we caught a glimpse of with Hurricane Katrina.
When it comes to the climate, Klein also seems to have a problem understanding or telling the truth. She claims to have “immersed myself in the science and politics of climate change.” But she doesn’t appear to be interested in facts: “It’s that I don’t want quibbling about the science. This is how a lot of the debate gets derailed. I don’t want to be derailed with quibbles about how many hurricanes there were in 2012.” (Could that be because, inconveniently, statistics show that there have been a lot fewer hurricanes and other extreme weather events than the AGW believers claim to be the consequences of man-made climate change?) In a recent CBC radio interview, she quotes Michael Mann, “the famed climate scientist” of the Hockey Stick debacle who apparently employed statistical tricks to produce a misleading graph of global warming history—the graph was used extensively as a propaganda tool to fuel the man-made global warming hype. Perhaps Klein doesn’t know that two Canadians, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, exposed the manipulations:
What they found was that 99% of the time you could process random data using Mann’s techniques and it would generate a Hockey Stick shape. This meant that Mann’s claim that the Hockey Stick graph represented an accurate reconstruction of the past climate was in tatters.
Given Klein’s Jewish heritage, it’s hard to understand how she can use the odious term “deniers,” with its terrible allusion to the Holocaust, when referring to the learned climate scientists and others who have demonstrated that the scientific data do not support the hypothesis of man-made global warming/climate change: “We focus too much on climate deniers,” she says. The use of this nasty ad hominem label has led to outrageous excesses, such as a sickening ad for the upcoming climate march in New York City, wherein it’s implied that respected scientists, other experts, and ordinary people who think for themselves and who happen not to agree that the scientific data support the unproven hypothesis of man-made climate change are tolerant of genocide.
Klein advocates “deep changes to our political and economic system.” She says, “Core inequalities need to be tackled through redistribution of wealth and technology” and bemoans that we seem to be “incapable of responding collectively to an existential crisis and incapable of acting collectively for a greater good.” The socialist/communist plan of action she’s apparently advocating appears to be in line with the UN’s Agenda 21 objectives, which Canadian Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme (now resident of communist China when he’s not being fêted in Toronto by celebrity and former Canadian governor-general Adrienne Clarkson as “a true Canadian gem” who “invented the environment”) took a lead in formulating when he said:
Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?
That would be a real death sentence for the planet.
The grave consequences of celebrities thinking that star power doesn’t need the truth
Of course, Margaret Atwood, Elizabeth May, and Naomi Klein aren’t the only Canadian celebrities chastising us for not “believing in” the religion of man-made climate change or doing enough about it. There are many others, including the publicly-lionized David Suzuki, another pseudo-expert on climate science whose shocking and appalling lack of knowledge on the subject was exposed to world-wide ridicule on Australian national television last September. (Watch the video or read the transcript here.)
Do any of the celebrities ever stop to think about the damage they cause by failing to do their homework and study the issues before recklessly and irresponsibly taking their uninformed opinions on the road?
Do they have any inkling that what they say, write, tweet, or sing in public forums may help to bring about and sustain, for example, the miserable realities of trying to live amidst industrial wind turbines which have been forced on rural residents as a direct result of the deception of man-made climate change posing a planetary emergency, thus supposedly necessitating special, draconian, democratic-rights-robbing legislation which gives the wind industry unprecedented rights to despoil prime farmland, expropriate land, kill wildlife, adversely affect people’s health, destabilize the electrical grid, fracture communities, devalue property, and allows it to enjoy 20-year guaranteed, significantly above-market returns on investment, courtesy of the taxpayers?
People are suffering badly for a big, celebrity-enabled lie, and losing their rights, their jobs, their homes, their communities, their environment, their way of life, their money.
Celebrity acolytes and advocates of man-made climate change, with their hysterical exaggerations, outrageous fear mongering, blatant misinformation, and bald-faced untruths have to take a good look at themselves and their role in the terrible consequences of helping to propagate the greatest scientific deception of all time.
In a discussion about pipelines and energy policy on the CBC’s radio program The House yesterday, Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada, spoke of a horror so freaking unspeakable that Canadians haven’t even been told about it yet, so gut-wrenchingly gruesome that she did not want to describe it, so certain-end-of-life doomsday that she couldn’t “go there”:
Energy security for Canada in the context of reducing greenhouse gases….the International Energy Agency has said – and this is very important to know – they have said that of all the fossils fuels we know about, two-thirds of them must remain in the ground ’til at least 2050.
In other words, if we want to avoid levels of climate change and climate crisis that exceed anything that Canadians have been told about yet, that become so disruptive to our economy, disruptive to our lifestyles, we don’t want to describe it because we don’t want to go there.
To avoid those levels of catastrophic, destabilizing climate crisis, two-thirds of all known reserves of fossil fuels of all kinds must remain in the ground ’til at least mid-century.
Needless to say, the premise for Elizabeth May’s baseless, dire warning went, as usual, unchallenged by the CBC, in this case by guest-host Terry Milewski, because it would appear that at our national broadcaster, as with most other mainstream media, the fiction of man-made, CO2-caused climate change (now climate crisis, formerly known as global warming) is accepted as an indisputable, scientific fact. Listen here, at approximately the 11:00 mark.
In case you are not up to speed on the facts of global warming/climate change/climate crisis, check out the following:
You can verify this yourself: carbon dioxide or CO2, a greenhouse gas, has not been proven to cause global warming, because interestingly, during those 17 years and 10 months with no warming, CO2 levels did rise. Another salient point is that when there was some warming before it stopped more than 17 years ago, CO2 levels were found to have risen AFTER the warming, not before. Ergo, CO2 cannot be, or have been, or will be the cause of any global warming in the past or in Elizabeth May’s doom-laden future.
Of course, as Elizabeth May and the CBC and the International Energy Agency (and Wynne/McGuinty and Suzuki and Gore and Obama, et alia) should know, but maybe they don’t, CO2 is not a pollutant. It’s a harmless trace gas that is essential to life on earth as plant food, constituting a mere .038% of the atmosphere.
The demonization of CO2, and everything that follows from that great, deliberate deception, will continue as long as people remain willfully ignorant, or blind, or biased, or corrupt, or just plain evil.