Tag Archive | carbon dioxide

Ontario’s creepy manmade climate change ad campaign, by and for dummies

(Screen capture from Green Ontario Fund video)

Ontario’s Green Ontario Fund ad campaign is moronic and repellant, not to mention based on an utterly dishonest premise.

strategy™, an online marketing news outlet, describes the 30-second spots as “lighthearted” and “humorous,” featuring “comically small feet – a play on carbon footprint.”

The ads are actually hideous and grotesque, unappealing and unsettling. They depict normal-sized adults with deformed, teensy doll’s feet, virtue-signalling and spouting nonsense about their reduced “carbon footprint.”

(Screen capture from Green Ontario Fund video)

Of course, the much demonized “carbon” refers to carbon dioxide, which any reasonably educated person understands to be a non-polluting trace gas, invisible and odourless, a beneficial and essential plant food, without which there would be no life on earth.

The Ontario government, along with the entire Climate Change Alarmist Industrial Complex around the world, continues to pervert basic scientific knowledge and vilify harmless carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant scorching the earth. And sad to say, the politicians, professors, priests, pundits, and the press play along, as if the putrid-green emperor actually has a foot to stand on.

These sick ads insult people’s intelligence and are morally repugnant. Worse is the perpetuation of the massive scientific deception of manmade global warming and its fake-science rationale for monstrous anti-democratic, command-and-control social engineering and kleptocratic policies.

The biggest Fake News of the last 30 years: Manmade global warming

img_2101

A sign in Queen’s Park, just steps away from the Ontario Legislative Building, proves the gargantuan fakery of manmade climate change. It reads in part:

THE NATURAL HISTORY OF QUEEN’S PARK

15,000 years ago, all of Ontario was covered by glacial ice measuring up to 1.5 km thick. Lake Iroquois formed when these glaciers receded…This glacial lake eventually receded to the level of Lake Ontario.

Climate changed naturally throughout the eons. Always has, always will.

The biggest lie central to the Fake Climate News narrative, devoid of scientific-method-derived empirical evidence, is that carbon dioxide, CO2, is responsible for manmade climate change, the cause of catastrophic extreme weather events that in reality have occurred only inside rigged climate computer models. None have been borne out by real-world observations and empirical evidence.

Carbon dioxide, the life-giving, invisible, odorless trace gas plant food, has been deliberately demonized and vilified as “carbon pollution,” “carbon emissions,” “GHG emissions,” where a deadly “carbon footprint” is every human’s original sin and which, according to the eco-freak pundits unchallenged on the “climate change” propagandist state broadcaster CBC, has “people dying by the hand of carbon emitters.“

Fake Climate News is the pretext for the draconian control-and-command “mitigation measures” of the Liberals’ fraudulent-green energy policies, enabled by anti-democratic and anti-human legislation such as the Green Energy Act in Ontario.

As JoNova writes:

The religious mission against plant fertilizer in the hope of holding back the tide by half a millimeter in 2100 is noxious, damaging, dangerous in so many ways. It deprives the poor of cheap energy, good jobs, and warm houses.

The evil climate fakery has spawned a massive, corrupt, $1.5 trillion worldwide climate change industry. In Ontario, the Liberals’ phoney-green energy policies have caused punishing electricity costs and plunged citizens into gut-wrenching energy poverty. Unmoved, the Ontario Liberals continue to oppress and impoverish Ontarians with their useless, destructive, pernicious industrial wind energy fiasco. To make matters worse, the Liberals have imposed what is effectively a callous, irresponsible carbon tax (on thin air) which itself is subject to a further Harmonized Sales Tax (HST)!

Just how useless and wasteful industrial wind turbines are is detailed in a December 2016 report submitted by Strategic Policy Economics (Strapolec) in response to the Ontario Ministry of Energy’s formal review of its Long-Term Energy Plan (LTEP). It provides a shocking analysis.

For the report, Strapolec developed a simulation to show how “supply options could interact to supply the anticipated demand.”

Key assumptions and findings with respect to industrial wind turbines (emphasis added):

Page 9:

  • intermittent solar and wind generation…sources require significant backup/storage and entail other integration costs.

Page 13:

  • …wind generation…results in a surplus electricity.

Page 14:

  • Wind generation production will be intermittent.
  • Wind in Ontario tends to arise at similar and coincidental times across the province.
  • Wind is deemed surplus to the hydro or nuclear generation.
  • Imports are called upon to meet the winter ramp if there is insufficient wind production.
  • …wind may be able to “fill in” with the future imports, but does not integrate well with baseload hydro or nuclear.
  • This intermittency results in over 40% of the wind generation becoming surplus generation

Page 20:

  • The significant increase in wind capacity in the OPO [Ontario Planning Outlook] is questionable on three counts:
    • Wind generation has not matched demand since its introduction in Ontario;
    • Over 70% of wind generation does not benefit Ontario’s supply capability: and,
    • Wind generation will not match demand in the OPO future projections as 50% of the forecasted production is expected to be surplus.
  • Figure 16 compares wind generation patterns to Ontario demand for the period of 2013 to 2015. Over this three-year period, wind generation has increased in the spring and fall when Ontario doesn’t need the supply, and is at its lowest when Ontario needs it most in summer. Peaking in the fall, wind generation does not contribute to its full supply capacity throughout the higher winter demand period. Wind cannot be matched to demand. With the forecasted winter-heavy demand profile, the contrast between wind generation and demand in winter will become as stark as those in the summer.

Page 21:

  • This mismatch leads to surplus energy.
  • When wind generation is present in Ontario, it causes three distinct reactions of similar magnitude in the dispatch of Ontario’s supply resources:
    •  Curtailment (waste) of both nuclear and hydro;
    •  Export of wind generated electricity at prices well below cost of production; and
    •  Reduction of natural gas-fired generation.

Page 22:

  • Total useful wind energy therefore represents 4.3 TWh, or 47%, of the wind generation in Ontario. Over 50% of wind generation in Ontario is not productively used by Ontarians. It could be viewed as being wasted through curtailments and/or via uneconomic exports to neighbouring jurisdictions.
  • …historical surplus wind generation is reflected in the production forecast in the OPO D1 and D3 options. These results indicate that 40% to 55% of the planned wind capacity in the OPO may be surplus. This is a very important consideration given that the LTEP focuses on the lowest possible cost future. If wind generation can only be productively used 50% of the time, then its unit cost doubles to $172/MWh from the $86/MWh assumed in the OPO. This suggests that wind generation is the most expensive generation option for Ontario, not including the Tx related costs and other integration issues described in the OPO. Wind and imports represent the two most expensive options in the OPO, yet these options are given significant weight in the OPO. The LTEP process should address this contradiction.

Page 42:

  • The limitations related to wind generation’s contribution to Ontario’s clean supply mix were discussed earlier in this report.

Page 56:

  • …it can be argued that given the natural flow of…wind patterns, as described in Section 3.0, demand does not match these supply resources, and requires either large reservoirs or backup facilities to function.

Page 57:

  • The wind and solar costs in the OPO are deceiving, as outlined earlier. The full cost associated with wind’s variable production profile is $172/MhW…

Page 58:

  • Opposition to wind projects has been evident in Ontario and other jurisdictions. Specific concerns have been expressed about human health impacts, nuisance effects related to noise and the visual presence of the wind turbines on the landscape, bird deaths and disturbance to the habitat of rare fauna and flora.
  • Research is underway in several jurisdictions e.g., Germany and Sweden related to the decommissioning, recycling and disposal of wind turbines and the associated infrastructure.
  • No clear accountability and or funding arrangements are evident in Ontario to manage the decommissioning, recycling and disposal of components of existing and or planned wind projects.

The Strapolec report, damning as it is of the non-efficacy of industrial wind turbines, is predicated on the fiction that

the urgency to combat climate change is now fully acknowledged by all key actors. To reverse the impacts of global warming, deep decarbonization of the global economy is now a priority for government action. Electrification across all economic sectors is considered a critical enabler for transitioning Ontario to a low carbon energy future. The LTEP’s role is to provide for the energy infrastructure that will facilitate this transition.

The report provides an awful lot of technical analysis and deep thinking about how to craft an energy mix that will effectively “fight” what is actually a non-existent problem of manmade climate change. However, it is very valuable with respect to pointing out that the industrial wind turbine industry, as one of the climate industry’s fake-green energy “alternatives,” is utterly useless, actually damaging, economically speaking, not to mention destructive in every conceivable way for humans, communities, the land, and wildlife—birds and bats catastrophically so.

In December 2016, Ontario’s auditor general, Bonnie Lysyk revealed that

ratepayers forked out $37 billion more than necessary from 2006 to 2014 and will spend an additional $133 billion by 2032 due to global adjustment electricity fees on hydro bills.

Meanwhile, the provincial and federal Liberals, instead of addressing real environmental issues, kowtow to the UN-led massive scientific deception, by now a quasi religion, and stupidly, wilfully continue tilting at a deliberately concocted non-existent climate problem, betraying, oppressing, and impoverishing the people they are mandated to serve and protect.

Catherine McKenna, Gina McCarthy: Robotic, misleading catastrophism

IMG_2788

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

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

…low-carbon future

…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

pricing 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.

“Science-based” decisions

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

Perverted, corrupted, damaged, manufactured, outcome-predetermined “science.”

Sustainability flim-flam

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.

Emotional blackmail

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.

The It’s-All-Your-Fault Tax to “fight climate change” and “save the planet”

IMG_8144-2

Carbon tax, carbon price, carbon levy, cap-and-trade, revenue-neutral or not—call it what you will, it is definitely a tax that everyone will pay, one way or another. It’s a You-Are-Guilty-Of-Causing-Manmade-Global-Warming/Manmade-Climate-Change Tax, levied on the carbon dioxide produced by living your life.

Let me list a few of the ways in which it’s all your fault:

  • The It’s-Your-Fault-That-You-Need-To-Stay-Warm-In-Winter-To-Avoid-Freezing-To-Death Tax
  • The It’s-Your-Fault-That-You-Have-To-Drive-For/To-Work-So-You-Can-Earn-A-Living Tax
  • The It’s-Your-Fault-That-You-Choose-To-Cook-Dinner-For-Your-Kids Tax
  • The It’s-Your-Fault-That-You-Make-The-Stuff-That-People-Need-To-Live Tax
  • The It’s-Your-Fault-That-You-Want-To-Wear-Clothes-And-Live-With-Dignity Tax
  • The It’s-Your-Fault-That-You-Don’t-Fancy-Poisoning-Yourself-With-Unrefrigerated-Food Tax
  • The It’s-Your-Fault-That-You-Farm-Crops-And-Raise-Animals-That-Feed-The-People Tax
  • The It’s-Your-Fault-That-You-Need-A-Roof-Over-Your-Head Tax
  • The It’s-Your-Fault-That-You-Want-To-Cross-The-Atlantic-Or-Pacific-Without-Having-To-Swim Tax

And so on, and so on . . . whatever you do, whatever you need is toxic to the Earth, and must be stopped, they say. This political, not scientific, dangerous UN objective, was openly, baldly stated by Marxist and Canadian Maurice Strong, then UN Secretary General of the Earth Summit, at the Rio UN Earth Summit in 1992:

It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class— involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air-conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable.

For “not sustainable,” read “must be eliminated.”  This is just one of the many people-control goals contained in Agenda 21, The United Nations Programme of Action, a non-binding, voluntary sustainable development action plan, agreed to by Canada and 178 other nations in 1992. It has been openly, but quietly, stealthily implemented bit by bit ever since—”globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.” A carbon tax is one of many thousands of steps in this insidious, anti-democratic, anti-human process.

Proponents (in Canada it’s the Prime Minister, the premiers of the provinces, except Brad Wall of Saskatchewan, et alia) of the extortionist carbon tax/price/levy see it as a combo behaviour-modification-and-revenue tool, designed to coerce you into making changes to your supposedly climate-catastrophe-causing habits, force you to pay for your alleged earth-harming ways. They aim to politically-correct you to be socially-just by drastically reducing your standard of living and surrendering your cash. They say they will use the proceeds to “tackle climate change,” “fight climate change,” and  “save the planet” from what, in reality, is a non-existent problem. Aren’t these ridiculous, hubristic, unrealistic goals, when you really think about it? Boondoggle, anyone?

The extortionist carbon tax/price/levy is seen as a combo behaviour-modification-and-revenue tool.

For the eco-self-righteous elite and the ignorant, venal or delusional politicians, inflicting a social justice penalty and punishment tax will teach you a moralistic lesson in original sin (that of your supposedly toxic ”carbon” footprint, caused by your very existence).

A sin-punishing, kleptocratic tax on thin air . . .

The fake rationale for a sin-punishing, kleptocratic tax on thin air is the biggest scientific deception ever perpetrated, namely that manmade CO2 (carbon dioxide) supposedly causes catastrophic manmade global warming and apocalyptic manmade climate change. Human CO2 “emissions,” invisible, odourless, non-polluting though they are (but the eco-poseurs will never say that), need to be curbed or everyone burns up in a super-heated hell on Earth. But consider the following;

  • There has been no global warming for nearly 19 years, during which time CO2 concentrations rose by 10%, therefore rendering the cause-and-effect grounds for carbon taxing/pricing/levying scientifically invalid.
  • The UN’s climate computer model predictions of climate doom-and-devastation have all failed to match real-world empirical evidence.
  • Climate changes naturally all the time, always has, always will.

In short, there is no global climate emergency at all (as Dr. Tim Ball likes to say, it only exists inside the UN IPCC’s (rigged—my word) computer climate models), and, in fact, CO2 is a life-giving, miracle trace gas enabling mankind’s survival.

A carbon tax/price/levy is a pernicious, avaricious, dishonest tax on the carbon dioxide produced by mankind’s activities. Eco-crooks try to make you believe that huge amounts of it are being spewed everywhere. In fact, CO2 is a trace gas comprising a tiny 0.04% of the atmosphere. It is something you exhale. It’s not a pollutant. It’s plant food, vital to life on earth, without which we would not even be here to discuss the carbon tax lunacy.

The end game is . . . UN Agenda 21 . . . communitarian global governance by fiat.

Undeterred by the facts and basic science, the ENGO eco-zealots, self-serving politicians at every level and of every stripe, the unthinking educators, the MSM collaborators, the carbon-propagandist celebs, the co-opted scientists, the UN climate potentates, the woefully uninformed journalists, the corporate appeasers, et alia earnestly discuss the finer points of (unnecessary, ought to be illegal) carbon pricing and procedures, when in fact the whole thing is one gigantic, evil, corrupt charade. The end game is money, power, control, UN Agenda 21, forced wealth transfer, de-population, anti-prosperity, anti-nationalism, totalitarianism, communitarian global governance by fiat.

High time to fight back.

Climate nonsense and sanctimony from Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner

IMG_2896

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.”

The CBC’s science illiteracy and grand delusion of journalistic balance

cbc

Above: CBC’s photo and caption 

Oh, the science-illiterate CBC—Canada’s national broadcaster!

The website of its radio program, The Current, has this caption underneath the photo of a generic scientist:

McGill University’s Joe Schwarcz is doing his best to separate the facts from the myths — relying on a novel technique called the scientific method. (Emphasis added – see above.)

Scientific method a novel technique, CBC?! It’s only been around in its modern form since at least the first half of the 13th century, and its underpinnings go back to Aristotle!

The delicious irony being that this caption is part of a segment that is supposed to be about separating fact from fiction in science reporting and blogging! (The Current‘s guest, Joe Schwarcz, Director of McGill University’s Office for Science & Society, has written a new book that he says is intended to “separate sense from nonsense and to give good, reliable information …”)

A serious problem with the clueless CBC (and, with a few notable exceptions, the majority of the mainstream media) is pretending to be scientifically savvy and journalistically objective when actually woefully uninformed, and biased to boot, especially so when it comes to the hypothesis of manmade climate change.

The fact that the CBC seemingly has zero knowledge about the scientific method explains why it eagerly and ignorantly regurgitates every apocalyptic prediction emanating from the UN/IPCC’s climate computer models that have consistently failed to match real-world evidence and data, and why Canada’s national broadcaster never seems to invite any sceptical scientists or experts to join the discussion.

The Current’s segment highlights the extent of the CBC’s delusion about its journalistic skills and objectivity, and its utter failure to act responsibly in reporting on climate science. In fact, the publicly-funded CBC is one of Canada’s most prominent propaganda organs for promoting the scientifically unproven hypothesis of manmade global warming/manmade climate change and the spectre of a non-existent global climate catastrophe.

The segment starts out reasonably enough. Guest Joe Schwarcz poses the question:

Who is trustworthy? … evaluation of information is paramount … the only way you can do that is by having a solid scientific background, by being aware of the peer-reviewed literature, by being aware of how we in the science community claim to know what we know ….

Later in the segment Joe Schwarcz continues by saying, “We don’t have concrete answers to everything” and “Real scientists don’t make dogmatic remarks.” Then,”real scientist” Joe Schwarcz, Ph.D. in Chemistry, completely contradicts himself and feels free to make a concrete, dogmatic statement about manmade climate change.

Before that, however, Schwarcz opines on journalistic fair balance:

… just because there are diverse opinions on many scientific issues it doesn’t mean that they should carry equal weight . . . but in journalism school, very often the principle is taught that you have to, you know, give attention to both sides of a controversy … write up an article, or do a radio/TV piece, presenting it as if the two sides had equal weight …

At that, Anna Maria Tremonti, host of The Current, seems to want to puff up her journalistic bona fides. She says:

As opposed to dealing with the fact, which is what journalists are also supposed to do … right!

Joe Schwarcz continues:

Exactly! Just because you have differences of opinion doesn’t mean you give them equal weight, because in one case you might have the majority of the scientific community supporting one side, and a few rogue outliers on the other, but very often those rogue outliers are very, very convincing and they speak well because they work at it. Most scientists … are not that interested in kind of describing their work to the public, whereas when you look at the activists … a great deal of effort goes into how they should communicate their information.

Host Anna Maria Tremonti can’t resist that opening:

Well, same with scientists who say that climate change doesn’t exist.

This is an extraordinarily stupid, and grossly irresponsible thing for a CBC host to say! (Also gratuitous—the index in Schwarcz’s new book contains no entry for climate change, or global warming, or environment, or carbon dioxide, or CO2. In other words, he did not discuss the climate debate in his book.) We doubt there is any scientist anywhere, of any stripe, of any ability, who would say that climate change doesn’t exist. In fact, even any non-scientist who has ever heard of the Ice Age will logically conclude that climate changes naturally over time—it always has, and always will. Tremonti made a knee-jerk, flip, uninformed statement, devoid of any serious understanding of the issue at hand, typical of the kind of thoughtless CBC climate debate comment that you can expect to hear (or read) on any of the CBC’s public affairs programs from any of its hosts, at any time of the day or night.

Joe Schwarcz enthusiastically takes the bait of Tremonti’s comment with a “concrete answer” and “dogmatic remark”:

Exactly! And that’s one of the classic examples where articles are written apparently giving equal weight to both sides, and yet, when you speak to scientists who do the work—atmospheric chemists who really are up-to-date on all of the research—they will tell you there is no argument here. Climate change is real, and humans do play a role. (Emphasis added.)

First, it’s not true that the CBC, or the majority of the mainstream media, give “equal weight to both sides” of the climate issue. Most articles or radio/TV pieces are skewed to the alarmist side of the debate. Second, would the climate science “rogue outliers” be someone like real Canadian scientist Dr. Tim Ball, who is “up-to-date on all of the research,” and who does have “a solid scientific background, (is) aware of the peer-reviewed literature, (is) aware of how … the science community claim to know what (they) know”?

In any case, CBC mission accomplished! Once again the scientists and other experts who are sceptical about the hypothesis of manmade climate change have been sufficiently bashed by the CBC host, linking them to “rogue outliers”—or “activists” who worry about how to communicate their information. (Well, yes, when most of the mainstream media completely ignores them they do have to make a concerted effort to alert the public about the willful bias, the lies, the propaganda.)

After discussion of other issues, Anna Maria Tremonti asks:

How much responsibility does the mainstream media have to take for leaping on to, like, a big story and then torquing it or just, like, making it sound like so … so, ah, certain?

Joe Schwarcz answers:

Well, you know, the job of the media is to sell the media, right?

CBC’s Anna Maria Tremonti:

Well, it should be, it should be … but it’s not to sell it. It’s to … um … put out information that we are told by some people is accurate, and they’ve studied it, right? So how do you, you know  …

Joe Schwarcz:

Well, because things that are in the news generate more requests for being in the news. I think it is the job of the media to separate the sense from the nonsense. I think journalists have the task of doing the work but these days, unfortunately, people just want sound bites.

Anna Maria Tremonti changes the subject, and later on asks:

So, why should people trust you and what you are saying rather than the other sources that are out there trying to get attention?

Joe Schwarcz:

Our allegiance is to the scientific method. The only thing that makes a difference is that whatever decision is arrived at, is arrived at through proper scientific methodology, not through hearsay, not through emotion, and not by listening to the all-knowing they-say-that. So, we go by the evidence and that evidence is furnished, of course, by the peer-reviewed literature. It’s not to suggest the peer-reviewed literature is infallible—it isn’t infallible because humans are humans … The referee has to assume that what was submitted is correct … If someone wants to submit fraudulent data, you can get away with it.

If only the CBC would bone up on the scientific method and proper scientific methodology. There are only four basic steps involved. They do not include programming computer climate models to produce a pre-determined outcome that, although consistently failing to match real-world data, is trumpeted as fact. “Who is trustworthy?” When it comes to the climate debate—not the CBC!