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.
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 …
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?
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 ever you wanted additional proof that Ontario’s Premier Kathleen Wynne is a faithful, loyal follower of the U.N.’s bid for global governance, enforced wealth redistribution, de-industrialization, and de-population (all of it aka Agenda 21) by means of a deliberately-fabricated planetary climate emergency, look no further than her tweet today (see above).
- Why was Figueres, an unelected, unaccountable U.N. kommissar, invited to stick her nose into the domestic and sovereign affairs of Canada and Ontario?
In her tweet, she proudly announces meeting with Christiana Figueres, the U.N.’s “climate change” queen, who presumably gave the premier a pat on the head (much like manmade-climate-change-huckster Al Gore did last November) for her latest catastrophic fake-eco move to impose a pernicious “carbon” cap-and-trade scheme on Ontario, which is supposed to somehow dial down the (nonexistent) manmade climate change that is not happening despite the alarmists’ best efforts to have us see what plainly isn’t there. The tweet contains no less than three photos of Wynne posing with the U.N. apparatchik.
So why was Figueres, an unelected, unaccountable U.N. kommissar, invited to stick her nose into the domestic and sovereign affairs of Canada and Ontario anyway? (Not only that, but she was also given a free platform in the National Post to spout her malignant propaganda.)
So there they are, Wynne and Figueres, sitting at the table for their photo op, all smiley-smiley, with Wynne presumably re-pledging fealty to the U.N. climate orthodoxy. The flags of Canada, Ontario, and the U.N. stand guard in a neat row behind them to lend an air of credible dominion to the whole thing.
There’s a direct line of dots connecting the deliberate lies of the U.N.’s Christiana Figueres about “emissions” causing global warming, to the disastrous Wynne-McGuinty phoney-green policies, to the suffering of the people in rural Ontario, victims of the economically useless, environmentally destructive industrial wind turbines, and ending in the economic decline of Ontario and the exploitative taxation and impoverishment of the people.
The real play is not about a better, cleaner environment, but rather about a concerted bid for global governance and control, and in the process destroying democracy, sovereignty, industry, progress, and personal freedom of choice.
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.
We have a crisis, folks, all around London, and it’s getting almost no attention by the politicians, and quite frankly, by the media. (Andy Oudman, CJBK London)
As the skeptics all too painfully know, most of the mainstream media, including public broadcasters like the CBC and TVO, seem to be acting as enthusiastic trumpet blowers for every dire prognostication of doom and gloom made by the UN’s dishonest, disgraceful IPCC on the subject of man-made global warming/climate change.
Climate change as a planetary emergency has been the rationale for the deployment of useless and highly destructive “green” energy alternatives, such as industrial wind turbines. The media have been playing a crucial role in maintaining the fiction, spreading misinformation, giving only one side of the story, essentially propagandizing, and failing to dig deep with journalistic integrity to uncover the big picture.
Rarely will you see or hear learned, educated skeptics, of which there are plenty, invited as guests on any radio or television programs to present their views on the subject of man-made global warming, climate change, industrial wind turbines, or Ontario’s green energy fiasco. A few of the media are the exception proving the rule: the National Post, Financial Post, and Goldhawk Fights Back come to mind as having addressed some of these topics in a non-biased manner.
Today was a great day. A London, Ontario radio station, CJBK, on its program London Today With Andy Oudman, spent most of the morning interviewing people about the ominous social unrest in Southern Ontario caused by the massive proliferation of industrial wind turbine projects. These factories cover huge swaths of prime farmland. The invasion of the towering machines has been aided and abetted by the democracy-robbing Green Energy Act and the heartless see-hear-speak-no-evil attitude of the Ontario Liberal government. The people who live there and who have had to suffer the devastating social and personal consequences, with more to come, have struggled to make their voices heard.
It’s compelling listening:
Protesters joined the remaining migrating tundra swans at the Thedford Bog near Grand Bend, Lake Huron, on Sunday, April 6, 2014, to condemn plans to build a bristling barrier of industrial wind turbines in what is a designated Important Bird Area. Every March some 10-15,000 tundra swans stop at the Thedford Bog and environs to rest and feed before continuing on their migration to the western Arctic.
Waterfowl scientist Dr. Scott Petrie told CBC News in 2012:
By putting the turbines in inappropriate places, it actually is tantamount to habitat loss. You wouldn’t put an office tower next to a coastal wetland, why would you put a wind turbine there?
Monte McNaughton, Progressive Conservative Member of the Provincial Parliament of Ontario (MPP) for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, reminded the protesters that his party’s leader, Tim Hudak, has promised, if elected, to repeal the Green Energy Act, the draconian legislation that has given unprecedented rights to industrial wind turbines over people, communities and wildlife. The Green Energy Act was enacted in 2009 in part as a response to the fake planetary emergency of man-made global warming/climate change.
CLICK ON IMAGE TO PLAY VIDEO (some wind noise)
The Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne Liberal governments have allowed the Ontario landscape to be despoiled and blighted by thousands of useless industrial wind turbines. The machines, towering as high as 50-storey buildings, built on a foundation that requires 800 tons of concrete each that will remain in the ground of prime farmland forever, have been erected in the absence of any cost-benefit analysis or human health studies, and accorded special rights by the Liberal government with its elimination of environmental restrictions inconvenient to wind companies.
Premier Kathleen Wynne has promised to build thousands more of the extortionate-to-taxpayers, destructive, un-green industrial monstrosities.
During the last two weeks or so we’ve had to listen to, watch and read a seemingly extra-concentrated onslaught of scaremongering global warming/climate change news served up by the mainstream media, probably meant to pave the way for greater public acceptance of the doom-gloom contents of the new report – AR5 – by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released today.
Listen to the March 31, 2014 CBC Radio One’s program The Current and you be the judge as to the degree of journalistic balance in its discussion of the IPCC’s AR5 (podcast).
The day before today’s release of the IPCC’s AR5 we finally lost it when, on the CBC’s program The Sunday Edition, host Michael Enright interviewed a Canadian professor at Harvard, David Keith, who is “fighting climate change with geoengineering” by looking at “shooting sulphur particles into the stratosphere to reflect the sun’s energy back to space” which he says could prevent or even reverse the man-made, CO2-caused global warming that he thinks is a proven, scientific fact.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), Canada’s national taxpayer-funded broadcaster, had lately been noticeably more active in referencing the global warming alarmist news on many of its programs, and, for example, had various radio hosts reminding listeners to be sure to follow a useless dictate to turn off the lights and sit in North Korean-like darkness, or with dangerous candles and oil lamps, during the recent Earth Hour.
Whatever discussions take place on whichever CBC program, man-made global warming causing climate change creating a planetary catastrophe is always taken for granted as a given, indisputable fact.
So after hearing the segment on The Sunday Edition, we once again reached our own tipping point of too much of the CBC’s biased stance and immediately fired off a comment on the CBC’s The Sunday Edition website.
To date the CBC has not published it and would appear to have censored it. Our comment read as follows:
Enright claims: “There may indeed be broad agreement among scientists that climate change is happening, that humans are causing it, and that urgent action is needed to prevent a global disaster.” NO, NO, NO!
This is, once again, the CBC’s pure, simple-minded regurgitation of what the UN’s IPCC wants you to believe. The CBC at every turn, in every program, serves as one of the chief propagandists for the UN-driven scam of a fake planetary emergency. DON’T believe it. Do your own research. There is NOT “broad agreement” amongst scientists, check this out, for example – http://www.petitionproject.org/.
Canadians need to wake up and take a look at what are the actual, objective, scientific (not political) facts about the disproven theory of man-made global warming as the cause of “climate change.” Climate was always changing eons before Gore, Suzuki, CBC, et alia came along. Yes, CO2 levels have risen, but there has been no global warming for last 15 years. (Verify this for yourself.) The global warming/climate change hoax is designed to scare people into accepting an authoritarian global governance bent on impoverishing them and serves to unleash dangerously irresponsible and nutty ideas like the one talked about in this episode.
Before the world goes totally “climate change” mad, do your own research and resist the evil underfoot.
On its Content Submission Guidelines, the CBC says it welcomes comments:
We want your perspective. Probe, analyze, inform. Challenge, advocate, debate. Inspire, entertain, enjoy. Your contributions make our programming richer, the conversations more lively and diverse.
It seems, however, that the CBC does not want our “perspective” or “challenge” when it comes to its uneven handling of the climate change debate. This is not the first time we have written to the CBC about its one-sided coverage of the climate issue, previous to this always on a private basis, not on a website forum, but we have never received an acknowledgement or reply of any kind. The CBC has consistently failed to offer a balanced view of the debate, apparently choosing instead, like most of the mainstream media, to follow a policy to take man-made global warming as a given without question and to feature only guests and interviews of people who are clearly on the warmist/alarmist end of the spectrum.
We can expect the CBC and most of the mainstream media to report slavishly every dire thing that the new IPCC report contains, and to do that without question, analysis or opposing cogent viewpoint. Don’t anticipate any critique of how the IPCC actually arrives at its pronouncements (by fudging data) and exhortations (based on the UN’s Agenda 21), what it purports to be (a scientific body), and what it really is (a propagandist political body). If you want to understand any of that you have to read the heroic work done by Canadian Donna Laframboise who has written two books exposing the dishonesty of the IPCC and the people who run it.
Was our comment not published because it was in violation of the CBC’s standards? Let’s take a look at what they are. Excerpts from the CBC’s Content Submission Guidelines:
Be respectful and courteous, as if you were having a face-to-face discussion.
The following kind of Your Content is also prohibited:
– Pornography, vulgarity, obscenity or sexually explicit content
– Anything illegal
– Hate speech
– Threats, harassment
– Personal attacks, insults and defamatory statements
– Threats or suggesting committing a criminal act
– Attempts to mobilise people for any purpose outside of a CBC event
If you violate any of these guidelines, Your Content will not be accepted and your account may be suspended or blocked.
Was our comment, while admittedly exasperated and frank, actually offensive and in violation of CBC submission guidelines to such an extent that it couldn’t, shouldn’t have been published?
You be the judge.