Tag Archive | CO2

Tundra Swans surrounded on three sides by wind turbines

This year, starting in mid-March, thousands of migrating Tundra Swans stopped at the Thedford Bog (a designated Important Bird Area) near Grand Bend, Ontario on Lake Huron and stayed for 13 days. This was some ten days short of their average stay of 23 days over the last 13 years, according to the Lambton Heritage Museum’s statistics (click on “Swan Migration/Discover More”). The Thedford Bog is an important staging area on their annual 6000 km round trip migration to the western Arctic from the eastern USA.

Migrating Tundra Swans flying over their Thedford Bog staging area

The reasons for their shorter stay could be manifold, but the question has to be asked: does some of it have to do with the fact that the resting and feeding swans are now effectively surrounded by industrial wind turbines on three sides, disturbing their rest and search for food?

Tundra Swans resting on the Thedford Bog close to dangerous industrial wind turbines

NextEra’s Goshen industrial wind turbines are thankfully not located directly on the swans’ resting spots, but are close enough and could pose problems for the birds as they fly to the corn stubble fields in the wider area to feed. We know that the lethal blades of wind turbines butcher millions of birds and bats annually worldwide (insects too). But if NextEra’s wind turbines slaughter Tundra Swans or Bald Eagles, the company and all Ontario wind facilities get a free pass, even for endangered species. Under Ontario law, the wind industry suffers no consequences if it “kills, harms or harasses a member of a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as an endangered or threatened species, or damages or destroys the habitat of such a species…

Tundra Swans at the Thedford Bog flying close to the slicing blades of industrial wind turbines, scouting for food and rest

It is dispiriting driving on the Bluewater Highway (King’s Highway 21), which runs through one picturesque coastal community after another, along most of the entire length of the eastern shoreline of Lake Huron, for roughly 192 km from the Lambton Shores in the south to Southampton in the north until it turns east and inland to cross the Bruce Peninsula. Almost the entire way along the lake, drivers face a bristling phalanx of industrial wind turbine installations, kilometre after kilometre, despoiling the beautiful pastoral and shoreline landscape.

It hurts all the more when you know that industrial wind turbines have absolutely no redeeming value except for their subsidy-dependent, usually foreign, owners. They are dangerous, useless, ungreen, and both economically and environmentally destructive. The only saving grace is that the wind turbines along Lake Huron have not been situated between the highway and the lake. But that makes no difference when you look east or, for example, gaze northwest from the wonderful beaches at Grand Bend from where they ruin the view. Coastal beauty vistas, with huge tourist potential, ruthlessly despoiled for the fake planetary emergency of manmade climate change, the rationale for so-called green energy schemes such as the monstrously ineffectual industrial wind turbines.

Beach near Grand Bend looking northwest at long line of industrial wind turbines – not the vista you want to see on sunny, beachy days, or at any time

How did this happen? The scourge of industrial wind turbines has been inflicted on Ontario, including the breathtaking Lake Huron shoreline, because of the massive UN-led deliberate scientific deception that the carbon dioxide produced by man’s use of fossil fuels is a demon gas that will overheat the earth and kill us all. Actually, carbon dioxide, i.e. CO2, is a non-polluting trace gas that you cannot smell or see, without which there would be no life on earth. The manmade global warming/manmade climate change $1.5 trillion industrial complex is driven by a pernicious anti-human political ideology, with not one whit of care for the environment or the scientific method.

Tundra Swans resting on the Thedford Bog and flying about not far from the lethal-for-birds wind turbines

The UN’s malign objective behind this deception is a bid for unelected, unaccountable global governance, the abrogation of national sovereignty, of democratic freedoms, and of property rights, and anti-human plans for de-industrialization and wealth re-distribution (as detailed in the UN’s Agenda 21, the Millennium Project, Agenda 2030). Many of Canada’s governments at various levels, including the current “climate action”-obsessed federal Trudeau regime, have fallen in line and imposed economically-ruinous “green” policies and taxation schemes in order to obey the UN’s diktats.

It is beyond tragic.

Tundra Swans at sundown heading out over Pinery Provincial Park to cross Lake Huron on the next stage of their 6000 km round trip migration to the western Arctic from their US wintering grounds

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.

Ross McKitrick: “Environmental alarmism and the raft of false beliefs”

IMG_2889

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.

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.

How Thin Air came to be bought, sold, traded, and taxed

IMG_1194

Once upon a time there was a Liberal Premier who, having unaccountably been given an undeserved gift of majority rule, presided over the most populous province in the fair land of Canada. She seemed to care about nothing except virtue-signaling her lonely country jogging and spreading her social-license, social-justice, planet-saving pretensions to realms beyond.

She heeded her nakedly bullying enviro-grifters who told her that “The Science” Oracle had spoken.

She ignored the cries of the rural folk forced to submit to the subsidy-dependent, fake-green wind carbon-baggers who had her permission to impale the beautiful farm fields and meadows with useless, dangerous, bird-slaughtering, human-health destroying giant windmills. Instead, she heeded her unelected, unaccountable, foreign-funded, phony eco-courtiers—nakedly bullying enviro-grifters who told her that “The Science” Oracle had spoken: it was time to impose a pernicious, dishonest tax scheme on the financially beleaguered people. This would enrich the Treasury and continue to pay for Liberal Boondoggles, past and present and future.

…exhalations and emissions you could not see or smell had henceforth to be bought, sold, traded, and taxed.

And so she decreed that Thin Air, exhalations and emissions you could not see or smell, that harmlessly provided vital nourishment for plants and thus kept everything and everyone on Earth alive, had henceforth to be bought, sold, traded, and taxed. Anyone challenging this absurd, corruption-rife lunacy was deemed to be hopelessly in denial, blind, a head-in-the-sand-sticker, and accused of being in lavish pay of fossil fuel providers (if only).

They played along, fearful of being judged unfit for their positions or, worse, having to go straight to SuzukiJail for eco-heresy.

Many Smart People (politicians, professors, publishers, pundits, PR professionals, petroleum producers, public servants) could not see how Thin Air was harming anything at all. The deliberately false predictions of Manmade Doom-And-Gloom Climate Change, supposedly caused by manmade excess Thin Air, had never materialized, of course. But the Smart People said nothing and did nothing. They played along, fearful of being judged unfit for their positions or, worse, having to go straight to SuzukiJail for eco-heresy.

Others, the SmartAndHonest People, tried to tell the populace that putting a price on Thin Air was an absurd, ought-to-be-illegal fraud, and nothing more than a blatant tax grab, fake-justified by a non-existent climate problem. But most of them had no influence over the government’s powerful propaganda juggernaut, the mainstream media, and had to resort to ingenuity and disruptive new ways in order to be heard and seen.

Slowly, the truth about the Big Climate Fraud started to seep out.

Some of the Regular People rejected the state propaganda and made an effort to find the SmartAndHonest People in the Internet news sites and blogs and honest, evidence-based science websites in order to get at facts and the truth. And in the face of ridicule, condemnation, and abuse they did their best to tell their families, neighbours, and social media friends. Slowly, the truth about the Big Climate Fraud started to seep out. But what to do about it?  Was there still time to put and end to the madness, if only for the sake of the children and grandchildren—and if so, how?

For now, this dark tale must end here, the rest to be told as surely as the climate has changed and will change naturally throughout the ages.

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!

Margaret Atwood, Elizabeth May, Naomi Klein: Climate handmaids fail—to tell the truth

IMG_4048

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 TVCanada’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.

CBC’s one-sided coverage of the climate change debate

IMG_4821

Putting chemicals into the stratosphere to “fight climate change”?

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.