Unless we pay an ever-increasing tithe to stop bad weather, the world will end. So decreed the Government of Canada, and, on April Fools’ Day, forced all Canadians to start handing over hard-earned dollars to the eco-gods.
Provinces of Canada had been warned that if they did not come up with a “carbon tax scheme,” Prime Minister Trudeau and his Liberals would do it for them. In April in Toronto, Ontario challenged the constitutionality of Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act in a four-day hearing at the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
The premise for the Act and for every single boondoggle of a fake-green scheme to “fight,” “tackle,” “take action against” manmade global warming/manmade climate change is false. Greenhouse gases (of which carbon dioxide (CO2) has been targetted for demonization) that arise from the activities of people living their normal lives, are blamed for causing changes in the weather.
CO2 is the most important food for all life on earth. Calling it a “pollutant” is anti-science and anti-truth…We are not the enemy of nature, but its salvation – Dr. Patrick Moore, Ecologist, Greenpeace Co-Founder (See 54:39 and 1:06:18)
Greenhouse gases are not a pollutant, as the title of the Act would have you believe. Without them there would be no life on earth. There is no manmade global climate emergency. The climate changes naturally all the time, always has, always will.
(Note how cleverly the Liberal government now refers to greenhouse gases in the singular, officially treating them as a “single pollutant,” no doubt to deflect the inconvenient truth that, CO2, the trace gas they vilify is actually invisible, odourless, life-giving plant food. The eco-hysterics have always abused language to obfuscate – for example with the words “carbon,” and “carbon pollution,” hoping people will confuse them with deadly carbon monoxide.)
So, on the basis of a false premise, an expensive four-day court proceeding involving scores of learned lawyers, experts, huge amounts of time and brainpower, and the full judicial apparatus with five justices, focused on debating in all gravity and seriousness the finer points of whether the provincial or the federal government has the constitutional right to the privilege of profiting from “fighting” a non-existent problem. It’s as if nobles of The Emperor’s retinue, he of the New Clothes, are squabbling over who has the right and the privilege to the useless act of dressing the Emperor in his pretend, non-existent clothes. It is actually that ridiculous, and tragic.
Beleaguered taxpayers in Ontario have to foot the bill for both the provincial and federal government’s legal tussle over the spoils of “tackling” a non-existent problem. At least they were allowed to watch the drama unfold via live stream from the courtroom and decide for themselves the relative merits of the case.
Unfortunately not heard in the courtroom was the following:
It was warmer than today for at least 95% of the last 10,000 years. – Dr. Tim Ball, historical climatologist
Ninety percent (90%) of the time since creation the earth was warmer than it is now – because the geological evidence indicates that over all of geology history, 4.65 billion years, somewhere between 5% and 10% of that time was there [no] substantial ice on earth, and now there is. There’s Greenland and Antartica and summer ice all over the planet, lots of places. So you’re talking 5% or 10% of the time the planet was cooler than it is now. – Dr. Richard A. Keen, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Colorado
We’re at the lowest levels of CO2 in earth’s history. Four hundred and forty-four million years ago, while we were in the depths of the coldest period in the last half billion years, we had 1100% of today’s CO2 levels, according to geologic proxies. So CO2 is very low right now. They say “40% rise in the last century, since 1880.” Well, that’s peanuts in natural terms. – Tom Harris, Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition
The carbon dioxide in this room is now around 900 [ppm]. Now, either we should be happy about it or evacuate the room for fear that there is something bad about it. There is nothing bad about carbon dioxide. The more the better. – Dr. Jay H. Lehr, Science Director, Heartland Institute
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system and therefore long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” The IPCC web pages where this statement was recorded were purged in November 2018. It was recorded prior to this many times on the WayBack Machine. – Dr. Patrick Moore, Ecologist, Greenpeace Co-Founder
First the scaremongering, then the legal argument
Eminent, honest scientists and experts were not invited to the hearing, and climate science expertise such as theirs was not required (because “the science is settled,” don’t you know). The objective of the challenge in the Court of Appeal for Ontario was not to establish whether or not the hypothesis of cataclysmic manmade climate change has been proven or whether a tax can prevent planetary climate doom as the Trudeau government claims.
Nonetheless, many of the parties arguing for the constitutional legitimacy of the Act felt it necessary to preface their submissions to the court with apocalyptic declarations, as follows:
We know that climate change is an urgent threat to humanity. The accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere causes global warming, which is causing climate change and the associated national and international risks to human health and well-being. Greenhouse gas emissions are not contained with geographic boundaries. They are an interprovincial and international pollutant. Reducing Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions as part of the global effort to slow climate change is critical. – Lawyer for Canada
First and foremost, we submit that climate change is the most serious environmental and economic problem of our time. If greenhouse gas emissions are not a matter of national concern, it’s difficult to imagine what is. And it’s not merely the importance of the problem that makes it a national concern to respond to Ontario, it’s the fact that greenhouse gases cause serious extra-provincial and international impacts… – Lawyer for Canada’s Eco-Fiscal Commission
Ontario agrees with Canada that climate change is real, is caused by human activities, is already having a disruptive effect across the country and if left unchecked, its potential impact will be even more severe…In short, Ontario’s agreement is consistent with the view that greenhouse emissions, in causing climate change, are an evil. – Lawyer for Canadian Environmental Law Association, Environmental Defence, Sisters of Providence of St. Vincent de Paul
Climate change is properly understood as a public health issue. There is scientific consensus that it is the biggest global public health threat of the 21st century. – Lawyer for Canadian Public Health Association
There was the usual heart-wrenching plea to think of the children, the grandchildren, the next generations:
I’m here today to talk about children, the children of today and the children yet to come in future generations…they are going to bear the most severe impacts from our greenhouse gas emissions… the greenhouse gas emissions of current and previous generations have created an urgent threat to our children and to future generations. – Lawyer for Intergenerational Climate Coalition
And then there was the predictable, hysterical pronouncement from the charlatan Suzuki corner:
Canada and the world face a crisis more dire than any that has come before. As we have been warned by an overwhelming consensus of scientists, a rapidly warming planet threatens Canadians’ way of life and indeed our very lives. We have only a decade to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a stable level. If Canada’s and the world’s actions do not produce the required reductions by 2030 we will pass a point of no return, forever losing the ability to prevent some of the worst consequences of climate change. The shrinking window of time left to save ourselves from climate disaster is truly a national emergency, in fact, nothing less than a global emergency. – Lawyer for David Suzuki Foundation
Even the lawyer for the Province of Ontario insisted that:
This is not a reference [case] about whether climate change is real. It is. This is not a reference about whether greenhouse gases produced by human activity are contributing to climate change. They are. And it is not a reference about whether action needs to be taken. Action does need to be taken. Ontario has taken action. Ontario is continuing to take action.
The Trudeau Liberals’ “leak”
Some of the five justices hearing the case seemed at times to conflate their understanding of regular environmental pollution with manmade climate change, but no wonder when the Act uses the deliberately misleading term “greenhouse gas pollution.” Moreover some of them seemed to reveal where they may stand on the subject of manmade climate change per se. In a question for the lawyer representing the intervener Province of New Brunswick, with reference to floods there, the justice posited this: “…if they’re caused by climate change, which seems a reasonable assumption…“
With all due respect, even the UN’s IPCC would beg to differ:
There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses [from extreme weather] have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change…
Another justice had this to say:
The worst impacts by far in Canada of greenhouse gases are the three northern territories. They’re facing the risk of temperatures rising from 3.5 to 7 degrees. The biggest emitters are Ontario, Alberta, and probably Quebec. What’s the incentive for Alberta, Quebec, and Ontario to do things that are going to be responsive to a horrible problem up north? Just on the news the other day there was the chief of one of the bands up in the Yukon, saying the caribou this year are 85 km away from where they have been for centuries – 85 km away, and entirely because of the melt up there.
Now this is highly interesting. The day that the carbon tax became effective – April 1 – a report by Canada’s Department of the Environment was “leaked” to Canada’s state broadcaster, the CBC. It claimed that Canada was heating up twice as fast as the rest of the world, and that Northern Canada was triple the global rate. On March 31, the day before the alarmist report was “leaked,” the state broadcaster published an article, handwringing that “Indigenous elders in Yukon say moose and caribou are moving farther north to escape the effects of climate change.”
The CBC continued to fan the flames more than usual with daily news or opinion pieces wholly in line with the Trudeau Liberal government’s climate narrative and the imperative to tax carbon dioxide. Very neat and tidy coincidences and exquisite timing, wouldn’t you say? Sad caribou story, carbon tax implemented, leaked alarmist climate report – all within two days. The CBC’s propaganda effort seems to have had a powerful impact on at least one of the justices.
It is to be hoped that the honourable justices get their climate information from sources other than the propagandist state broadcaster, as, for example, from Dr. Ross McKitrick, who puts the super-heated government report into proper perspective. It was apparent, judging by some of their comments and questions, that the justices would also do well to refresh their basic scientific knowledge about the atmosphere, greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, fluctuations in climate throughout the eons, and so on.
A “carbon” tax/levy/charge, inflicted on Canadians based on a fake, anti-human premise
The premise for this hearing, and that of the Act in question, was and is that catastrophic, life-threatening, earth-dooming global warming/climate change is caused by man’s emissions of greenhouse gases, craftily treated as one single pollutant. This fake premise was not up for discussion, but should have been debated long ago by a Liberal government that crowed it would develop policies and legislation based on science and evidence. It’s the pernicious, dishonest tax grab that is “evil,” not the greenhouse gases, as the lawyer for Canadian Environmental Law Association et alia would have you believe.
A tax on thin air as a punishing “behaviour-changing signal”
The lawyer for the Government of Canada stated that the Act is not a tax bill, but rather imposes a “behaviour-changing regulatory charge,” that represents a “behaviour-changing signal,” whereby “the dominant purpose is to change behaviour.”
So Justin Trudeau and his Liberals fancy that they can change the behaviour of Canadians, punish them, social engineer them, with a punitive levy for living their lives, for doing the things that keep them (and the country) safe and secure, healthy, productive, and alive – in a cold, modern, northern country with a huge landmass! Canadians rely on fossil fuels for every aspect of our lives. Exactly what “behaviour” are they supposed to “change,” and to what? Stop heating their homes? Stop going to work? Stop eating?
Canadians are climate pawns in the UN’s globalist aims
The Liberals’ irrational, insane scheming is based on the false premise that man can control the ever-naturally-changing climate and weather. It is influenced and brought to you by the UN’s anti-human, anti-democratic agenda for unelected, unaccountable global governance using a phoney global climate immolation as a smoke screen. (You can read a series of posts about the UN’s corruption and politicization of science to effect its malign infiltration and influence on every level of public policy decision-making in Canada here.)
Other provinces blow back
Canada’s carbon tax law applies to provinces that do not have their own “carbon tax regimes” that meet “national standards,” currently Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and New Brunswick. Saskatchewan has completed its own court of appeal challenge, and is awaiting the outcome. Manitoba plans a legal challenge. But will any leader of any level of government in Canada ever have the conviction or the guts to challenge the root problem, the false premise underlying the evil “carbon” hoax, the most massive scientific deception ever perpetrated in plain sight?
Ontario’s Court of Appeal hearing ended April 18. The five justices have reserved judgement, and their ruling will come sometime within the next six months.
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.
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.