Tag Archive | Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Ontario’s Wynne government is emotionally abusing and brainwashing your children

Screen capture from Ontario government climate change ad

Ontario’s Liberal Wynne government is abusing children with a television ad deliberately aimed at kids, crafted to instill fear and anxiety about (non-existent) manmade climate change. In it, the ogre-like manmade global warming huckster, David Suzuki, is on stage in front of an audience of obviously frightened grade school boys and girls. A slide show of climate doom-and-gloom plays on the big screen behind him. He hectors them with this:

We’re in trouble, and not enough adults are listening.

Who will have to live with the consequences?

You!

So you’re going to have to solve it.

Is Wynne’s government propaganda a form of emotional child abuse? It would appear to be the case. The Red Cross defines child abuse as follows (emphasis added):

Child abuse is any form of physical, emotional and/or sexual mistreatment or lack of care that causes injury or emotional damage to a child or youth. The misuse of power and/or a breach of trust are part of all types of child abuse.

Is Wynne’s government propaganda-targeting of little kids in this manner even permissible under Canada’s standards for broadcasting to children?  Consider the following, contained in Advertising to Children in Canada/A Reference Guide (emphasis added):

Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children

The special characteristics of the children’s audience have long been recognized by Canadian broadcasters and advertisers.

In 1971, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children (Children’s Code) was created. As enunciated in the Background to the Children’s Code, its purpose is to “serve as a guide to advertisers and agencies in preparing commercial messages which adequately recognize the special characteristics of the children’s audience. Children, especially the very young, live in a world that is part imaginary, part real and sometimes do not distinguish clearly between the two. Children’s advertising should respect and not abuse the power of the child’s imagination.”

Does Wynne’s government propaganda violate the following articles in the Guide (emphasis added)?

8. Professional or Scientific Claims

Advertisements must not distort the true meaning of statements made by professionals or scientific authorities. Advertising claims must not imply that they have a scientific basis that they do not truly possess.

11. Superstition and Fears

Advertisements must not exploit superstitions or play upon fears to mislead the consumer.

Does Wynne’s ad disparage the parents of children and thus violate the following article of the Guide (emphasis added)?

14. Unacceptable Depictions and Portrayals

(c) demean, denigrate or disparage any identifiable person, group of persons, firm, organization, industrial or commercial activity, profession, product or service or attempt to bring it or them into public contempt or ridicule;

The ad tells children that the adults are not listening and places the onus on them “to solve it.” Would that be a violation of the following article (emphasis added)?

5. Avoiding Undue Pressure

(a) Children’s advertising must not directly urge children to purchase or urge them to ask their parents to make inquiries or purchases.

Concerned parents can complain to Advertising Standards Canada (ASC): “ASC carefully considers and responds to all written complaints from members of the public about advertising.”

The Wynne government has a second television ad that is truly heartbreaking child actor abuse. Little children recite evil, scaremongering greenie propaganda, doing their best to carry out Suzuki’s marching orders from the first ad to convince adults that manmade climate change is real:

Dear adults, you’re not listening to children. […] Climate change is serious. It’s not like it’s fake or anything. It’s not like it’s an April Fool’s joke. It’s real.

But it IS fake. We know the Wynne Liberal government in Ontario is working in lockstep with the UN diktats of Agenda 21 and the 2030 Agenda. The UN’s globalist plans are rationalized by a fictitious planetary climate emergency. They are designed to deindustrialize, depopulate, redistribute wealth, halt prosperity and development, control everyone and everything, and impose an unelected, unaccountable global governance.

The resultant corrupt and phony “green” policies have always included an element of emotional blackmail—we must “fight climate change” for the sake of the next generation, the children and grandchildren. And the manmade climate change propaganda has an evil history of brainwashing and deliberately frightening children in order to get them to convince their parents to toe the line. This heinous and horrendously horrific ad is the worst of the worst.

The Wynne Liberals appear to be following UNICEF’s prescriptions:

… underneath all of the UNICEF pleas to “save the children” is a covert, insidious agenda to use, exploit, and brainwash your children into becoming pliant, militant “climate change agents.”

Because:

The best way to get adults to act like environmentalists is by brainwashing their children, according to research published…by Oregon State University.

Canada’s Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna is in on the brainwashing game, too:

“It’s so critical that we act now because we’ve been going in the wrong direction,” she told an audience of dozens in Grades 9 through 12. “I have to come up with a climate plan that has to be presented to the prime minister. This is why I need your help.”

And then there is this:

Climate activists are targeting children through a new range of ‘cli-fi’ – climate fiction – novels which seek to highlight the dangers of global warming.

David Thorpe, author of the book Stormteller, said that children were more open minded and claimed that writers could ‘infect’ their minds with ‘seriously subversive viral ideas’.

Of course, the Ontario schools are also expected to brainwash the children. The document Environmental Education: Scope and Sequence of Expectations for Grades 9-11 mentions “climate change” 56 times, “global warming” 21 times, “greenhouse gas emissions” 14 times.  Every subject from Arts to English to Mathematics to Technological Innovation presents  “opportunities for teachers and students to make connections to environmental topics or issues in various ways.”

The policy framework emphasizes the necessity of ensuring that young people become environmentally active and responsible citizens. […] To help achieve this goal, the Ministry of Education is working to embed environmental education expectations and opportunities in all grades and in all subjects of the Ontario curriculum…all disciplines provide opportunities to incorporate environmental education to some extent…

Not surprisingly, the alarmist, manipulative, deceitful propaganda aimed at children is profoundly damaging to their emotional and psychological health:

Fear of an impending Climate Apocalypse apparently afflicts millions of children and adolescents worldwide.

Further, in a 2014 report by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, “Surveys show that many children are upset and frightened by what they are told is happening to the climate.”

Some children – perhaps most according to some surveys – have been frightened by what they have been led to believe about climate change. All are at risk of being deprived of a more thorough treatment of subject-matter basics in exchange for time spent on conditioning them for political or personal ac- tions. This conditioning and the associated reduction in basic education are liable to reduce the autonomy of the children as well as of the parents they are encouraged to influence: both are essentially being told what to think and what to do. Children are being treated as political targets by activists who wish to change society in fundamental ways. This is unacceptable whether or not they are successful.

The chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri has suggested that a focus on children is the top priority for bringing about societal change, and that by ‘sensitising’ children to climate change, it will be possible to get them to ‘shame adults into taking the right steps’.

The seriousness of what we have seen is hard to overstate. The fact that children’s ability to pass their exams – and hence their future life prospects – appears to depend on being able to demonstrate their climate change orthodoxy is painfully reminiscent of life in communist-era Eastern Europe or Mao’s China.

Government must not be allowed to terrorize children with fear propaganda that psychologically scars their young minds, creating despair over their future. Exhorting powerless children to influence their supposedly complacent elders is cruel and morally, ethically reprehensible.

The people of Ontario ought to be enraged—and extremely worried about the mental well-being of their children. They must demand a stop to the callously calculated, evil, extremely damaging brainwashing of their children, the exploitation of malleable young minds, and psychological abuse of impressionable youngsters for political ends.

Ontarians, protect your children from Wynne’s evil abuse of “the power of the child’s imagination” and her government’s despicable mind-control assaults damaging your youngsters’ psychological health!

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.

Manmade climate change (non-existent) is killing no-one, but the hype is

IMG_1783

No-one has died because of the non-existent problem of manmade climate change. But, as a direct result of the group-think focus and the $1.5 trillion annually being piled on the UN’s climate fabrication, combined with the willfully irresponsible neglect of the real problems in the world, people are dying* needlessly, callously sacrificed on the altar of the most massive scientific fraud ever perpetrated.

This is reprehensible.

Proponents of manmade climate change pretend and posture that they are nobly helping the poor, the disadvantaged. Nothing could be further from the truth. For example, they deny people the life-giving, life-enhancing benefits of fossil fuels, condemning some 1.2 billion folks with no electricity, and another 2.6 billion without clean cooking facilities, to further horrific human misery, severe quality-of-life deprivation, and early death. They co-opt agricultural, food-growing land to cultivate polluting biofuels, adding to food shortages and starvation. Perhaps that’s all just fine with the warmists, because part of their agenda includes de-population. Just let ‘em rot, let ’em die—problem solved.

Here’s another example of manmade climate change-obsessed negligence in addressing genuine, serious problems facing the disadvantaged.  According to the CBC’s The Sunday Edition, the World Health Organization says that 70% of the 35 million people living with HIV/AIDS are situated in sub-Saharan Africa.

Although the African AIDS epidemic no longer makes the headlines, tens of millions are still living with HIV, and many more are at risk of infection. A disproportionate number of those affected are young women and children. In some countries, girls are more than five times more likely than boys to become HIV positive.

Two HIV/AIDS activists and community leaders, Vuyiseka Dubula of South Africa and Dorothy Onyango of Kenya, spoke to The Sunday Edition’s Michael Enright about their difficult work.

CBC host Michael Enright asks (at 27:25): “There has been a limit to the amount of money coming in from other governments…it’s flatlined in a sense. Why is that?”

Good question, CBC, and here is the answer:

What they are saying is that HIV is no longer a disaster, but for us we know it is, because the communities that have been affected are still suffering. We have orphans, we have grandmothers taking care of persons living with HIV, orphans living with HIV…the young are being affected every other day. So for us, there is still a lot of work, we still need money for HIV. But they have other priorities. They are looking at global warming. They are looking at environmental things.

The host interrupts Vuyiseka Dubula as she tries to get that last sentence out. Manmade climate change propagandist CBC probably would prefer not to hear anything like that.

Vuyiseka Dubula goes on to make the point that if the people like her and their boots-on-the-ground activist communities and grass roots organizations disappear due to lack of international government financial support “there will be no change” in the fight to prevent and eradicate HIV/AIDS.

CBC: “And what will happen then?”

The stark, chilling answer from Dorothy Onyango:

People will die. We’ll go back to where we were before. It means everybody…who is on treatment will actually die. So it means we will be starting again…the epidemic will continue.

Vuyiseka Dubula:

Unfortunately everyone is in the hype of climate change… By the time you come back from climate change to AIDS, there is nobody. People have died. You now have to repair the whole of society.

How many more lives are going to be stunted, tormented, sacrificed and lost while in Paris the world’s leaders bask and pose blindly, devoutly in the sickly, fake, corrupting “green” glow of the UN climate emperors sans clothes?

*Update: Matt Ridley on BBC Radio 4:

…the solutions we’ve already rushed into are doing real harm, not only to poor people but to the environment – the biofuels programme has probably killed 190,000 people a year by…increasing the price of food and putting pressure on rainforests and things like that, and we are at the moment constraining aid to developing countries for building fossil fuel power stations. Well, that’s keeping a lot of people mired in the problem where they cook over open wood fires, which not only destroys rainforests but also kills more than three million people a year because of the effects of indoor air pollution. 

Climate change shocker: “It’s not a scientific question, it’s connecting what’s in our heads with what’s in our hearts”

IMG_9170_2

Who knew that the UN’s IPCC two-degree Celsius threshold for manmade global warming, above which the earth will supposedly burn up, is a “values” proposition, not an evidence-based, scientifically-derived, empirically-established number!

The two-degree threshold doesn’t really come come from climate scientists… What we consider dangerous is not a scientific question—it’s a values question. It has to do more with…what’s in our hearts and what’s in our heads… We knew all the facts we needed to take action fifty years ago… People are starting to recognize this isn’t just a science issue, this isn’t just a policy issue. Climate change is an issue of connecting what’s in our heads with what’s in our hearts.

So says Canadian Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University.

This is the latest, perhaps the kookiest attempt by believers in the Church of Manmade Climate Change to minimize and sideline science and the scientific method.

Hayhoe is in effect saying that the two-degree Celsius threshold is a made-up number, without the benefit of scientific investigation. And that is exactly how it was arrived at: Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the Pope’s special science advisor, described as the father of the two-degree target, has admitted it. “Yes, I plead guilty. Two degrees is not a magical limit—it’s clearly a political goal.”

As the UN’s Ottmar Edenhofer has conceded, climate policy is about redistributing wealth: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”

The UN’s climate high priestess, Christiana Figueres, has imperiously stated that the UN is “setting…the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

In other words, forget any pretense that there is a global climate emergency based on rigorous scientific inquiry. It was and is a deliberately fabricated rationale for an unprecedented grab for global governance, coercing pernicious wealth transfer, erasing national sovereignty, and ending personal freedoms. That’s what the UN’s Paris climate fest, COP21, is all about. Not to “save the planet,” not to lift billions of people out of abject, electricity-free poverty, not to make a better world for your grandchildren.

Think about that as the crazed emissions waft out of Paris over the next two weeks: the posturing, the fawning, the preening, the dramatics, the apocalyptic predictions, the mendacity, the hypocrisy, the propaganda, the deliberate evil of it all.

Social unrest due to industrial wind turbines: “A shocking snapshot of how serious it is”

IMG_4230

We have a crisis, folks, all around London, and it’s getting almost no attention by the politicians, and quite frankly, by the media. (Andy Oudman, CJBK London)

As the skeptics all too painfully know, most of the mainstream media, including public broadcasters like the CBC and TVO, seem to be acting as enthusiastic trumpet blowers for every dire prognostication of doom and gloom made by the UN’s dishonest, disgraceful IPCC on the subject of man-made global warming/climate change.

Climate change as a planetary emergency has been the rationale for the deployment of useless and highly destructive “green” energy alternatives, such as industrial wind turbines. The media have been playing a crucial role in maintaining the fiction, spreading misinformation, giving only one side of the story, essentially propagandizing, and failing to dig deep with journalistic integrity to uncover the big picture.

Rarely will you see or hear learned, educated skeptics, of which there are plenty, invited as guests on any radio or television programs to present their views on the subject of man-made global warming, climate change, industrial wind turbines, or Ontario’s green energy fiasco. A few of the media are the exception proving the rule: the National Post, Financial Post, and Goldhawk Fights Back come to mind as having addressed some of these topics in a non-biased manner.

Today was a great day. A London, Ontario radio station, CJBK, on its program London Today With Andy Oudman, spent most of the morning interviewing people about the ominous social unrest in Southern Ontario caused by the massive proliferation of industrial wind turbine projects. These factories cover huge swaths of prime farmland. The invasion of the towering machines has been aided and abetted by the democracy-robbing Green Energy Act and the heartless see-hear-speak-no-evil attitude of the Ontario Liberal government. The people who live there and who have had to suffer the devastating social and personal consequences, with more to come, have struggled to make their voices heard.

It’s compelling listening:

CJBK London-London Today with Andy Oudman-April 18, 2014

Voices from the Thedford Bog (Part 3): “It’s just shocking! The Liberal government is destroying Ontario!”

IMG_4229

I can’t see it not affecting tourism. It’s going to affect the residents, it’s going to affect the businesses. I know I don’t want to be in this community anymore, and I just dread what it’s going to look like. 

Most people in Ontario’s urban centres, or even those living in small towns, or rural settings where there are no industrial wind turbines, probably have no idea. They may never have heard the stories of rural residents who are having to cope, through no choice of their own, with life in the midst of an industrial wind plant forced on their community, one that has ruined their rural way of life, that has disrupted their communities, livelihoods, health, wildlife, and their environment.

The suffering and sacrifice might at least mean something if there were any common good to be found in the Ontario Liberal government’s deployment of industrial wind turbines invading the landscape, but such is demonstrably not the case, in fact, quite the opposite. The industrial wind turbines are utterly useless, and extremely destructive. The people, communities, wildlife, the environment and the economy are being severely damaged, and yet the government is tone deaf, dumb and wilfully blind. It continues to use the punishing Green Energy Act, and the toothless Environmental Review Tribunal to ram its fatally-flawed, fake-green alternative energy program down the throats of the people of Ontario.

*Most of the mainstream media are blinded by the UN’s IPCC/Al Gore/David Suzuki-driven fake-green, phoney-planetary-emergency-of-climate change agenda (the rationale for industrial wind turbines), or even shamelessly act as chief propagandists for it, our national broadcaster CBC included. In Ontario, they are missing the unfolding real, big-picture tragedy, of which the gas plant scandal is just one part of a much more massive and costlier catastrophe.

The Ontario Liberals have handed out lucrative permits giving wind companies unprecedented rights to industrialize vast swaths of the Ontario countryside in the absence of any cost benefit analysis or human health studies, and with environmental assessments and turbine-caused bird and bat death monitoring conducted by the wind companies themselves. Ontario now has the most expensive electricity costs in North America, while it is at the same time giving away or selling excess power at a loss.

How much longer are Ontarians going to endure this utterly insane, socially and financially ruinous situation?

Muriel Blair lives in the area of Middlesex-Lambton counties and joined industrial wind turbine protesters at the Thedford Bog near Grand Bend, Lake Huron, on Sunday, April 6, 2014:

I’m concerned about the health issues with the cumulative effect of the hundreds of wind turbines. It is going to be pretty substantial for the residents of my community. We’re going to be surrounded by a NextEra project, a couple of Suncor projects, and a couple more NextEra projects going towards the lake. So this whole community is going to be one huge wind turbine, industrial area. 

And I’m also concerned about the wildlife. Currently there is an eagle’s nest that is active in the Bornish wind project. It is now a little over 800 metres from the substation that they’ve built, and the MInistry of the Environment has been monitoring it and they have confirmed that the eagles have nested in it. But what they’re planning on doing is running transmission lines into the protected area of the eagle. So that is definitely going to affect the eagle.

But I also worry…I mean, this beautiful area here, where we have this fantastic migration area for these swans…I don’t know…these swans are not going to be coming back, they are not going to be coming back. There are going to be too many wind turbines. So it’s a big concern.

And can you imagine how tourists are going to want to come and spend their money and their time here when it’s surrounded by industrial wind turbines?  And even today, early April, late March, this is tourism because the people coming to see the swans are coming from all over. They come from the States, they come from Toronto. You know, they flock here. And do they spend their money here? Yes! I don’t think this is going to be here when the wind turbines are up and operating.

CLICK ON IMAGE TO PLAY VIDEO (some wind noise)

It’s just shocking, is just shocking. The Liberal government is destroying rural Ontario! Not to mention our Hydro. Our Hydro system is just going down the tubes, when residents are paying 45% more for their Hydro, thanks to the Green Energy Act. And the subsidies that are being paid to these multinational corporations that aren’t even Canadian! It’s crazy! I think that the sooner we get rid of the Liberal government, the better.

They want the residents of rural Ontario to be shipped into the cities and the farms taken over by corporations, and the corporations do the farming. Then they can put all the industry they want next to the farms and they don’t have to worry about people. And everybody is in an urban centre. I really believe that’s what their long-term goal is. Because there’s so much to offer out here and I don’t think they’re going to stop at the wind turbines. I think once they have control of that land they are going to start frakking. Because they’re already talking about natural gas prices going up and how they are running out of natural gas because we have had such a cold winter. So I really believe that is the next thing that rural Ontario is going to see.

++++++++++++++++++
*Donna Laframboise on the subject of the mainstream media (emphasis added):

If history is anything to judge by, mainstream media reports will overflow with misinformation written by two kinds of people: reporters relatively new to the topic who don’t have the first clue how the IPCC actually functions – or ‘environmental journalists’ who are fundamentally confused about what their job is.

A journalist’s first loyalty is supposed to be the public interest. Ensuring that the public is informed about the shortcomings and limitations of powerful organizations is what journalists are supposed to do. Instead, we’re now plagued by “environment correspondents” who think their primary purpose is saving the planet.

Those people have long parroted the IPCC’s rose-coloured view of itself. They haven’t conducted the most basic fact-checking. They haven’t asked the most rudimentary questions. As Australian writer Joanne Nova is fond of saying, the opposite of skeptical is gullible and the world now has no shortage of that kind of journalist.

Ontario’s Team Agenda 21, Wynne’s approval from climate huckster Al Gore

IMG_7589

On Thursday, November 21, 2013, it was on full public display – Ontario’s Team Agenda 21 (carbon trader Al Gore, Premier Kathleen Wynne, Environmental Defence Executive Director Tim Gray, Minister of the Environment Jim Bradley, Minster of Energy Bob Chiarelli), assembled in Toronto to congratulate itself and celebrate the closing of the last coal plant in Ontario, and to announce a new step further into the disastrous black hole that is the province’s energy program (outlaw the burning of coal altogether), and to be anointed and blessed by the high priest of man-made climate doom-and-gloom, Al Gore, who pronounced, “You’re doing a fantastic job”.

IMG_7586

This was clearly not an Ontario government event. There was no Province of Ontario logo – neither on the podium, nor on the backdrop. The event was apparently conceived, organized and hosted by the unelected, unaccountable “green” activist NGO, Environmental Defence, an organization apparently funded in large part by foreign money.

IMG_7578

Only Tim Gray, Kathleen Wynne and Al Gore spoke. The Ministers of Energy and the Environment each provided mute support throughout the event, as props perched stiffly on high chairs on the stage.

Tim Gray, Executive Director, Environmental Defence Fund explained the purpose of the gathering:

Today, UN talks in Warsaw enter their final hours. And we all know that…people will have largely lost hope that world leaders are going to…act together to fight climate change. And with that going on at an international level we thought it was even more important to showcase something real, something that’s being done here in Ontario, for proving that it can be done, that bold leadership on climate change is possible, and that today Ontario is poised to kick the coal habit forever…. [Applause]

Kathleen Wynne acknowledged the apparent and unelected leadership role that Environmental Defence enjoys in her government: “Your job is to push us, right? So I appreciate that…I want to thank Tim and everyone at Environmental Defence for putting together this fantastic event.”

As Parker Gallant has asked, who is really setting Ontario’s ruinous energy policies?

Premier Wynne:

Thank you very much, Tim, and thank you so much for your introduction, for the work you that you do. As you were just discussing: your job is to push us, right? So I appreciate that…I want to thank Tim and everyone at Environmental Defence for putting together this fantastic event. And I’m very pleased to be joined by our Minister of Energy, Bob Chiarelli, and our Minister of the Environment, Jim Bradley…Bob has shown tremendous leadership on energy issues in Ontario, and I’m very proud to have him in that role and Tim has been a passionate advocate for environmental issues since the 1980s and is helping to drive our issues in that portfolio…and Tim, it’s wonderful to have you here in that role…and it’s a huge honour to be here with you, Mr. Vice-President, thank you very much for being here.

Both Premier Wynne and Al Gore made sure that they listed every notable weather event they could think of as supposed proof-positive that man-made global warming is an indisputable fact (because the corrupt, disgraced IPCC said so). They also both managed to insult those good people who do not believe that the case for catastrophic man-made global warming has been proven (“their heads very firmly in the sand”, “deniers”), but who also know that climate does change, as it has done throughout the ages. Premier Wynne said:

The IPCC, a group that consists of thousands of the world’s leading climate scientists has warned us once again that our climate system is getting warmer. In fact, they say that it is unequivocal that our climate system is heating up. I think that there’s no denying that climate change is happening, even though some still have their heads very firmly in the sand and there is no denying that the urgency of the discussion of infrastructure construction, for example, across the country, is heightened by this reality…

If climate change is left unchecked it will lead to rising sea levels, more sweltering heat waves, more disappearing glaciers, and extreme weather events that could have potentially devastating consequences on our health, on our environment, our economy, and our lives. And, of course, there are aid agencies and global leaders saying that climate change has already contributed to humanitarian disasters like typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines.

So if we don’t move to reverse climate change now, we can see even more catastrophes around the globe. And we’ll have to deal with the aftermath of more events like the flooding that we experienced here in Toronto and in Calgary over the summer…

Both Wynne and Gore spoke about “our moral duty” (a duty which they themselves may very well have proven to have betrayed, by perpetuating and acting wilfully, opportunistically and recklessly on the basis of the hoax of anthropogenic global warming):

And I would contend it’s our moral duty to take action to protect our children, our grandchildren, and our fellow citizens. We’re lucky today to be in the presence of a man who’s been fighting on these fronts for many years.

Premier Wynne went on to announce that her government would be introducing legislation to make the burning of coal illegal. By closing all coal plants in Ontario, and by planning to enact a law to ban burning of coal, Premier Wynne is placing Ontario in grave danger, according to energy analyst and expert Tom Adams. He cites the example of Japan, which moved away from coal but kept its coal plants in good working order, so that they could be used if needed. Following the Fukishima disaster, they have now have proven to be critically important back-up sources of energy, and “are the reason that the lights are on in Japan.”

IMG_7581

Al Gore spoke next, and took it upon himself, as the some sort of self-proclaimed global governance potentate, to thank Premier Wynne “on behalf of all around the world,” and, in so doing, reminding the investors in the room of “the nature the climate challenge and the opportunity it presents” (i.e. as enabled by the Green Energy Act, to fleece taxpayers/ratepayers with 20-year guaranteed above-market returns for useless industrial wind turbines). He said:

Thank you all for coming. And may I say, first of all Premier Kathleen Wynne, congratulations on your vision and leadership, thank you for the steps that you have taken and have announced today. I will elaborate in a moment as to why they are so significant for our world as a whole, but I have to say on behalf of all around the world – to understand the nature of the climate challenge and the opportunity it presents, ah, thank you, you’re doing a fantastic job. [Applause]

Then Gore, described by Ezra Levant as a “jet-setting, multiple-mansion-owning, twenty-times-normal-electrical-bill-consuming, oil and gas gazillionaire”, went on to play the moral courage card, with words that may very well prove to be his own undoing when more people begin to understand that he was a major force in helping to lead the world astray with the massive fraud of a fake planetary emergency – designed as rationale for a UN-directed breaching of national sovereignty, erosion of democracy, and a bid for world governance and enrichment – and that he profited enormously by doing it:

Years from now, depending upon the circumstances that we allow to unfold, the next generation will ask one of two questions. If they see the continuation of super storms, and deadly droughts, and tropical diseases ravaging temperate zones, and sea level rise, and the collapse of governance in places where the storms are too powerful and too frequent for people to recover and adapt to survive – if they do not have hope, if they look at their children and feel a sense of despair, they would be well-justified in asking of us, what were you thinking? Why did you not act?

But if they look around them and see a world in renewal…if they feel hope in their hearts and look at their children and feel definitely their future is going to be brighter still, they’ll look back and ask of us, how did you find the moral courage to change, to rise up, to act – and part of the answer will be: Ontario, Canada, led the way. [Applause]

If you have ever wondered what Agenda 21 looks like in a government, it was on full display at this event with all its hallmark features:

– an unelected, unaccountable, well-funded, extreme-eco NGO lobby group that is for all intents and purposes calling the shots, having played an important role in influencing the creation of draconian, anti-democratic, subsidy-heavy legislation, in this case the Green Energy Act, giving free rein to useless, supposedly “green” alternative energy sources such as industrial wind turbines that have cost Ontarians billions and untold grief to those forced to live with them;

– the invocation of the UN’s dishonest IPCC as a credible climate science authority;

– a government in such hopeless thrall to the fake premise of man-made global warming as the cause of climate change that it has lost all integrity, reason and duty of care to do what’s right for its people and the economy;

– and a venal, corrupt, profiteering, mendacious, self-righteous, manipulative celebrity to put his creepy brand of approval on the whole catastrophe.

Help, there’s an ICLEI in my backyard! (Part Two)

IMG_4211

The wolf in sheep’s clothing in Ontario

In Part One we tried to understand why useless and destructive industrial wind turbines continue to be forced on unwilling communities in rural Ontario. The Government of Ontario seems to be in the grip of powerful unelected, unaccountable interests that makes it care little for the democratic process, the welfare of the people or the health of the economy.

We discussed how Agenda 21/Sustainable Development, devised by the United Nations, is a plan to inventory and control everything and everyone on the planet. The rationale for the plan is the phoney prognostication of catastrophic climate change brought about by supposed man-made global warming. The leading promoter of this massive doom-and-gloom scenario is the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). As James Delingpole put it in his must-read book Watermelons:

the ‘evidence’ that has been provided for us by the sources of supposed authority (our political leaders, the media, the scientists…) is so corrupt as to be meaningless.

In 1992, Canada was one of the 179 countries to “surrender their sovereignty”, as Delingpole writes, “by signing up to perhaps the most far-reaching and constrictive code of environmentally correct practice in the history of the world …” He describes Agenda 21/Sustainable Development as “a document right up there in significance with the Declaration of Independence and the Magna Carta (though with exactly the opposite effects).” He explains that Agenda 21 is a wolf in sheep’s clothing:

…it contains no legally binding obligations. But then, it doesn’t need to, for its apparently voluntary codes can be enforced – and are regularly enforced – via a mechanism over which sovereign governments have little control anyway: the vast, labyrinthine, democratically unaccountable behemoth that is the United Nations.

Delingpole explains further:

…the apparently ‘voluntary’ codes are enforced in such a way as to pass unnoticed by those outside the system. Those within the system include politicians…UN technocrats, green activists and environmental NGOs. Those outside the system are people like you and me. We don’t know how Agenda 21 works because we are not meant to know.

Delingpole quotes from a 1998 UN discussion paper that suggests how best to keep us in the dark:

This segment of our society who fear ‘one-world government’…would actively work to defeat any elected official who joined ‘the conspiracy’…So, we call our process something else, such as comprehensive planning, growth management, or smart growth.

So there you have it: an agenda, rationalized by a fake planetary emergency, that easily crosses sovereignty lines, and that is deployed and enforced by an unelected, unaccountable body using “lies, deception and a form of Orwellian Newspeak” to hide its true purpose and actions.

Agenda 21 at the local level: “And there ain’t nothing you can do about it”

In Part One we saw how unelected, unaccountable environmental NGOs played a prominent and proud role in creating Ontario’s undemocratic Green Energy Act in 2009. Their malignant influence has not waned since then. Read Parker Gallant’s exposé of who really sets Ontario’s energy policies.

At the local level, things are no better.

As James Delingpole explains in Watermelons, Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is enforced at the local level in small, seemingly unstoppable increments through ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability, “the UN-funded pressure group responsible for promoting Agenda 21”. First, local environmental activists form a lobby group, and urge the local councils to sign up with ICLEI to “become part of ICLEI’s network of local governments working together to advance sustainability“. (See the list of ICLEI Canada members here.)

Delingpole describes what happens next:

ICLEI bestows accolades on the local government…for its efforts at advancing the valuable cause of sustainable government. In turn, the local government entity can then boast about its achievements in publicity handouts, showing voters how sensitive and caring it is. These ratings also make it far more likely that the local council will receive grants and/or other financial inducements from any number of UN or…government-sponsored initiatives. In return…the local council feels honour-bound to promote the ‘sustainability’ agenda it has committed to…

He adds: “And there ain’t nothing you can do about it.”

Freedom Advocates lists some of the consequences:

While some of these policies sound good on the surface, they result in consequences such as: high-density housing scams…open space where access is not allowed; government “partnering” with favored private businesses and non-profit agencies using your tax money…undermining Constitutional administration of government; managed control over your life; mismanagement of public utilities; prohibitions on natural resource management leading to increased fire hazards, lack of water, and private property restrictions; increased taxes, fees, regulations and restrictions.

What’s in a word: sustainability 

So, is ICLEI or an ICLEI-based mindset or activity operating in your local community? Even if your town is not a direct member of ICLEI, it is subscribing to ICLEI indirectly by virtue of membership in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, itself an ICLEI member.

Sustainability is hiding in plain sight everywhere in your community. To see it, all you have to do is conduct an online search for the terms ‘sustainable development’ or ‘sustainability’ on the websites of your local governments, schools, colleges and universities, community centres, non-profit and charitable organizations, foundations and institutes. Chances are you will find countless examples of that word popping up, either in the names of organizations, or committees, curricula, programs, funding, mission statements, planning documents, recommendations and reports, official pledges, policies, bylaws, rules, regulations and other legislation. As Delingpole writes:

You thought ‘sustainability’ meant desirable, manageable life-goals…Sustainable Development sounds like a good thing…but in fact its underlying philosophy has much more to do with taxation, regulation and control.

ICLEI at work in your town

The 2011 recommendation from the Town of Milton’s Director of Planning and Development clearly shows the straight-line connection from the origins of the concept of sustainability (which eventually gave birth to Agenda 21), to the automatic infiltration of the concept into municipal governance, to the required implementation of the concept in order to qualify for funding and incentives (emphasis added):

Town of Milton staff is developing a Sustainability Plan for the Town that will be adopted as an amendment to the Official Plan. This plan will ensure the Town meets the requirements under the Agreement for the Transfer of Federal Gas Tax Revenues and also allows the Town more freedom when applying for funding and incentives.

As Mayor and Council may be aware, the word sustainable, and the associated implications, has become a permanent part of planning within a municipality. The Bruntland Commission coined the most often used definition for the term and states that sustainable development is that which “meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

Sustainability initiatives within municipalities can be found in all areas; from policy creation, to new developments, to redevelopment within a built area, as well as in operations and programs. Creating an overall plan to guide these activities has become an integral part of entrenching sustainability in the corporate municipal culture.

Conditions surrounding the Federal Gas Tax have further provided motivation for plan development. An Agreement for the Transfer of Federal Gas Tax Revenues under the New Deal for Cities and Communities allows municipalities to tailor funding to suit local requirements. Section 8.2 of the Municipal Funding Agreement (MFA) requires that, over the life of the Agreement, municipalities develop or enhance an Integrated Community Sustainability Plan (ICSP).

In 2010, The Town of the Blue Mountains published a gorgeous, glossy 126-page book called The Blue Mountains Sustainability Path, wherein the fine print says that its preparation was carried out “with assistance from the Green Municipal Fund, a fund financed by the Government of Canada and administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities”. The cover, however, proclaims that the book was “created by the people of the Blue Mountains and their friends”. This makes it look as if the voters had full knowledge, input, buy-in, or agreement with the contents of the document. This may not have been exactly the case.

On page 5, the book describes how The Town of the Blue Mountains created its ‘sustainable path’. With funding from the previously mentioned Federation of Canadian Municipalities, it started by having ‘Community Partners’ adopt the same definition of sustainability which spawned Agenda 21, the identical one used by the Town of Milton above. Then the Community Partners formed a Sustainable Path Implementation Steering Committee (ISC) to which they also elected a few members of the public (who must show fealty and “formally declare support for the implementation of The Sustainable Path by signing and submitting an Implementation Declaration”). The terms of reference say the ISC is not a committee of the Town, and that “The Town of the Blue Mountains acts as Stewards of the Plan.” Community collaboration and agreement to the plan are thus rationalized. No municipal voting or referendum on the overall direction or commitments required. It’s likely that most of the communities across Ontario and Canada have employed similar procedures for developing and implementing Agenda 21-inspired “sustainability paths”, guided by ICLEI’s boilerplate solutions and action plans.

ICLEI Canada provides “toolkits” for every conceivable sustainability initiative:

Research has identified a set of tools to promote behavior change: obtaining commitments, using prompts, utilizing social norms, designing effective communications, providing incentives, and removing external barriers. Not all tools need to be utilized in any one campaign, but note that they are most effective when used in combination with each other.

ICLEI’s publication Leadership & Legacy: Handbook for Local Elected Officials on Climate Change is instructive, to say the least. It’s the perfect propaganda and brainwashing document on the subject of (debunked) man-made global warming and catastrophic climate change for the unsuspecting or opportunistic elected official, paid for by your tax money: “This resource was made possible thanks to the generous support of Natural Resources Canada: Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Division.”

Another 111-page ICLEI document, made possible again “thanks to the generous support of Natural Resources Canada: Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Division”, i.e. your tax money, is Having the Climate Conversation: Strategies for Local Government. If you believe that the notion of man-made global warming is a hoax, and that there is no catastrophic planetary climate change emergency, and that it has all been concocted for nefarious power-grab reasons, and that the IPCC’s lies and data fakery have spawned a huge and lucrative climate change/carbon trading/alternative energy industry, then this handbook makes for very depressing reading indeed. ICLEI provides every communication trick and rationale known to man to help public officials continue to maintain the fiction. For example, on page 52, we read:

Extreme weather events can provide very effective teachable moments where climate change messages become highly relevant to the experiences of an audience. Whether experienced first- hand or remotely in other areas of the world, these events tend to be vivid and dramatic. They also tend to receive considerable attention in the press, which can be used to spark interest and trigger dialogue. Such events can include floods, heat waves, ice and wind storms, or forest fires. These events make it easier to envision a warmer, wetter, and more extreme world, and to anticipate some of the environmental and economic impacts that such a future would bring. As such, extreme events can be effective catalysts for changing behaviour and initiating a dialogue on the need for more adaptive and resilient communities.

Perhaps the most revealing section starts on page 94, in the section called Communication Challenges, especially Challenge #4-Climate Change Uncertainty, on page 99.

Three main areas of uncertainty exist when making climate change projections: The lack of complete knowledge of how climate works; natural variability in the climate system; and the inability to predict what humans will do in the future that has impacts on the climate.

Despite these admissions, the document nevertheless proceeds to explain the IPCC’s ludicrously contorted “Confidence Terminology” and “Degree of confidence in being correct” and its “Likelihood Terminology” and “Likelihood of the occurrence/outcome”, ratings that are somehow supposed to make IPCC predictions believable. You have to see the charts to understand how absolutely feeble and puerile this stuff is, and yet government and the media routinely and dutifully repeat the IPCC’s fabricated, bogus “Extremely likely” rating it has given to its latest fraudulent claims.

The final “Communication Challenge” is odious in its use of language: “Challenge #5-Dealing with skeptics and deniers.” That would be us, and good luck with that!

It ain’t over ’til it’s over

James Delingpole wrote in Watermelons, “And there ain’t nothing you can do about it” but the State of Alabama, for one, did do something:

Alabama became the first state to adopt a tough law protecting private property and due process by prohibiting any government involvement with or participation in a controversial United Nations scheme known as Agenda 21.

Resistance is not futile. Our American neighbours have some advice on how to fight back. The best one is that knowledge is power. Get informed, and become powerful. But you won’t find out much about any of this from the majority of the mainstream media, who take man-made global warming and catastrophic climate change as a given. Do your own research about Agenda 21/Sustainable Development, ICLEI, the IPCC, “green” legislation, “green” NGOs, Ontario’s Green Energy Act. Monitor your local, provincial and federal governments and follow the money.

Help, there’s an ICLEI in my backyard! (Part One)

IMG_4292

The cause of the Ontario Liberal government’s industrial wind turbine madness

Why, against all that is rational, ethical, and in the best interests of the people, is the Ontario Liberal government continuing to impose thousands more of the useless, destructive, dangerous, costly, un-green, landscape-blighting industrial wind turbines on large swaths of rural Ontario? The premiers McGunity/Wynne apparently did not do their homework on the efficacy of their green ambitions, which have proven to be economically, environmentally and socially ruinous.  And yet Premier Wynne, successor to resigned-in-disgrace McGuinty, is undeterred, charging full blast into further unmitigated disaster, all the while making platitudinous, clichéd promises: ‘My responsibility is to make sure that going forward, we have a better process in place, and that’s what we’re doing.’ It’s a heartless, bullying process of the cruelest sort when you consider the absolute uselessness of it all. All industrial wind turbine operations and development should be stopped immediately.

Why is the Wynne Liberal government wilfully persisting with this monstrous insanity in the face of a colossal failure of fiduciary care? What kind of special craziness is this? What is really going on here?

The answer is unsettling, to say the least. It may be the case that the Ontario Liberal government is in thrall to an international stealth operation that has nothing to do with green, ‘saving the planet’, or improving the lives of the people of Ontario. Here is how author James Delingpole describes the phenomenon:

…the once-worthy cause of environmentalism has been suborned by the international Left as a proxy issue designed to mask its real agenda: the destruction of the capitalist system; global wealth redistribution; the removal of property rights; a gradual takeover by democratically unaccountable Left-leaning bureaucrats and technocrats belonging to organisations like the United Nations and the European Union. Agenda 21 – born at the Marxist Maurice Strong’s Rio Earth Summit – is a key part of this campaign.

Man-made global warming, given as the ostensible rationale for implementing Agenda 21/Sustainable Development, is proving to be the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. It is a manufactured global crisis which has corrupted science, scientists, the scientific method, science journals, politicians, governments, most of the establishment media, the once well-intentioned green movement. The majority of the mainstream media, for example, takes it as an absolute given that man-made global warming climate change is a fact. The leading proponent of the global warming fiction is the dishonest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which the Climategate scandal confirmed to have been deliberately falsifying scientific data to build the fake case of man-made global warming. The massive operation to lie to the world was aided and abetted by such people as the propagandist fear-monger, profiteer and opportunistic carbon trader Al Gore, and Canada’s own celebrity eco-hypocrite David Suzuki.

Governments and proponents of harmful and costly actions to combat supposed man-made global warming have openly averred they will remain unswayed by the facts. As Forbes reported earlier this year (In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their ‘Science’):

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Even with the latest evidence that does not support a theory of man-made global warming or a positive correlation between rising CO2 levels and temperature, the IPCC does not do the right thing and unequivocally give us the glad tidings. Instead, the IPCC persists in obfuscating the truth and coming up with new fantastical assertions, based on its discredited computer simulations, that the missing warming that didn’t show up in the last ten to 15 years is actually hiding in the deepest nethers of the world’s oceans.

UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development, a plan to inventory and control everything and everyone on the planet

So what is the UN Agenda 21, and what does Canadian exiled-in-China Maurice Strong have to do with it? A clue is what Strong, as the then-secretary general of the UN Conference on Environment and Development, said at the opening of the UN’s Rio Earth Summit in 1992:

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?

The master plan ‘to bring that about’ is the UN’s Agenda 21/Sustainable Development, which is

a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area.

the action plan implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all energy, all education, all information, and all human beings in the world.

And, further, the UN’s Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is a blueprint for global governance.

To understand the full impact of the implementation of Agenda 21, underway now for more than 21 years, and its effect on our sovereignty, our freedoms, our productivity, our property, our lives, read James Delingpole’s book Watermelons, and/or study this explanation. Agenda 21 has already been responsible for untold hardship, land seizures, and starvation in some of the developing regions of the world.

An absolutely brilliant essay describing the crux of the climate science debate, the red-herring sideshows, the deathly silence of the mainstream media about the scientific data, the tactics of the “regulating class” who would rule us using fake man-made global warming as a cudgel, the narrowly-averted coup for sovereignty-ending global dominance, and the importance of the Internet in really saving the planet and helping to disseminate the truth, is Climate Coup-The Politics (How the regulating class is using bogus claims about climate change to entrench and extend their economic privileges and political control) by Dr. David M.W. Evans.

ICLEI (ick-ly), the unelected organization to implement Agenda 21 locally

At the UN’s Rio Earth Summit, a total of 179 nations, including Canada, officially signed Agenda 21. So how does the UN attempt to do this? At the local level, the answer is with ICLEI, an unelected, non-governmental organization (NGO), created at the UN in 1990. ICLEI Canada may be sitting in your backyard in communities across Ontario and the rest of Canada, stealthily directing its suggested ‘sustainable’, ‘smart growth’, ‘high density mixed use development’, ‘green’ policies and programs agreed to by your municipal councils. ICLEI, at first named the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, now called Local Governments for Sustainability, is

… the world’s leading association of cities and local governments dedicated to sustainable development. We are a powerful movement of 12 mega-cities, 100 super-cities and urban regions, 450 large cities as well as 450 medium-sized cities and towns in 84 countries. 

Ontario municipalities influenced by ICLEI – is it lurking in your backyard?

ICLEI Canada lists 12 Ontario towns, cities and regions as members, including the towns of Aurora, Essex, Halton Hills, Oakville, Blue Mountains, the cities of Greater Sudbury, Guelph, Hamilton, Kitchener, Thunder Bay, Toronto, and the Durham Region.  With the exception of Aurora, all of these municipalities are also included in the 57 municipalities that are affiliated with ICLEI in another way, namely as part of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities‘ (FCM) Partners for Climate Protection (PCP), which is a partnership between the FCM and ICLEI. Across Canada, over 240 municipalities have joined the FCM/ICLEI PCP program since it began in 1994, and have made a commitment to reduce greenhouse gases and act on climate change. According to the FCM website, the 240 municipalities wedded to the PCP objectives ‘cover all provinces and territories, and account for more than 80% of the Canadian population’.

ICLEI entrenched in your community slowly but surely

Municipalities in Ontario, whether or not they are direct members of ICLEI, or committed to ICLEI via FCM and ICLEI’s PCP program, have had a multi-headed monster of planned ‘sustainability’ foisted on them. As we mentioned, the sustainability dogma has been justified on the basis of the IPCC’s massive hoax of a man-made global warming crisis, and propangandized by the transparent hucksterism of global warm-mongers Al Gore and David Suzuki. The people of Ontario have been saddled with a fake climate change emergency from two directions. One is from the top down, with the imposition of the draconian, democracy-robbing, wind-turbine-proliferating, and financially ruinous Green Energy Act, lobbied for by unelected NGOs like the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association and its Alliance:

To convince the government…The Green Energy Act Alliance brought over European experts on advanced renewable tariffs, and held several events at which high profile environmentalists, such as Dr. David Suzuki, reinforced the call for legislation similar to that in Europe.  The Alliance also made numerous recommendations on what the legislation should include, particularly: advanced renewable tariffs, guaranteed access to the grid system and an obligation to purchase the green power produced.

The fake emergency is also insisted on from the bottom up with the low-key, do-good-sounding, multi-channel infiltration of an unelected, international authority, ICLEI, armed with its ‘tool kits’ to colonize its agenda in local governments.

In Watermelons, James Delingpole details the method of infiltration. To begin, local environmental activists with the ICLEI mind-set, ‘spouting the mantra, Think Global, Act Local’, say they want to help. They urge the local council to sign on to the cause of sustainability to combat man-made climate change. On a superficial level, a lot of the ideas sound reasonable, voter-pleasing, progressively ‘green’, and the local councils sign on, in part seduced by the prospect of eligibility for government grants and other financial incentives.  Thus local governments are committed to promoting and implementing the ICLEI-suggested agenda, such as ‘smart growth’, ‘high density housing’, restrictions on land use and more.

All of this happens without your vote, probably without your knowledge, and even without the awareness of some of your elected municipal representatives, and most certainly without understanding the full import of this incremental, stealth progression to achieving the Communitarianism aims inherent in the UN’s Agenda 21/Sustainable Development plan.

Part Two will deal with more on ICLEI in your communities.

 

The Global Warming Doctrine and its phoney planetary emergency

IMG_6161

We carry on connecting the dots: back from the economically-useless, environmentally-destructive, socially-corrupting industrial wind turbine in your backyard to the origins of the ideology that is continuing to blind, deafen and dumb down the Ontario Liberal government as it stumbles and bumbles with its failed, billion-dollar boondoggle of an alternative energy program.

In the brilliant speech below (with bold emphases and links added) given to the World Federation of Scientists in August 2012, then President of the Czech Republic, Václav Klaus, discusses the economic consequences of the bogus science and the zealous ideology and propaganda of man-made global warming:

The real problem is not climate or global warming, but the Global Warming Doctrine and its consequences. They may eventually bring us close to a real planetary emergency. Absolutely unnecessarily, without any connection with global temperature.
The arrogance with which the global-­warming alarmists and their fellow-­travellers in politics and the media present their views is appalling. They want to suppress the market, they want to control the whole of society, they want to dictate prices (directly or indirectly by means of various interventions, including taxes), they want to “use” the market.

Continue reading to understand that the malevolent factors outlined in this speech are the same ones that have influenced the Wynne/McGuinty failures and driven Ontario straight into its current scandalous economic, environmental and social quagmire.

=======================================================

The Man-made Contribution to Global Warming Is Not a Planetary Emergency

Magistral Lecture to the World Federation of Scientists

Erice, Sicily, August, 2012

by Václav Klaus, President, Czech Republic

MANY THANKS for the invitation to attend your conference and to speak here. I appreciate that a mere politician, a former economist, has been invited to address this well­-known gathering of highly respected scientists. If I understand it correctly, this year’s seminar is devoted to the discussion of the role of science and of “planetary emergencies”.

To the first topic, I want to say very clearly that I don’t see a special role for science which would be different from doing science. I have, of course, in mind “normal science”, not a “post-­normal science” whose ambitions are very often connected with political activism. The role of scientists is not in speculating on the probabilities of events that cannot be directly measured and tested, nor in promoting a pseudo­ scientific “precautionary principle”, nor in engaging in activities which are the proper function not of scientists but of risk managers.

To the second topic, I have to say that as a conservatively-­minded person, I am unaware of any forthcoming “planetary emergency”, with the exception of those potential situations which would be the consequences of human failures – of human fanaticism, of false pride, and of lack of modesty. But these are problems of political systems and of ideologies.

This brings me to the topic of my speech. I will try to argue that current as well as realistically foreseeable global warming, and especially Man’s contribution to it, is not a planetary emergency which should bother us.

I am not a climatologist, but the IPCC and its leading spokespersons are not climatologists either. I am content to be a consumer of climatology and its related scientific disciplines. In this respect, I am located – in the economic jargon – on the demand side of climatology, not on the supply side.

There are many distinguished scientists here, and some of them are on the other side. I have no intention to break into their fields of study. By expressing my doubts about a simple causal relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate, I do not have the slightest ambition to support one or another competing scientific hypothesis concerning the factors leading to global warming (or eventually cooling).

Nevertheless, my reading both of the available data and of conflicting scientific arguments and theories allows me to argue that it is not global warming caused by human activity that is threatening us.

My views about this issue have been expressed in a number of speeches and articles in the last couple of years all over the world. The book “Blue Planet in Green Shackles” [1] has already been published in 18 languages, last month even in Indonesian. The subtitle of the book asks, “What is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?” The real problem is not climate or global warming, but the Global Warming Doctrine and its consequences. They may eventually bring us close to a real planetary emergency. Absolutely unnecessarily, without any connection with global temperature.

This doctrine, as a set of beliefs, is an ideology, if not a religion. [2] It lives independently on the science of climatology. Its disputes are not about temperature, but are part of the “conflict of ideologies”. Temperature is used and misused in these disputes. The politicians, the media and the public – misled by the very aggressive propaganda produced by the adherents of the global warming doctrine – do not see this. It is our task to help them to distinguish between what is science and what is ideology.

Believers in the global warming doctrine have not yet presented its authoritative text, its manifesto. One of the reasons is that no one wants to be explicitly connected with it. Another is that to put such a text together would be difficult because this doctrine is not a monolithic concept which can be easily summarized. Its subject ­matter does not belong to any single science. It presents itself as a flexible, rather inconsistent, loosely connected cascade of arguments, which is why it has quite successfully escaped the scrutiny of science. It comfortably dwells in the easy and self­-protecting world of false interdisciplinarity which is really a non­disciplinarity, it is an absence of discipline.

My reading of this new incarnation of environmentalism can be summarized in the following way:

1. It starts with the claim that there is an undisputed and undisputable, empirically confirmed, statistically significant, global, not local, warming;

2. It continues with the argument that the time series of global temperature exhibit a growing trend which dominates their cyclical and random components. This trend is supposed to be non­linear, perhaps exponential;

3. This trend is declared to be dangerous for the people (in the eyes of “soft” environmentalists) or for the planet (by “deep” environmentalists);

4. This temperature growth is postulated as a solely or chiefly man-­made phenomenon attributable to growing emissions of CO2 from industrial activity and the use of fossil fuels;

5. The sensitivity of global temperature to even small variations in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is supposed to be very high;

6. Exponents of the global warming doctrine promise us a solution: the ongoing temperature increase can be reversed by radical reduction in CO2 emissions [3];

7. They also know how to bring about their solution: they want to organize emissions reduction by means of the institutions of “global governance”. They forget to tell us that this is not possible without undermining democracy, the independence of individual countries, human freedom, economic prosperity and a chance to eliminate poverty in the world;

8. They rely on the undefined and undefinable “precautionary principle”. Cost­ benefit analysis is not relevant to them.

This simple scheme can be, undoubtedly, improved, extended, supplemented or corrected in many ways, but I believe its basic structure is fair and correct.

I do not believe in any one of these eight articles of faith and I am not alone. There are many natural scientists and also social scientists, especially economists, who do not believe in them either. The problem is that most genuine scientists do science and are not willing to discuss this doctrine in the public space.

An additional problem is that natural scientists and social scientists do not talk to each other. They only come into contact with self­-proclaimed interdisciplinarists who are very often mere dealers in second-­hand ideas. Social scientists, in particular, tend to be silenced by seemingly authoritative statements that “the science is settled”, while natural scientists assume a priori that there is nothing “hard” in the social sciences.

Politicians – after having abandoned other ideologies – heartily welcomed this new one. They became rapidly convinced that playing the global warming card is an easy game to play, at least in the short or medium run. They hoped the voters would appreciate their caring about issues more serious than the next elections. The problem is that the politicians (to say nothing about the media) do not take into consideration the long-­term consequences and costs of measures demanded by this doctrine.

How to make a change? I dare say that science itself will not make the change, regardless of its achievements. The Global Warming Doctrine is not based on science. Accordingly, scientific debate itself cannot bring it into disrepute. The course of the world­wide global warming debate more or less confirms this elementary methodological argument. Serious scientific research continues to bring us new pieces of knowledge almost on a daily basis, but it has not brought and will not bring us any decisive breakthrough in the public debate on this topic. Climate is a complex system. In spite of the dreams of believers in general systems theory, any scientific discovery concerning this topic will always be only a partial one.

Can a decisive change come as a result of new empirical data? I doubt it. It is evident that the current temperature data confirm neither the alarmist and apocalyptic views of the believers in the GWD, nor their quasi­-scientific hypotheses about the exclusivity of the relationship between CO2 and temperature. The world has not warmed for the last 15 years, but that is too short to shatter the whole carefully built edifice of the global warming doctrine. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that some of us have been arguing that a century in climatology is too short to prove the ongoing global warming as a new long-­term trend. That is why, for the sake of symmetry, we must accept that a decade is not sufficient to do the opposite.

Discussing technicalities in more and more depth will not help us, because the supporters of the global warming doctrine are not interested in them. We are not dealing with people who are authentically interested in science, in objective truth, in identifying the causes of incremental changes in temperature. For them, the temperature data are just an instrument in their plans to change the world, to suppress human freedom, to bring people back to underdevelopment. Their ideas are the ideas of ideologues, not of scientists or climatologists. Data and theories, however sophisticated, will not change their views.

I mentioned my economic background. Let me turn attention to what the field of economics – with all of its internal disagreements – says to that:

1. Economists believe in the rationality and efficiency of the spontaneous decisions of millions of individuals. They believe in “the wisdom of people” rather than in the wisdom of governments and of their scientific advisors. They do not deny that market failures happen, but they have many reasons to argue that government failures are bigger and much more dangerous than market failures. They consider that jumping on the bandwagon of the global warming doctrine is an example of a serious government failure which undermines markets, human freedom and human prosperity;

2. Economists, at least since Frederic Bastiat, have considered it their duty to warn policymakers against unintended consequences and against failing to differentiate between what is seen and what is not seen;

3. Economists have at their disposal a rather developed subdiscipline called “energy economics”. They know something about scarcity, as well as about prices, and they have to warn governments against playing with them.

4. Economists believe in rational risk-­aversion, not in the precautionary principle;

5. Economists are aware of externalities and have worked with them for a long time. It is their own concept: it was not discovered by environmentalists. They consider it dangerous in unqualified hands. After decades of studying it, they do not see the world as full of negative externalities a priori;

6. Economists base their thinking about intertemporal events on a rather sophisticated concept of discounting. It was the misunderstanding of discounting in the climatologic modeling that brought me into the subject of global warming some years ago;

7. Economists have some undeniable experience with the analysis of time series. Statistical and econometric methods used in economic analysis are full of sophisticated models not used in natural sciences, because these are based mostly on the analysis of cross­section data samples. They know something about the problems with the imperfect quality of data, about measurement errors, about data mining, about the precariousness of all kinds of averages and other statistical characteristics. They also have some experience with computer modelling in complex systems, with pseudocorrelations, with the sensitivity of parameter adjustments, etc. For that reason they are convinced they have the right to comment on the statistical analyses of climatologists. [4]

Based on all that:

First, economists do not see the outcome of the cost-­benefit comparisons of CO2 emission reductions as favourably as the adherents of the global warming doctrine. They know that energy demand and supply patterns change only slowly. They see the very high degree of stability of the relationship between man­made carbon dioxide emissions, economic activity and emissions intensity, and possess no hypothesis for expecting a radical shift in this relationship. Emissions intensity (as a macro­ phenomenon) moves only very slowly and does not make miracles. The very robust relationship between CO2 emissions and the rate of economic growth is here, and is here to stay.

If somebody wants to reduce CO2 emissions, he must either expect a revolution in economic efficiency (which determines emissions intensity) or start organizing a world­-wide economic decline. Revolutions in economic efficiency – at least in relevant time horizons – have never been realized in the past and will not happen in the future either. It was the recent financial and economic crisis, not a technological miracle or preaching by the IPCC, that brought about a slight – and probably temporary – reduction in CO2 emissions. The GWD adherents should explain to the people world-wide that to achieve their plans economic decline is inevitable.

Secondly, the relationships studied in natural sciences are not influenced by subjective valuations of the variables in question, nor by any rational (or irrational) behaviour, nor by the fact that people make choices. In social or behavioural sciences, it is more difficult. To make rational choices means to pay attention to inter-temporal relationships and to look at opportunity costs. It is evident that by assuming a very low, near­-zero discount rate the proponents of the global warming doctrine neglect the issue of time and of alternative opportunities.

A low discount rate used in global warming models means harming current generations (vis­ à­ vis future generations). Undermining current economic development harms future generations as well. Economists representing very different schools of thought, from W. Nordhaus at Yale [5] to K. M. Murphy at Chicago [6], tell us convincingly that the discount rate – indispensable for any intertemporal calculations – should be around the market rate, around 5%, and that it should be close to the real rate of return on capital, because only that rate reflects the true opportunity cost of climate mitigation.

We should not accept claims that by adopting low discount rates we “protect the interests of future generations”, [7] or that opportunity costs are irrelevant because in the case of global warming “the problem of choice does not exist” (p. 104). This uneconomic or perhaps anti­-economic way of thinking must never be accepted.

Thirdly, as someone who personally experienced central planning and attempts to organize the whole of society from one place, I feel obliged to warn against the arguments and ambitions of the believers in the global warming doctrine. Their arguments and ambitions are very similar to those we used to live with decades ago under Communism. The arrogance with which the global-­warming alarmists and their fellow-­travellers in politics and the media present their views is appalling. They want to suppress the market, they want to control the whole of society, they want to dictate prices (directly or indirectly by means of various interventions, including taxes), they want to “use” the market. I agree with Ray Evans that we experience the “Orwellian use of the words ‘market’ and ‘price’ to persuade people to accept a control over their lives” [8]. All the standard economic arguments against such attempts should be repeated. It is our duty to do it.

To conclude, I agree with many serious climatologists who say that the warming we may expect will be very small. I agree with Bob Carter and other scientists that it is difficult “to prove that the human effect on the climate can be measured” because “this effect is lost in the variability of natural climate changes” [9]. Provided that there are no irrational attempts to mitigate the human effect on global temperature, the economic losses connected with the warming we may expect will be very small. The loss generated as a result of the completely useless fight against global warming would be far greater.

Footnotes

[1] Klaus, V.: Modrá, nikoli zelená planeta: Co je ohroženo, klima nebo svoboda?, Praha, Dokořán, 2007; English version: Blue Planet in Green Shackles, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington DC, 2008. Italian version: Pianeta blu, non verde, IBL Libri, Torino, 2009.

[2] I was recently in California. In my hotel room Al Gore’s book “An Inconvenient Truth” was next to the Bible.

 [3] This is what Ray Evans calls „The Theory of Climate Control“, Quadrant, No. 3, 2008.

[4] I would like to mention at least R. McKitrick and S. McIntyre and their attack on the bastion of the GWD, on the so called „hockey stick“.

[5] A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies, Yale University Press, June 2008

[6] Some Simple Economics of Climate Changes, paper presented to the MPS General Meeting in Tokyo, September 8, 2008

[7] M. Dore: “A Question of Fudge”, World Economics, January–February 2009, p. 100

[8] The Chilling Costs of Climate Catastrophism, Quadrant, June 2008

[9] Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Change, New York City, March 2009, p. 23. Professor Carter’s arguments are more developed in his book “Climate: The Counter Consensus”, Stacey International, London, 2010