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?
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.”
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!
Dr. Ross McKitrick is a Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph, and Research Chair in Energy, Ecology and Prosperity at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He specializes in environmental economics.
Dr. McKitrick spoke (starting at :19) on the topic of Green Conservatism at the Manning Centre Conference in February.
In his brief talk, Dr. McKitrick gives a brilliant, succinct overview of the current absence of rational, logical, empirical evidence-based thinking and planning on the part of the Canadian political class when it comes to the environment and economic policies.
Dr. McKitrick argues that our “very high-level” decision-makers are churning out “extremely distorting” policies based on their false, alarmist environmental beliefs. The results of their scientific illiteracy and ideological alarmism are environmental over-regulation and “green” taxation overkill.
Reading between the lines, we’re in a big, fat, fake-green mess and heading for continued fiscal and economic misery.
The following is a partial transcription (bolding added for emphasis).
On illogical “green” taxes:
The trouble in the Canadian context is, the economic logic only works if they used “instead of,” and not on “on top of” a command-and-control regime….repeal the onerous regulations that we’ve already got in place, like for instance, the Green Energy Act in Ontario, and the federal ethanol mandate, and the proposed coal fadeout in Alberta.
Unless you’re willing to roll up your sleeves and work against those things in a very vocal way, you’re not really in a position to make a credible argument for green taxes in Canada.
Otherwise, it’s just going to be one thing piled on top of another.
On real and imaginary climate graphs:
The mayor of Montreal is so worried about the state of the environment that he’s leading a campaign to block the Energy East pipeline from reaching Montreal, presumably because he thinks that the contents of that pipeline will be damaging to the local environment. He has in mind, I guess, a graph like this, except that it would slope up instead of sloping down, and lots of other graphs, presumably in his imagination, that slope up rather than sloping down.
If you want to see what all the other graphs look like, I’ve put them online at a website called yourenvironment.ca. It’s very easy to navigate. You can look up the complete air quality records for every city in Canada, and lots of other information besides—climate information, CO2 emissions, all sorts of stuff.
On regulatory overkill and pipeline blockades:
Once you get a handle on what’s actually happened to the environment in Canada, you’re going to think the problem is a little different. It’s regulatory overkill.
We’re at a point where we have controlled conventional air pollutants to an extremely low level in Canada, and yet we’re seeing an acceleration of new and extremely distorting policies, including the various attempts to blockade all pipeline development and keep the western fossil fuel reserves in the ground.
On false environmental thinking embedded in high-level decision-makers:
I can only conclude that a lot the decision-makers—and this kind of thinking is embedded at very high levels—have in mind a completely false picture of the Canadian environment. They’ve been convinced that it’s much worse than it is and that the trends are going in different directions.
On irrational, ideological environmental alarmism:
The real target today is environmental alarmism. It’s this irrational but popular ideology that the environment is bad and getting worse, that we face an emergency and that we have to take radical measures.
It’s easy to defeat once you start showing people the data, and it’s easy to defeat if you can get a hearing for the idea that if you get specific about what you’re really talking about, we can measure these things. In fact, we do measure them, and in Canada we have decades and decades worth of measurements. So you can get the discussion on a very rational footing.
On the phony “97% consensus”:
We should encourage people to discuss the science, and we do it in a deep way—and not with the slogans like the “97% consensus,” which is another one of these phony statistics that emerges.
On huge regulatory overkill and unnecessary coal phase-outs:
What we need to do is to get people to think clearly about what it is they are talking about. Are you concerned about air pollution? Well, we have the data on all the major air contaminants. We can measure it, this is what it looks like…It’s not one big thing. It’s a lot of little things and most of them are actually being handled very effectively by our current regulatory systems in Canada.
There isn’t a huge opening to come in with some silver bullet like emission taxes that are going to have a big effect on the state of the environment…
We have a problem of overkill in some areas, including, for instance, the coal phase-out in Ontario. That was a huge overkill in response to the air emissions issue…They didn’t need to phase out those coal-fired power plants. But it’s the alarmism that made it impossible to have that debate at the time.
On “extreme weather” fibs:
When governments start to hauling out the issue of extreme weather, there is nothing mainstream about that kind of science. The mainstream science, including the IPCC, does not draw a connection between greenhouse gas emissions and extreme weather events. So, politicians need to be called on that sort of thing.
On climate propaganda and browbeating:
And also, finally, don’t overstate the challenge. I was struck this week by research that came out of Yale University, that even after all these years of propaganda and browbeating, Canadians are roughly evenly-split on whether global warming is mostly anthropogenic, but so is the scientific community…Once you try to move to something more specific than that—like, is it the most? or if it is responsible, is it even a problem?— that’s where that kind of consensus breaks down. So don’t overstate the problem!
On false beliefs:
You need to understand that the problem is actually alarmism, and the raft of false beliefs, and not the need for little tweaks to the tax code.
Watch Dr. McKitrick’s whole presentation here, starting at :19.
Carbon tax, carbon price, carbon levy, cap-and-trade, revenue-neutral or not—call it what you will, it is definitely a tax that everyone will pay, one way or another. It’s a You-Are-Guilty-Of-Causing-Manmade-Global-Warming/Manmade-Climate-Change Tax, levied on the carbon dioxide produced by living your life.
Let me list a few of the ways in which it’s all your fault:
- The It’s-Your-Fault-That-You-Need-To-Stay-Warm-In-Winter-To-Avoid-Freezing-To-Death Tax
- The It’s-Your-Fault-That-You-Have-To-Drive-For/To-Work-So-You-Can-Earn-A-Living Tax
- The It’s-Your-Fault-That-You-Choose-To-Cook-Dinner-For-Your-Kids Tax
- The It’s-Your-Fault-That-You-Make-The-Stuff-That-People-Need-To-Live Tax
- The It’s-Your-Fault-That-You-Want-To-Wear-Clothes-And-Live-With-Dignity Tax
- The It’s-Your-Fault-That-You-Don’t-Fancy-Poisoning-Yourself-With-Unrefrigerated-Food Tax
- The It’s-Your-Fault-That-You-Farm-Crops-And-Raise-Animals-That-Feed-The-People Tax
- The It’s-Your-Fault-That-You-Need-A-Roof-Over-Your-Head Tax
- The It’s-Your-Fault-That-You-Want-To-Cross-The-Atlantic-Or-Pacific-Without-Having-To-Swim Tax
And so on, and so on . . . whatever you do, whatever you need is toxic to the Earth, and must be stopped, they say. This political, not scientific, dangerous UN objective, was openly, baldly stated by Marxist and Canadian Maurice Strong, then UN Secretary General of the Earth Summit, at the Rio UN Earth Summit in 1992:
It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class— involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air-conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable.
For “not sustainable,” read “must be eliminated.” This is just one of the many people-control goals contained in Agenda 21, The United Nations Programme of Action, a non-binding, voluntary sustainable development action plan, agreed to by Canada and 178 other nations in 1992. It has been openly, but quietly, stealthily implemented bit by bit ever since—”globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.” A carbon tax is one of many thousands of steps in this insidious, anti-democratic, anti-human process.
Proponents (in Canada it’s the Prime Minister, the premiers of the provinces, except Brad Wall of Saskatchewan, et alia) of the extortionist carbon tax/price/levy see it as a combo behaviour-modification-and-revenue tool, designed to coerce you into making changes to your supposedly climate-catastrophe-causing habits, force you to pay for your alleged earth-harming ways. They aim to politically-correct you to be socially-just by drastically reducing your standard of living and surrendering your cash. They say they will use the proceeds to “tackle climate change,” “fight climate change,” and “save the planet” from what, in reality, is a non-existent problem. Aren’t these ridiculous, hubristic, unrealistic goals, when you really think about it? Boondoggle, anyone?
The extortionist carbon tax/price/levy is seen as a combo behaviour-modification-and-revenue tool.
For the eco-self-righteous elite and the ignorant, venal or delusional politicians, inflicting a social justice penalty and punishment tax will teach you a moralistic lesson in original sin (that of your supposedly toxic ”carbon” footprint, caused by your very existence).
A sin-punishing, kleptocratic tax on thin air . . .
The fake rationale for a sin-punishing, kleptocratic tax on thin air is the biggest scientific deception ever perpetrated, namely that manmade CO2 (carbon dioxide) supposedly causes catastrophic manmade global warming and apocalyptic manmade climate change. Human CO2 “emissions,” invisible, odourless, non-polluting though they are (but the eco-poseurs will never say that), need to be curbed or everyone burns up in a super-heated hell on Earth. But consider the following;
- There has been no global warming for nearly 19 years, during which time CO2 concentrations rose by 10%, therefore rendering the cause-and-effect grounds for carbon taxing/pricing/levying scientifically invalid.
- The UN’s climate computer model predictions of climate doom-and-devastation have all failed to match real-world empirical evidence.
- Climate changes naturally all the time, always has, always will.
In short, there is no global climate emergency at all (as Dr. Tim Ball likes to say, it only exists inside the UN IPCC’s (rigged—my word) computer climate models), and, in fact, CO2 is a life-giving, miracle trace gas enabling mankind’s survival.
A carbon tax/price/levy is a pernicious, avaricious, dishonest tax on the carbon dioxide produced by mankind’s activities. Eco-crooks try to make you believe that huge amounts of it are being spewed everywhere. In fact, CO2 is a trace gas comprising a tiny 0.04% of the atmosphere. It is something you exhale. It’s not a pollutant. It’s plant food, vital to life on earth, without which we would not even be here to discuss the carbon tax lunacy.
The end game is . . . UN Agenda 21 . . . communitarian global governance by fiat.
Undeterred by the facts and basic science, the ENGO eco-zealots, self-serving politicians at every level and of every stripe, the unthinking educators, the MSM collaborators, the carbon-propagandist celebs, the co-opted scientists, the UN climate potentates, the woefully uninformed journalists, the corporate appeasers, et alia earnestly discuss the finer points of (unnecessary, ought to be illegal) carbon pricing and procedures, when in fact the whole thing is one gigantic, evil, corrupt charade. The end game is money, power, control, UN Agenda 21, forced wealth transfer, de-population, anti-prosperity, anti-nationalism, totalitarianism, communitarian global governance by fiat.
High time to fight back.
Climate change shocker: “It’s not a scientific question, it’s connecting what’s in our heads with what’s in our hearts”
Who knew that the UN’s IPCC two-degree Celsius threshold for manmade global warming, above which the earth will supposedly burn up, is a “values” proposition, not an evidence-based, scientifically-derived, empirically-established number!
The two-degree threshold doesn’t really come come from climate scientists… What we consider dangerous is not a scientific question—it’s a values question. It has to do more with…what’s in our hearts and what’s in our heads… We knew all the facts we needed to take action fifty years ago… People are starting to recognize this isn’t just a science issue, this isn’t just a policy issue. Climate change is an issue of connecting what’s in our heads with what’s in our hearts.
So says Canadian Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University.
This is the latest, perhaps the kookiest attempt by believers in the Church of Manmade Climate Change to minimize and sideline science and the scientific method.
Hayhoe is in effect saying that the two-degree Celsius threshold is a made-up number, without the benefit of scientific investigation. And that is exactly how it was arrived at: Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the Pope’s special science advisor, described as the father of the two-degree target, has admitted it. “Yes, I plead guilty. Two degrees is not a magical limit—it’s clearly a political goal.”
As the UN’s Ottmar Edenhofer has conceded, climate policy is about redistributing wealth: “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
The UN’s climate high priestess, Christiana Figueres, has imperiously stated that the UN is “setting…the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
In other words, forget any pretense that there is a global climate emergency based on rigorous scientific inquiry. It was and is a deliberately fabricated rationale for an unprecedented grab for global governance, coercing pernicious wealth transfer, erasing national sovereignty, and ending personal freedoms. That’s what the UN’s Paris climate fest, COP21, is all about. Not to “save the planet,” not to lift billions of people out of abject, electricity-free poverty, not to make a better world for your grandchildren.
Think about that as the crazed emissions waft out of Paris over the next two weeks: the posturing, the fawning, the preening, the dramatics, the apocalyptic predictions, the mendacity, the hypocrisy, the propaganda, the deliberate evil of it all.
Oh, the science-illiterate CBC—Canada’s national broadcaster!
The website of its radio program, The Current, has this caption underneath the photo of a generic scientist:
McGill University’s Joe Schwarcz is doing his best to separate the facts from the myths — relying on a novel technique called the scientific method. (Emphasis added – see above.)
Scientific method a novel technique, CBC?! It’s only been around in its modern form since at least the first half of the 13th century, and its underpinnings go back to Aristotle!
The delicious irony being that this caption is part of a segment that is supposed to be about separating fact from fiction in science reporting and blogging! (The Current‘s guest, Joe Schwarcz, Director of McGill University’s Office for Science & Society, has written a new book that he says is intended to “separate sense from nonsense and to give good, reliable information …”)
A serious problem with the clueless CBC (and, with a few notable exceptions, the majority of the mainstream media) is pretending to be scientifically savvy and journalistically objective when actually woefully uninformed, and biased to boot, especially so when it comes to the hypothesis of manmade climate change.
The fact that the CBC seemingly has zero knowledge about the scientific method explains why it eagerly and ignorantly regurgitates every apocalyptic prediction emanating from the UN/IPCC’s climate computer models that have consistently failed to match real-world evidence and data, and why Canada’s national broadcaster never seems to invite any sceptical scientists or experts to join the discussion.
The Current’s segment highlights the extent of the CBC’s delusion about its journalistic skills and objectivity, and its utter failure to act responsibly in reporting on climate science. In fact, the publicly-funded CBC is one of Canada’s most prominent propaganda organs for promoting the scientifically unproven hypothesis of manmade global warming/manmade climate change and the spectre of a non-existent global climate catastrophe.
The segment starts out reasonably enough. Guest Joe Schwarcz poses the question:
Who is trustworthy? … evaluation of information is paramount … the only way you can do that is by having a solid scientific background, by being aware of the peer-reviewed literature, by being aware of how we in the science community claim to know what we know ….
Later in the segment Joe Schwarcz continues by saying, “We don’t have concrete answers to everything” and “Real scientists don’t make dogmatic remarks.” Then,”real scientist” Joe Schwarcz, Ph.D. in Chemistry, completely contradicts himself and feels free to make a concrete, dogmatic statement about manmade climate change.
Before that, however, Schwarcz opines on journalistic fair balance:
… just because there are diverse opinions on many scientific issues it doesn’t mean that they should carry equal weight . . . but in journalism school, very often the principle is taught that you have to, you know, give attention to both sides of a controversy … write up an article, or do a radio/TV piece, presenting it as if the two sides had equal weight …
At that, Anna Maria Tremonti, host of The Current, seems to want to puff up her journalistic bona fides. She says:
As opposed to dealing with the fact, which is what journalists are also supposed to do … right!
Joe Schwarcz continues:
Exactly! Just because you have differences of opinion doesn’t mean you give them equal weight, because in one case you might have the majority of the scientific community supporting one side, and a few rogue outliers on the other, but very often those rogue outliers are very, very convincing and they speak well because they work at it. Most scientists … are not that interested in kind of describing their work to the public, whereas when you look at the activists … a great deal of effort goes into how they should communicate their information.
Host Anna Maria Tremonti can’t resist that opening:
Well, same with scientists who say that climate change doesn’t exist.
This is an extraordinarily stupid, and grossly irresponsible thing for a CBC host to say! (Also gratuitous—the index in Schwarcz’s new book contains no entry for climate change, or global warming, or environment, or carbon dioxide, or CO2. In other words, he did not discuss the climate debate in his book.) We doubt there is any scientist anywhere, of any stripe, of any ability, who would say that climate change doesn’t exist. In fact, even any non-scientist who has ever heard of the Ice Age will logically conclude that climate changes naturally over time—it always has, and always will. Tremonti made a knee-jerk, flip, uninformed statement, devoid of any serious understanding of the issue at hand, typical of the kind of thoughtless CBC climate debate comment that you can expect to hear (or read) on any of the CBC’s public affairs programs from any of its hosts, at any time of the day or night.
Joe Schwarcz enthusiastically takes the bait of Tremonti’s comment with a “concrete answer” and “dogmatic remark”:
Exactly! And that’s one of the classic examples where articles are written apparently giving equal weight to both sides, and yet, when you speak to scientists who do the work—atmospheric chemists who really are up-to-date on all of the research—they will tell you there is no argument here. Climate change is real, and humans do play a role. (Emphasis added.)
First, it’s not true that the CBC, or the majority of the mainstream media, give “equal weight to both sides” of the climate issue. Most articles or radio/TV pieces are skewed to the alarmist side of the debate. Second, would the climate science “rogue outliers” be someone like real Canadian scientist Dr. Tim Ball, who is “up-to-date on all of the research,” and who does have “a solid scientific background, (is) aware of the peer-reviewed literature, (is) aware of how … the science community claim to know what (they) know”?
In any case, CBC mission accomplished! Once again the scientists and other experts who are sceptical about the hypothesis of manmade climate change have been sufficiently bashed by the CBC host, linking them to “rogue outliers”—or “activists” who worry about how to communicate their information. (Well, yes, when most of the mainstream media completely ignores them they do have to make a concerted effort to alert the public about the willful bias, the lies, the propaganda.)
After discussion of other issues, Anna Maria Tremonti asks:
How much responsibility does the mainstream media have to take for leaping on to, like, a big story and then torquing it or just, like, making it sound like so … so, ah, certain?
Joe Schwarcz answers:
Well, you know, the job of the media is to sell the media, right?
CBC’s Anna Maria Tremonti:
Well, it should be, it should be … but it’s not to sell it. It’s to … um … put out information that we are told by some people is accurate, and they’ve studied it, right? So how do you, you know …
Well, because things that are in the news generate more requests for being in the news. I think it is the job of the media to separate the sense from the nonsense. I think journalists have the task of doing the work but these days, unfortunately, people just want sound bites.
Anna Maria Tremonti changes the subject, and later on asks:
So, why should people trust you and what you are saying rather than the other sources that are out there trying to get attention?
Our allegiance is to the scientific method. The only thing that makes a difference is that whatever decision is arrived at, is arrived at through proper scientific methodology, not through hearsay, not through emotion, and not by listening to the all-knowing they-say-that. So, we go by the evidence and that evidence is furnished, of course, by the peer-reviewed literature. It’s not to suggest the peer-reviewed literature is infallible—it isn’t infallible because humans are humans … The referee has to assume that what was submitted is correct … If someone wants to submit fraudulent data, you can get away with it.
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.
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: