Unless we pay an ever-increasing tithe to stop bad weather, the world will end. So decreed the Government of Canada, and, on April Fools’ Day, forced all Canadians to start handing over hard-earned dollars to the eco-gods.
Provinces of Canada had been warned that if they did not come up with a “carbon tax scheme,” Prime Minister Trudeau and his Liberals would do it for them. In April in Toronto, Ontario challenged the constitutionality of Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act in a four-day hearing at the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
The premise for the Act and for every single boondoggle of a fake-green scheme to “fight,” “tackle,” “take action against” manmade global warming/manmade climate change is false. Greenhouse gases (of which carbon dioxide (CO2) has been targetted for demonization) that arise from the activities of people living their normal lives, are blamed for causing changes in the weather.
CO2 is the most important food for all life on earth. Calling it a “pollutant” is anti-science and anti-truth…We are not the enemy of nature, but its salvation – Dr. Patrick Moore, Ecologist, Greenpeace Co-Founder (See 54:39 and 1:06:18)
Greenhouse gases are not a pollutant, as the title of the Act would have you believe. Without them there would be no life on earth. There is no manmade global climate emergency. The climate changes naturally all the time, always has, always will.
(Note how cleverly the Liberal government now refers to greenhouse gases in the singular, officially treating them as a “single pollutant,” no doubt to deflect the inconvenient truth that, CO2, the trace gas they vilify is actually invisible, odourless, life-giving plant food. The eco-hysterics have always abused language to obfuscate – for example with the words “carbon,” and “carbon pollution,” hoping people will confuse them with deadly carbon monoxide.)
So, on the basis of a false premise, an expensive four-day court proceeding involving scores of learned lawyers, experts, huge amounts of time and brainpower, and the full judicial apparatus with five justices, focused on debating in all gravity and seriousness the finer points of whether the provincial or the federal government has the constitutional right to the privilege of profiting from “fighting” a non-existent problem. It’s as if nobles of The Emperor’s retinue, he of the New Clothes, are squabbling over who has the right and the privilege to the useless act of dressing the Emperor in his pretend, non-existent clothes. It is actually that ridiculous, and tragic.
Beleaguered taxpayers in Ontario have to foot the bill for both the provincial and federal government’s legal tussle over the spoils of “tackling” a non-existent problem. At least they were allowed to watch the drama unfold via live stream from the courtroom and decide for themselves the relative merits of the case.
Unfortunately not heard in the courtroom was the following:
It was warmer than today for at least 95% of the last 10,000 years. – Dr. Tim Ball, historical climatologist
Ninety percent (90%) of the time since creation the earth was warmer than it is now – because the geological evidence indicates that over all of geology history, 4.65 billion years, somewhere between 5% and 10% of that time was there [no] substantial ice on earth, and now there is. There’s Greenland and Antartica and summer ice all over the planet, lots of places. So you’re talking 5% or 10% of the time the planet was cooler than it is now. – Dr. Richard A. Keen, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Colorado
We’re at the lowest levels of CO2 in earth’s history. Four hundred and forty-four million years ago, while we were in the depths of the coldest period in the last half billion years, we had 1100% of today’s CO2 levels, according to geologic proxies. So CO2 is very low right now. They say “40% rise in the last century, since 1880.” Well, that’s peanuts in natural terms. – Tom Harris, Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition
The carbon dioxide in this room is now around 900 [ppm]. Now, either we should be happy about it or evacuate the room for fear that there is something bad about it. There is nothing bad about carbon dioxide. The more the better. – Dr. Jay H. Lehr, Science Director, Heartland Institute
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system and therefore long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” The IPCC web pages where this statement was recorded were purged in November 2018. It was recorded prior to this many times on the WayBack Machine. – Dr. Patrick Moore, Ecologist, Greenpeace Co-Founder
First the scaremongering, then the legal argument
Eminent, honest scientists and experts were not invited to the hearing, and climate science expertise such as theirs was not required (because “the science is settled,” don’t you know). The objective of the challenge in the Court of Appeal for Ontario was not to establish whether or not the hypothesis of cataclysmic manmade climate change has been proven or whether a tax can prevent planetary climate doom as the Trudeau government claims.
Nonetheless, many of the parties arguing for the constitutional legitimacy of the Act felt it necessary to preface their submissions to the court with apocalyptic declarations, as follows:
We know that climate change is an urgent threat to humanity. The accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere causes global warming, which is causing climate change and the associated national and international risks to human health and well-being. Greenhouse gas emissions are not contained with geographic boundaries. They are an interprovincial and international pollutant. Reducing Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions as part of the global effort to slow climate change is critical. – Lawyer for Canada
First and foremost, we submit that climate change is the most serious environmental and economic problem of our time. If greenhouse gas emissions are not a matter of national concern, it’s difficult to imagine what is. And it’s not merely the importance of the problem that makes it a national concern to respond to Ontario, it’s the fact that greenhouse gases cause serious extra-provincial and international impacts… – Lawyer for Canada’s Eco-Fiscal Commission
Ontario agrees with Canada that climate change is real, is caused by human activities, is already having a disruptive effect across the country and if left unchecked, its potential impact will be even more severe…In short, Ontario’s agreement is consistent with the view that greenhouse emissions, in causing climate change, are an evil. – Lawyer for Canadian Environmental Law Association, Environmental Defence, Sisters of Providence of St. Vincent de Paul
Climate change is properly understood as a public health issue. There is scientific consensus that it is the biggest global public health threat of the 21st century. – Lawyer for Canadian Public Health Association
There was the usual heart-wrenching plea to think of the children, the grandchildren, the next generations:
I’m here today to talk about children, the children of today and the children yet to come in future generations…they are going to bear the most severe impacts from our greenhouse gas emissions… the greenhouse gas emissions of current and previous generations have created an urgent threat to our children and to future generations. – Lawyer for Intergenerational Climate Coalition
And then there was the predictable, hysterical pronouncement from the charlatan Suzuki corner:
Canada and the world face a crisis more dire than any that has come before. As we have been warned by an overwhelming consensus of scientists, a rapidly warming planet threatens Canadians’ way of life and indeed our very lives. We have only a decade to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a stable level. If Canada’s and the world’s actions do not produce the required reductions by 2030 we will pass a point of no return, forever losing the ability to prevent some of the worst consequences of climate change. The shrinking window of time left to save ourselves from climate disaster is truly a national emergency, in fact, nothing less than a global emergency. – Lawyer for David Suzuki Foundation
Even the lawyer for the Province of Ontario insisted that:
This is not a reference [case] about whether climate change is real. It is. This is not a reference about whether greenhouse gases produced by human activity are contributing to climate change. They are. And it is not a reference about whether action needs to be taken. Action does need to be taken. Ontario has taken action. Ontario is continuing to take action.
The Trudeau Liberals’ “leak”
Some of the five justices hearing the case seemed at times to conflate their understanding of regular environmental pollution with manmade climate change, but no wonder when the Act uses the deliberately misleading term “greenhouse gas pollution.” Moreover some of them seemed to reveal where they may stand on the subject of manmade climate change per se. In a question for the lawyer representing the intervener Province of New Brunswick, with reference to floods there, the justice posited this: “…if they’re caused by climate change, which seems a reasonable assumption…“
With all due respect, even the UN’s IPCC would beg to differ:
There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses [from extreme weather] have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change…
Another justice had this to say:
The worst impacts by far in Canada of greenhouse gases are the three northern territories. They’re facing the risk of temperatures rising from 3.5 to 7 degrees. The biggest emitters are Ontario, Alberta, and probably Quebec. What’s the incentive for Alberta, Quebec, and Ontario to do things that are going to be responsive to a horrible problem up north? Just on the news the other day there was the chief of one of the bands up in the Yukon, saying the caribou this year are 85 km away from where they have been for centuries – 85 km away, and entirely because of the melt up there.
Now this is highly interesting. The day that the carbon tax became effective – April 1 – a report by Canada’s Department of the Environment was “leaked” to Canada’s state broadcaster, the CBC. It claimed that Canada was heating up twice as fast as the rest of the world, and that Northern Canada was triple the global rate. On March 31, the day before the alarmist report was “leaked,” the state broadcaster published an article, handwringing that “Indigenous elders in Yukon say moose and caribou are moving farther north to escape the effects of climate change.”
The CBC continued to fan the flames more than usual with daily news or opinion pieces wholly in line with the Trudeau Liberal government’s climate narrative and the imperative to tax carbon dioxide. Very neat and tidy coincidences and exquisite timing, wouldn’t you say? Sad caribou story, carbon tax implemented, leaked alarmist climate report – all within two days. The CBC’s propaganda effort seems to have had a powerful impact on at least one of the justices.
It is to be hoped that the honourable justices get their climate information from sources other than the propagandist state broadcaster, as, for example, from Dr. Ross McKitrick, who puts the super-heated government report into proper perspective. It was apparent, judging by some of their comments and questions, that the justices would also do well to refresh their basic scientific knowledge about the atmosphere, greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, fluctuations in climate throughout the eons, and so on.
A “carbon” tax/levy/charge, inflicted on Canadians based on a fake, anti-human premise
The premise for this hearing, and that of the Act in question, was and is that catastrophic, life-threatening, earth-dooming global warming/climate change is caused by man’s emissions of greenhouse gases, craftily treated as one single pollutant. This fake premise was not up for discussion, but should have been debated long ago by a Liberal government that crowed it would develop policies and legislation based on science and evidence. It’s the pernicious, dishonest tax grab that is “evil,” not the greenhouse gases, as the lawyer for Canadian Environmental Law Association et alia would have you believe.
A tax on thin air as a punishing “behaviour-changing signal”
The lawyer for the Government of Canada stated that the Act is not a tax bill, but rather imposes a “behaviour-changing regulatory charge,” that represents a “behaviour-changing signal,” whereby “the dominant purpose is to change behaviour.”
So Justin Trudeau and his Liberals fancy that they can change the behaviour of Canadians, punish them, social engineer them, with a punitive levy for living their lives, for doing the things that keep them (and the country) safe and secure, healthy, productive, and alive – in a cold, modern, northern country with a huge landmass! Canadians rely on fossil fuels for every aspect of our lives. Exactly what “behaviour” are they supposed to “change,” and to what? Stop heating their homes? Stop going to work? Stop eating?
Canadians are climate pawns in the UN’s globalist aims
The Liberals’ irrational, insane scheming is based on the false premise that man can control the ever-naturally-changing climate and weather. It is influenced and brought to you by the UN’s anti-human, anti-democratic agenda for unelected, unaccountable global governance using a phoney global climate immolation as a smoke screen. (You can read a series of posts about the UN’s corruption and politicization of science to effect its malign infiltration and influence on every level of public policy decision-making in Canada here.)
Other provinces blow back
Canada’s carbon tax law applies to provinces that do not have their own “carbon tax regimes” that meet “national standards,” currently Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and New Brunswick. Saskatchewan has completed its own court of appeal challenge, and is awaiting the outcome. Manitoba plans a legal challenge. But will any leader of any level of government in Canada ever have the conviction or the guts to challenge the root problem, the false premise underlying the evil “carbon” hoax, the most massive scientific deception ever perpetrated in plain sight?
Ontario’s Court of Appeal hearing ended April 18. The five justices have reserved judgement, and their ruling will come sometime within the next six months.
The Ontario McGuinty/Wynne Liberal governments created special legislation and regulations for industrial wind turbine owners, granting them permits to slaughter species at risk without consequences. They have license not only to kill, harm or harass a member of a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List, but also to situate the bird-killing machines in designated Important Bird Areas—and they take full advantage.
Ontario Regulation 242/08: General under the Endangered Species Act, 2007. S.O. 2007, c.6 states in section 23.20 that
Clause 9 (1) (a) and subsection 10 (1) of the Act do not apply to a person who is engaged in the operation of a wind facility and who, in the course of the operation of the wind facility, kills, harms or harasses a member of a species that is listed on the Species at Risk in Ontario List as an endangered or threatened species, or damages or destroys the habitat of such a species…
Fauna not at risk are fair game, no permit required.
The federal Liberal minister of the environment, Catherine McKenna, doesn’t see anything wrong with this. McKenna’s straw-woman response to Sen. Bob Runciman’s request to assess the cumulative effect the killing machines have on birds and bats is that “wind turbines kill relatively few birds when compared to cats, windows on buildings, vehicles and transmission lines.”
Bird Studies Canada, claiming to be “Canada’s leading science-based bird conservation organization,” and others of its ilk don’t seem to care about the wind industry’s bloody bird and bat massacres. In Bird Studies Canada’s Top 6 Ways You Can Help Birds web page, there is not a single word about it. Instead we are fed greenie kumbaya pap such as: “Reducing overall consumption, and making ‘greener’ choices generally, reduces your environmental footprint and benefits all wildlife over time.”
The save-the-planet environmentalist-pretenders sure don’t care. As Oxford biologist Clive Hambler pointed out in 2013 (emphasis added):
Wind farms are devastating populations of rare birds and bats across the world, driving some to the point of extinction. Most environmentalists just don’t want to know. Because they’re so desperate to believe in renewable energy, they’re in a state of denial. But the evidence suggests that … renewables pose a far greater threat to wildlife than climate change.
Over in the UK, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Birds (RSPB), as James Delingpole derisively called it in 2014, has also lost its way:
A wind farm in Scotland, which the RSPB was instrumental in easing through the planning process ten years ago has successfully destroyed all but one of the forty breeding pairs of golden plover in the region.
… birds are what the RSPB – originally known as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds – was established to protect.
… it appears to have decided that the “birds” in its name no longer have much relevance to its campaigning causes. In fact it appears increasingly to view their destruction with equanimity.
… the RSPB … made up its mind … that climate change was such an important issue that supporting renewable energy was more important than stopping birds being sliced and diced by gigantic eco-crucifixes … despite copious evidence from around the world of the millions of birds (and bats) killed by turbines each year.
As usual, it’s a case of follow-the-money. As James Delingpole reported, the RSPB “is making hundreds of thousands of pounds from the wind power industry.” Bird-protection mandate and charity status obligations be damned.
The wind industry worldwide is very good at hiding mortality rates, and governments and the mainstream media don’t care for the truth—it would ruin their save-the-planet-from-burning-up-with-green-technology narrative. Wildlife expert Jim Wiegand and other analysts estimated in 2013 that in the United States, the industrial wind turbines annually kill up to 39 million birds and bats, but the wind industry will never admit it.
The wind industry is hiding over 90% of the bird and bat mortality caused by their turbines. This statement is supported by the industry’s own data and reasonable adjustments for its manipulations.
The wind industry is … producing faulty, misleading and even fraudulent documents to hide the serious and growing mortality. This situation has continued for years but has been shielded by state and federal agencies and other supporters of wind power.
As the bird and bat mortality reports are slowly uncovered, the numbers just seem to get worse and worse. I never imagined it could get this low, but then again nobody was releasing this info to the public, so how were we to know?
As she implies, real news like this is hardly ever published in the mainstream media and certainly not advertised by bird protection organizations such as Bird Studies Canada. Not surprising when you consider that Bird Studies Canada partners with the Canadian Wind Energy Association, Environment Canada and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources to maintain the Wind Energy Bird & Bat Monitoring Database and produce the Wind Energy Bird and Bat Monitoring Database Summary of the Findings from Post-construction Monitoring Reports, dated July 2016.
Of course, the Canadian Wind Energy Association, Environment Canada and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources all have a vested interest in NOT broadcasting how many birds and bats the wind industry kills every year. That would be bad for the subsidy-sucking, taxpayer-gouging wind business, and really bad for public acceptance of government greenie, ”sustainable,” “alternative energy,“ “tackling climate change,” “decarbonizing,” “reducing carbon pollution,” “changing behaviour,” “economy and environment go together,” “saving the planet” policies.
It is therefore astonishing and laudable that the Wind Energy Bird and Bat Monitoring Database Summary concludes that there are serious problems with respect to the scientific validity of the bird and bat mortality estimates:
The mortality estimates presented here potentially underestimate true mortality as they are based solely on carcasses that fell within 50 m of the turbine base.
…the proportion of carcasses expected to fall outside of 50 m [estimated] to be up to 51.8% of birds, based on 4 studies that searched a radius up to 85 m.
For 80 m turbines, carcasses were expected to fall to a maximum distance of 156 m. These findings indicate that the mortality estimates presented here may underestimate true mortality…
The numbers in the FOI reports that Esther obtained, while shocking, are probably just the tip of the iceberg. And just imagine the numbers world-wide!
And for what are millions of birds and bats being sacrificed, with hardly a peep of protest to be heard from the many (co-opted) bird protection organizations around the world? It would be bad enough if their deaths were collateral damage for a greater good, but the terrible fact is that they are being slaughtered for nothing except a morally corrupt ideology—the massive scientific deception of manmade climate change, where the industrial wind abominations supposedly are a remedy for what is actually a non-existent problem.
The killer wind machines, these fake-green, bird-and-bat-slaughtering, taxpayer-robbing, corporate-welfare, crony-capitalist monstrosities, will never meet our energy needs, will never have any redeeming value whatsoever—not for the environment, not for the economy, not for our quality of life.
A sign in Queen’s Park, just steps away from the Ontario Legislative Building, proves the gargantuan fakery of manmade climate change. It reads in part:
THE NATURAL HISTORY OF QUEEN’S PARK
15,000 years ago, all of Ontario was covered by glacial ice measuring up to 1.5 km thick. Lake Iroquois formed when these glaciers receded…This glacial lake eventually receded to the level of Lake Ontario.
Climate changed naturally throughout the eons. Always has, always will.
The biggest lie central to the Fake Climate News narrative, devoid of scientific-method-derived empirical evidence, is that carbon dioxide, CO2, is responsible for manmade climate change, the cause of catastrophic extreme weather events that in reality have occurred only inside rigged climate computer models. None have been borne out by real-world observations and empirical evidence.
Carbon dioxide, the life-giving, invisible, odorless trace gas plant food, has been deliberately demonized and vilified as “carbon pollution,” “carbon emissions,” “GHG emissions,” where a deadly “carbon footprint” is every human’s original sin and which, according to the eco-freak pundits unchallenged on the “climate change” propagandist state broadcaster CBC, has “people dying by the hand of carbon emitters.“
Fake Climate News is the pretext for the draconian control-and-command “mitigation measures” of the Liberals’ fraudulent-green energy policies, enabled by anti-democratic and anti-human legislation such as the Green Energy Act in Ontario.
As JoNova writes:
The religious mission against plant fertilizer in the hope of holding back the tide by half a millimeter in 2100 is noxious, damaging, dangerous in so many ways. It deprives the poor of cheap energy, good jobs, and warm houses.
The evil climate fakery has spawned a massive, corrupt, $1.5 trillion worldwide climate change industry. In Ontario, the Liberals’ phoney-green energy policies have caused punishing electricity costs and plunged citizens into gut-wrenching energy poverty. Unmoved, the Ontario Liberals continue to oppress and impoverish Ontarians with their useless, destructive, pernicious industrial wind energy fiasco. To make matters worse, the Liberals have imposed what is effectively a callous, irresponsible carbon tax (on thin air) which itself is subject to a further Harmonized Sales Tax (HST)!
Just how useless and wasteful industrial wind turbines are is detailed in a December 2016 report submitted by Strategic Policy Economics (Strapolec) in response to the Ontario Ministry of Energy’s formal review of its Long-Term Energy Plan (LTEP). It provides a shocking analysis.
For the report, Strapolec developed a simulation to show how “supply options could interact to supply the anticipated demand.”
Key assumptions and findings with respect to industrial wind turbines (emphasis added):
- …intermittent solar and wind generation…sources require significant backup/storage and entail other integration costs.
- …wind generation…results in a surplus electricity.
- Wind generation production will be intermittent.
- Wind in Ontario tends to arise at similar and coincidental times across the province.
- Wind is deemed surplus to the hydro or nuclear generation.
- Imports are called upon to meet the winter ramp if there is insufficient wind production.
- …wind may be able to “fill in” with the future imports, but does not integrate well with baseload hydro or nuclear.
- This intermittency results in over 40% of the wind generation becoming surplus generation…
- The significant increase in wind capacity in the OPO [Ontario Planning Outlook] is questionable on three counts:
- Wind generation has not matched demand since its introduction in Ontario;
- Over 70% of wind generation does not benefit Ontario’s supply capability: and,
- Wind generation will not match demand in the OPO future projections as 50% of the forecasted production is expected to be surplus.
- Figure 16 compares wind generation patterns to Ontario demand for the period of 2013 to 2015. Over this three-year period, wind generation has increased in the spring and fall when Ontario doesn’t need the supply, and is at its lowest when Ontario needs it most in summer. Peaking in the fall, wind generation does not contribute to its full supply capacity throughout the higher winter demand period. Wind cannot be matched to demand. With the forecasted winter-heavy demand profile, the contrast between wind generation and demand in winter will become as stark as those in the summer.
- This mismatch leads to surplus energy.
- When wind generation is present in Ontario, it causes three distinct reactions of similar magnitude in the dispatch of Ontario’s supply resources:
- Curtailment (waste) of both nuclear and hydro;
- Export of wind generated electricity at prices well below cost of production; and
- Reduction of natural gas-fired generation.
- Total useful wind energy therefore represents 4.3 TWh, or 47%, of the wind generation in Ontario. Over 50% of wind generation in Ontario is not productively used by Ontarians. It could be viewed as being wasted through curtailments and/or via uneconomic exports to neighbouring jurisdictions.
- …historical surplus wind generation is reflected in the production forecast in the OPO D1 and D3 options. These results indicate that 40% to 55% of the planned wind capacity in the OPO may be surplus. This is a very important consideration given that the LTEP focuses on the lowest possible cost future. If wind generation can only be productively used 50% of the time, then its unit cost doubles to $172/MWh from the $86/MWh assumed in the OPO. This suggests that wind generation is the most expensive generation option for Ontario, not including the Tx related costs and other integration issues described in the OPO. Wind and imports represent the two most expensive options in the OPO, yet these options are given significant weight in the OPO. The LTEP process should address this contradiction.
- The limitations related to wind generation’s contribution to Ontario’s clean supply mix were discussed earlier in this report.
- …it can be argued that given the natural flow of…wind patterns, as described in Section 3.0, demand does not match these supply resources, and requires either large reservoirs or backup facilities to function.
- The wind and solar costs in the OPO are deceiving, as outlined earlier. The full cost associated with wind’s variable production profile is $172/MhW…
- Opposition to wind projects has been evident in Ontario and other jurisdictions. Specific concerns have been expressed about human health impacts, nuisance effects related to noise and the visual presence of the wind turbines on the landscape, bird deaths and disturbance to the habitat of rare fauna and flora.
- Research is underway in several jurisdictions e.g., Germany and Sweden related to the decommissioning, recycling and disposal of wind turbines and the associated infrastructure.
- No clear accountability and or funding arrangements are evident in Ontario to manage the decommissioning, recycling and disposal of components of existing and or planned wind projects.
The Strapolec report, damning as it is of the non-efficacy of industrial wind turbines, is predicated on the fiction that
the urgency to combat climate change is now fully acknowledged by all key actors. To reverse the impacts of global warming, deep decarbonization of the global economy is now a priority for government action. Electrification across all economic sectors is considered a critical enabler for transitioning Ontario to a low carbon energy future. The LTEP’s role is to provide for the energy infrastructure that will facilitate this transition.
The report provides an awful lot of technical analysis and deep thinking about how to craft an energy mix that will effectively “fight” what is actually a non-existent problem of manmade climate change. However, it is very valuable with respect to pointing out that the industrial wind turbine industry, as one of the climate industry’s fake-green energy “alternatives,” is utterly useless, actually damaging, economically speaking, not to mention destructive in every conceivable way for humans, communities, the land, and wildlife—birds and bats catastrophically so.
In December 2016, Ontario’s auditor general, Bonnie Lysyk revealed that
ratepayers forked out $37 billion more than necessary from 2006 to 2014 and will spend an additional $133 billion by 2032 due to global adjustment electricity fees on hydro bills.
Meanwhile, the provincial and federal Liberals, instead of addressing real environmental issues, kowtow to the UN-led massive scientific deception, by now a quasi religion, and stupidly, wilfully continue tilting at a deliberately concocted non-existent climate problem, betraying, oppressing, and impoverishing the people they are mandated to serve and protect.
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!
Another Kafkaesque industrial wind turbine nightmare in Ontario. A regional airport (Collingwood), with an aerodrome close by (Stayner), and eight 500’ (152 metres) air-space-invading industrial wind turbines (wpd Canada’s Fairview Wind Project) to be wedged between both airfields, posing grave danger to pilots and their passengers—and the whole thing approved by the Ontario Liberal government.
What could possibly go wrong when pilots, flying visually without instrumentation (as is the case in over 90% of the flights at these two airports), have to negotiate a safe take-off or landing through a blur of Georgian Bay fog, or lake-effects snow, and an indiscernible phalanx of gigantic 50-storey-tall white windmills?
All eight of the planned wind turbines will “penetrate” the safe arrival and departure airspace mandated by Transport Canada standards.
The Collingwood-Stayner airspace is a no-man’s-land of regulation, a lawless vacuum with respect to wind turbine installations. Ontario’s Green Energy Act deliberately has no safety provision for wind turbine setbacks near airports. All eight of the planned wind turbines will “penetrate” the safe arrival and departure airspace mandated by Transport Canada standards, as prescribed by the International Civil Aviation Organization.
If the turbines are built, and they thereby are found to create an unsafe situation, Transport Canada could shut the airports down.
However, here is the kicker. Transport Canada has no jurisdiction over where wind turbines are located with respect to the air space of registered, uncertified airports such as the Collingwood Regional Airport and the Clearview Aerodrome in Stayner. But, when the turbines are built, and they thereby are found to create an unsafe situation, Transport Canada could shut the airports down. The airports, not the wind turbines!
In this case, there is a dangerous jurisdictional vacuum. Neither Transport Canada, nor the Ontario government, nor the local governments, which the Liberals’ Green Energy Act stripped of their planning powers, have any legal say over the aeronautically-safe siting of wind turbines at registered, uncertified airports.
Wind companies—often foreign-owned—pretty well get to do whatever they want.
Such is the looney landscape of Ontario’s sickly “green” wind energy program that wind companies—often foreign-owned—pretty well get to do whatever they want, aided, abetted, enabled, financially rewarded, and legally defended by the Ontario Liberals’ Green Energy Act and their kangaroo court of (hopeless) appeal, the Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT). Only two of the scores of wind turbine project appeals to the ERT have had partial success, with final outcomes still pending.
wpd Canada’s Fairview Wind Project between the Collingwood-Stayner airports is being appealed, with an ERT hearing scheduled for May 16, 2016 in Collingwood. What are the chances that the safety-minded appellants will prevail? The onus is on them to prove “serious harm” to human health. You’d think that this would be a no-brainer, logical, obvious. But the narrow terms of reference by which the ERT operates and the unfair burden of proof heaped on the appellants usually spell defeat.
For a mind-blowing overview of this particular Kafkaesque situation involving wind turbine approvals and appeals, watch the 30-minute media event held at Queen’s Park on April 21, 2016 (starting at 3:09). At the press conference, Simcoe-Grey MPP Jim Wilson, Kevin Elwood (the pilot owner of the Clearview Aerodrome), and Charles Magwood, area property owner, outlined chilling facts about the lawless loophole that could endanger the lives of pilots and their passengers, and potentially close down an economically vital airport and aerodrome for good.
The trio also discuss possible graft and corruption in this case: wpd Canada’s payments made to the Liberal party, followed immediately by government approvals for wpd Canada’s project, and wpd Canada’s creation of a shell company with no assets in order to evade liability for accidents and de-commissioning of wind turbines.
In Ontario: lawless loopholes, callous, criminal disregard for human health and safety, apparent bribes for wind project approvals, calculated liability evasion, democracy-robbing legislation—all for economically useless, environmentally-destructive, subsidy-sucking industrial wind turbines, ugly symbols of a bankrupt, immoral, dishonest, fake planetary climate emergency.
The same goes for Kevin and Gail Elwood, John Wiggins, and the residents’ group Preserve Clearview, after the Environmental Review Tribunal dismissed an application for costs related to their appeal of a decision to grant WPD a renewable energy application for the Fairview Wind Project.
People living in the Ontario’s large urban centres may not realize to what extent the Liberals, by means of undemocratic fiat, have imposed massive, invasive industrialization on rural Ontario. In many cases it has happened against the will of communities and people.
The Liberals’ Green Energy Act and its companion, the Environmental Review Tribunal—a toothless kangaroo court for any person or organization NOT a wind energy proponent—rob municipalities and property owners of their rights and any fair chance to prevent wind companies, mostly foreign-owned, from riding roughshod over their land and property values, wildlife and environmental protections, and human and livestock health concerns, never mind from visually polluting and despoiling the natural beauty of the Ontario landscape.
To make matters worse, none of the Liberals’ totalitarian-like “green” “renewable” energy push has made any economic sense, as was again confirmed by the Auditor General of Ontario Annual Report 2015, and in fact would appear to be willful appropriation and squandering of taxpayer money and the deliberate imposition of astronomical electricity costs to consumers and business:
Expensive wind and solar energy—We calculate that electricity consumers have had to pay $9.2 billion…more for renewables over the 20-year contract terms under the Ministry’s current guaranteed-price renewable program than they would have paid under the previous program…We found that the prices under Ontario’s guaranteed-price renewable program were…double the market price for wind and three and a half times the market price for solar energy in 2014.
Watch this video—industrial wind turbines in southwestern Ontario, near Shelburne—and weep.
Protesters joined the remaining migrating tundra swans at the Thedford Bog near Grand Bend, Lake Huron, on Sunday, April 6, 2014, to condemn plans to build a bristling barrier of industrial wind turbines in what is a designated Important Bird Area. Every March some 10-15,000 tundra swans stop at the Thedford Bog and environs to rest and feed before continuing on their migration to the western Arctic.
Waterfowl scientist Dr. Scott Petrie told CBC News in 2012:
By putting the turbines in inappropriate places, it actually is tantamount to habitat loss. You wouldn’t put an office tower next to a coastal wetland, why would you put a wind turbine there?
Monte McNaughton, Progressive Conservative Member of the Provincial Parliament of Ontario (MPP) for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, reminded the protesters that his party’s leader, Tim Hudak, has promised, if elected, to repeal the Green Energy Act, the draconian legislation that has given unprecedented rights to industrial wind turbines over people, communities and wildlife. The Green Energy Act was enacted in 2009 in part as a response to the fake planetary emergency of man-made global warming/climate change.
CLICK ON IMAGE TO PLAY VIDEO (some wind noise)
The Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne Liberal governments have allowed the Ontario landscape to be despoiled and blighted by thousands of useless industrial wind turbines. The machines, towering as high as 50-storey buildings, built on a foundation that requires 800 tons of concrete each that will remain in the ground of prime farmland forever, have been erected in the absence of any cost-benefit analysis or human health studies, and accorded special rights by the Liberal government with its elimination of environmental restrictions inconvenient to wind companies.
Premier Kathleen Wynne has promised to build thousands more of the extortionate-to-taxpayers, destructive, un-green industrial monstrosities.
“Don’t tell me about the science” – Wind Turbines and Human Health: An Emotional Topic
You already knew from the cavalier seminar title where this presentation was going to be heading. However, in his introduction, the presenter promised a balanced discussion on the issue of wind turbines and human health so that health care practitioners and academics could have informed dialogue. Mmmm. Really?
The seminar/webinar was hosted in Toronto by Public Health Ontario on March 20, 2014, and was given by Loren Knopper Ph.D., an environmental health scientist and co-lead of Intrinsik Environmental Science’s Renewable Energy Health Team, with stated expertise in industrial wind turbines and human health.
Knopper failed to offer a disclaimer that “a number” of his clients are wind developers (unless he stated it when the webinar’s sound failed for two brief periods). This information came to light in the question period following his presentation. It’s a very important point because the wind industry denies, despite some good evidence, that industrial wind turbines can cause adverse health effects. Obviously, one would not want any inconvenient truths alienating clients with deep, government-guaranteed, subsidy-enhanced pockets.
Knopper started out by asserting that, “Generally, public attitude favours the idea of wind energy.” It was interesting that this Ph.D. scientist who insisted heavily on research rigour in his critique of the research studies later on, was in this instance not presenting any empirical evidence to support his statement. Instead, he showed a slide of a silly HSBC ad depicting splayed banana skins stood upright to look like wind turbines with the tagline: “In the future, there will be no difference between waste and energy.” The same slide had a photo of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency window with a small picture of wind turbines in it, meant to support his claim that there is general public acceptance of wind energy. Of course, neither of these organizations’ displays reflect public attitude, but rather self-interested propaganda for what is actually a green energy disaster. But never mind. Knopper did admit that his version of public favour does not mean local acceptance of wind projects. No surprise there.
Scientific merit depends on the objectivity and scientific rigour of the beholder
Knopper’s seminar was essentially a look at the issue of industrial wind turbines and human health, an overview of the scientific literature on the subject, and his conclusions of the weight of evidence based on studies he deemed to have scientific merit.
In judging any scientific study, it’s imperative to go to the original work and evaluate the soundness of the methodology and analysis the researchers used. In his presentation, Knopper did not hesitate to allege statistical and other deficiencies that he thought negated the results of key studies that have concluded that industrial wind turbine operations do cause adverse health effects. He also emphasized that “many” of these studies were published in one journal, The Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, and stated more than once that their authors were on the advisory board of the Society for Wind Vigilance, an obvious attempt to imply that these facts tainted their work.
As we have already mentioned, Knopper failed to disclose his close business association with wind developers until he was asked the question after the presentation, and he certainly did not mention it when he talked about his own published research. And in fact, some people in the audience noted that in at least one case, the research he himself conducted in collaboration with his colleagues had serious problems of its own (Projected contributions of future wind farm development to community noise and annoyance levels in Ontario, Canada). Critics in the audience took exception to the fact the data Knopper used were derived from computer models that came from wind turbine developers’ asessments of noise for proposed or approved projects, not data from actually operating wind turbines. He also had to admit that he could not “speak exactly to what the developers and their consultants have been measuring or modelling” (with respect to which type of decibel). His knowledgeable audience critics questioned why he was showing them this study if he could not identify, consider or control for an important variable in the data he analyzed.
So while Knopper seemed keen to allege deficiencies in studies showing that there are health problems associated with the operations of wind turbines, he avoided any such analysis of studies that come to the opposite conclusion. Amongst others, he mentioned an often-cited study from New Zealand purporting to show that psychological expectations explain health complaints due to wind turbines. In fact, the flawed study merely confirms that there is such a thing as suggestibility and says nothing credible about wind turbine health problems per se. But wind proponents and their supporters love to refer to it as support for the notion that adverse health effects relating to wind turbines are not real, just in people’s suggestible-prone heads.
Weight of scientific evidence is heavily biased
Knopper concluded, not surprisingly, that “based on the findings and scientific merit” (his emphasis) of the available studies, the weight of the evidence indicates that wind turbines are not connected to adverse health effects, when sited properly. But do we even know what “sited properly” means? (Not that these useless and destructive industrial monsters should be sited anywhere.) In Ontario, the 550 metre set-back for industrial wind turbines is an arbitrary standard drawn out of thin air. No government health study was conducted to come up with this measure.
Knopper went on to support his conclusion with reference to government statements to the same effect, that is, governments that had or have a vested interest in removing all conceivable obstacles to the implementation of their misguided green energy programs. He also cited legal proceedings such as 19 Ontario Environmental Review Tribunal (ERT) hearings, and an Ontario Divisional Court appeal. What he failed to mention is that in those arenas, the rules ensure that the odds are stacked against being able to prove that industrial wind turbines cause adverse health effects. Under the unfair stipulations of Ontario’s Green Energy Act and the ERT, appellants have to achieve the impossible feat of proving that there will be serious health effects from a project that has not yet been built. He also did not mention that some wind companies have violated the mandatory setbacks, and when they do in Ontario, the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Health reportedly do next to nothing to enforce the standard, such as it is. What effect does that have on people’s safety?
Indeed, don’t tell me about the (biased, compromised) science!