Tag Archive | The Sunday Edition

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

IMG_1783

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

This is reprehensible.

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

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

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

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

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

Good question, CBC, and here is the answer:

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

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

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

CBC: “And what will happen then?”

The stark, chilling answer from Dorothy Onyango:

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

Vuyiseka Dubula:

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

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

*Update: Matt Ridley on BBC Radio 4:

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

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

IMG_4821

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

During the last two weeks or so we’ve had to listen to, watch and read a seemingly extra-concentrated onslaught of scaremongering global warming/climate change news served up by the mainstream media, probably meant to pave the way for greater public acceptance of the doom-gloom contents of the new report – AR5 – by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released today.

Listen to the March 31, 2014 CBC Radio One’s program The Current and you be the judge as to the degree of journalistic balance in its discussion of the IPCC’s AR5 (podcast).

The day before today’s release of the IPCC’s AR5 we finally lost it when, on the CBC’s program The Sunday Edition, host Michael Enright interviewed a Canadian professor at Harvard, David Keith, who is “fighting climate change with geoengineering” by looking at  “shooting sulphur particles into the stratosphere to reflect the sun’s energy back to space” which he says could prevent or even reverse the man-made, CO2-caused global warming that he thinks is a proven, scientific fact.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), Canada’s national taxpayer-funded broadcaster, had lately been noticeably more active in referencing the global warming alarmist news on many of its programs, and, for example, had various radio hosts reminding listeners to be sure to follow a useless dictate to turn off the lights and sit in North Korean-like darkness, or with dangerous candles and oil lamps, during the recent Earth Hour.

Whatever discussions take place on whichever CBC program, man-made global warming causing climate change creating a planetary catastrophe is always taken for granted as a given, indisputable fact.

So after hearing the segment on The Sunday Edition, we once again reached our own tipping point of too much of the CBC’s biased stance and immediately fired off a comment on the CBC’s The Sunday Edition website.

To date the CBC has not published it and would appear to have censored it. Our comment read as follows:

Enright claims: “There may indeed be broad agreement among scientists that climate change is happening, that humans are causing it, and that urgent action is needed to prevent a global disaster.” NO, NO, NO!

This is, once again, the CBC’s pure, simple-minded regurgitation of what the UN’s IPCC wants you to believe. The CBC at every turn, in every program, serves as one of the chief propagandists for the UN-driven scam of a fake planetary emergency. DON’T believe it. Do your own research. There is NOT “broad agreement” amongst scientists, check this out, for example – http://www.petitionproject.org/.

Canadians need to wake up and take a look at what are the actual, objective, scientific (not political) facts about the disproven theory of man-made global warming as the cause of “climate change.” Climate was always changing eons before Gore, Suzuki, CBC, et alia came along. Yes, CO2 levels have risen, but there has been no global warming for last 15 years. (Verify this for yourself.) The global warming/climate change hoax is designed to scare people into accepting an authoritarian global governance bent on impoverishing them and serves to unleash dangerously irresponsible and nutty ideas like the one talked about in this episode.

Before the world goes totally “climate change” mad, do your own research and resist the evil underfoot.

On its Content Submission Guidelines, the CBC says it welcomes comments:

We want your perspective. Probe, analyze, inform. Challenge, advocate, debate. Inspire, entertain, enjoy. Your contributions make our programming richer, the conversations more lively and diverse.

It seems, however, that the CBC does not want our “perspective” or “challenge” when it comes to its uneven handling of the climate change debate. This is not the first time we have written to the CBC about its one-sided coverage of the climate issue, previous to this always on a private basis, not on a website forum, but we have never received an acknowledgement or reply of any kind. The CBC has consistently failed to offer a balanced view of the debate, apparently choosing instead, like most of the mainstream media, to follow a policy to take man-made global warming as a given without question and to feature only guests and interviews of people who are clearly on the warmist/alarmist end of the spectrum.

We can expect the CBC and most of the mainstream media to report slavishly every dire thing that the new IPCC report contains, and to do that without question, analysis or opposing cogent viewpoint. Don’t anticipate any critique of how the IPCC actually arrives at its pronouncements (by fudging data) and exhortations (based on the UN’s Agenda 21), what it purports to be (a scientific body), and what it really is (a propagandist political body). If you want to understand any of that you have to read the heroic work done by Canadian Donna Laframboise who has written two books exposing the dishonesty of the IPCC and the people who run it.

Was our comment not published because it was in violation of the CBC’s standards? Let’s take a look at what they are. Excerpts from the CBC’s Content Submission Guidelines:

Be respectful and courteous, as if you were having a face-to-face discussion.

The following kind of Your Content is also prohibited:
– Pornography, vulgarity, obscenity or sexually explicit content
– Anything illegal
– Hate speech
– Threats, harassment
– Personal attacks, insults and defamatory statements
– Threats or suggesting committing a criminal act
– Attempts to mobilise people for any purpose outside of a CBC event

If you violate any of these guidelines, Your Content will not be accepted and your account may be suspended or blocked.

Was our comment, while admittedly exasperated and frank, actually offensive and in violation of CBC submission guidelines to such an extent that it couldn’t, shouldn’t have been published?

You be the judge.