Just frickin’ lovely! Here’s Ezra Levant with Brian Topp’s resumé:
Can things get any worse for Alberta and Canada? You bet they can.
The number 97 has become an almost magical symbol among true believers for their righteous belief that man-made global warming is a dangerous threat. Both clueless believers and those who ought to know better shamelessly peddle that number as if it were some absolute truth. Skeptics (aka “deniers”), on the other hand, try again and again to explain what is really going on.
Ross McKitrick: Climate change consensus among the misinformed is not worth much
In the lead-up to the Paris climate summit, massive activist pressure is on all governments … to fall in line with the global warming agenda … One of the most powerful rhetorical weapons being deployed is the claim that 97 per cent of the world’s scientists agree what the problem is and what we have to do about it.
… on what exactly are 97 per cent of experts supposed to agree? In 2013 President Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per cent of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous.” As it turns out the survey he was referring to didn’t ask that question, so he was basically making it up.
… The Canadian government has the unenviable task of defending the interest of the energy producers and consumers of a cold, thinly-populated country, in the face of furious, deafening global warming alarmism. Some of the worst of it is now emanating from the highest places. Barack Obama’s website says “97 per cent of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and man-made…Find the deniers near you — and call them out today.” How nice.
True believers will no doubt be appalled by Prof McKitrick’s heresy.
One of the biggest failures in climate change reporting is the tendency to focus on particular aspects without considering the bigger picture. What does sea level rise have to do with droughts or floods? What is the role of changing ocean c…
Secular progressive leftists and their eco-alarmist fellow travelers are normally hostile to expressions of Christian faith. But, occasionally, when Pope Francis and his Vatican “experts” come out with a statement seemingly supporting collectivist and eco-alarmist dogma, their natural enemies exploit it to the hilt, as if it came directly from Gaia and/or Marx. The Pope is making a big mistake, much bigger and much farther reaching than the one made by the Pope who condemned Galileo.
… Pope Francis’s encyclical on climate change … is due to land in September to rally climate True Believers ahead of the U.N.’s giant policy shindig in Paris.
… This week’s statement, from the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (PAS/PASS) … confirms that Vatican not merely has slim or no grasp of economics or history, but is on its knees before tried-and-failed collectivist policies, and committed to a crusade against rich nations.
… The pope, who is an economic ignoramus, has allied himself with forces that would perpetuate poverty, not relieve it.
… Denying humanity the use of still bountiful hydrocarbon energy is thus not simply wrong. It is immoral – and lethal. This is the real reason that climate change is a critical moral issue. No one has a right to tell the world’s poor they cannot use fossil fuels to improve their lives, or to tell others they must reduce their living standards, based on speculation and unfounded fears about a man-made climate crisis.
Ramping up the propaganda leading up to the December 2015 UN summit in Paris, UN climate bureaucrat, Christiana Figueres, in today’s National Post, addressed Canada’s role in the global effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the first words we…
Andrew Coyne in his column in yesterday’s Nat Post shows that he is typical of many political commentators who have been swayed by climate scare-mongering without having done any due diligence. Though he is critical of efforts (and the lack thereof) to “fight climate change”, he uncritically accepts the underlying premise for doing so. A letter writer in today’s NP captured the essence of his confusion on the subject:
I am in total agreement with Andrew Coyne concerning the futility of the provincial carbon (dioxide) summit but for different reasons than Coyne’s. And, in fact, Coyne’s own words explain why.
“Is climate change happening? Yes.” An empty statement, since the climate is continually changing.
“Are we, as a species, responsible? Probably.” Well, since the modelling of the effect of carbon dioxide on global warming has been shown to be very wrong, this means that at this moment science does not well understand the effect of human actions on the climate. So not even the lukewarm “Probably” has a solid basis, especially if Coyne is implying that humans have a major effect on climate.
“Can we do something about it? So it seems.” But likewise, the evidence for this maybe-we-can-do-something-about-global-warming remark is absent.
But the most inconsistent part of Coyne’s argument is his statement, “There’s no point in us acting alone – we produce just two per cent of global emissions – but there’s no defence for not acting at all.” So even though it doesn’t make sense to act alone there’s no defence for not acting alone. Huh? Alex MacMillan, Kingston, Ont.
More on the Quebec Climate “Summit” by Peter Foster.
Stuart McNish at Conversations That Matter interviews environmental and climate scientist Dr. Ken Green. Dr. Green is skeptical of climate models and decries the politicization of climate science and the resulting alarmism. He feels s…
Last Monday Terence Corcoran declared Carbon Taxapalooza Week:
We hereby declare this to be Carbon Taxapalooza Week. The objective is to acknowledge and deplore the great stampede of provincial governments to tax the hell out of fossil fuels.
On Tuesday, Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission, a self-appointed group of allegedly market-oriented economic policy wonks, will release a report calling for the provinces to adopt “carbon pricing” to help Canada tackle climate change. [Here’s the full list Ecofiscal “commissioners“. It includes Preston Manning, Jean Charest, Paul Martin, Bob Rae, Peter Robinson (Suzuki Foundation CEO), etc. With that rats nest of progressives and eco-illiterates what could possibly go wrong?]
Until now, Ontario hasn’t had much interest in carbon pricing … But now, having exhausted a range of bad policies, Ontario’s Environment Minister, Glenn Murray, is pushing to adopt another set of allegedly less bad policies.
Peter Foster: The way backwards on carbon policy:
… On Tuesday Canada’s self-appointed Ecofiscal Commission released a study, The Way Forward, that amounts to a recommendation for policy chaos in pursuit of the ever-more dubious cause of fighting catastrophic man-made climate change. …
Peter Foster: Chris Ragan, market beautician:
You can always tell a fan of Big Government by the way he or she addresses the Invisible Hand, Adam Smith’s metaphor for free markets. … This week, McGill economist Christopher Ragan, chairman of the self-appointed Ecofiscal Commission, came up with a more subtle put down – “Sometimes the Invisible Hand needs a manicure, and the way is to improve market signals.”
See also, Dennis Ambler at The SPPI Blog: A nest of carbon vipers
Vast sums of money, influence and power are involved in carbon mitigation schemes, and yet there is never any mention in the media of these massive and lucrative conflicts of interest. They appear quite content swallowing the diversionary tactics pushed by the likes of DeSmog Blog and Greenpeace ExxonSecrets with their claims of “oil- company funded deniers”. It is doubtful that mainstream journalists ever bother to look behind the scenes at these people, yet it is all available on official websites.