Opinion: Global Warming Claims Are Primarily And Deliberately A Product Of Bureaucratic Political Activity

Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism. – Mary McCarthy

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

The Daily Mail headline says, Canada bans government meteorologists from talking about climate change. It implies government censorship, but is actually another part of the political battle over global warming. It is reminiscent of James Hansen’s false claim that the Bush White House was muzzling him. John Theon, his NASA boss at the time, says in a US Senate Report it was untrue. There is always a story behind a headline and it is rarely what the media report or imply. This Canadian story forewarns of the problems of controlling bureaucracy. 

The Obama administration used the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) and Administrative Law to bypass the checks and balances of the people (Congress). By losing the lawsuit brought against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the State of Massachusetts that said the EPA were not fulfilling their role of protecting the people from harmful substances, they triggered arbitration by SCOTUS. EPA now imposes Obama’s political ambitions through the bureaucracy. The question is how do you control a bureaucracy? The simple answer, as the US Founding Fathers intended, was cut off funding, but like all things political it’s easier said than done.

Establishing Bureaucratic Political Control.

 

Maurice Strong took ideas from his involvement with the Club of Rome and transformed them into a bureaucratic structure. He created the United Nations Environment Programme within which was formulated Agenda 21, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). One article summarized his abilities as follows.

Maurice Strong has demonstrated an uncanny ability to manipulate people, institutions, governments, and events to achieve the outcome he desires.

He knew control of politicians from a multitude of nations was almost impossible so he worked through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to control the bureaucrats in every national weather agency. As the article summarizes,

Strong prefers to operate in the background. He, perhaps more than any other single person, is responsible for the development of a global agenda now being implemented throughout the world.

He knew that if you control the weather bureaucrats you control the politicians on matters of weather and climate. What politicians don’t know is that, like the Environment Canada (EC) protesters they are mostly meteorologists and know little about climate.

Bureaucratic Political Shenanigans, Canadian Style.

 

Environment Canada, the agency where “meteorologists” say they are being muzzled, was involved in the entire IPCC debacle from the start. Strong used his personal friendship with Canadian Prime Ministers, especially Paul Martin Jr., who Strong hired to an important job in a major corporation when he was a young man. Gordon McBean, the second highest bureaucrat at Environment Canada (Assistant Deputy Minister) chaired the first meeting to form the IPCC in Villach Austria in 1985.

—————-

Disclaimer: I wrote an article on McBean and the activities at EC and received my first lawsuit from the same lawyer who handled the Weaver and Mann lawsuits. I chose to withdraw that article because I could not afford to fight. I later wrote another article on McBean, but much had now been disclosed.

—————

Ironically, most disclosure came from within EC. Their failures were so egregious that the public protested vociferously and they were forced to take action. Typically, as with all climate fiascos, it appears they attempted to cover up or justify what was going on. They commissioned an internal study and report titled Action Plan for Climate Science Research at Meteorological Service of Canada (MSC) prepared by a group called The Impact Group. This was obtained by Canada’s Access to Information (ATI) provision. Ken Green wrote an article in the National Post on December 12, 2003 identifying some of the issues. Here is the major conclusion of the Impact Report that shows why they did not want it disclosed.

Elements of an Action Plan for Climate Science Research at MSC (obtained through an Access to Information request) indicate that Canadas climate change science program is being driven by a predetermined political agenda with a clear disregard of scientific needs. The Impact Group observes for example, that Canada collects less climate science data per-square-kilometer of any other major country. It observes that the archiving of climate data is so highly fragmented that it is difficult to find out what datasets are available, let alone how to access them.

 

Yet the report shows that our resources are not being directed to remedy those information gaps. Rather, our climate resources are being directed toward finding ways to mitigate climate change before its even adequately measured. The Impact Group also points out that we are only just beginning to unravel the complexity of the physical, chemical, and biological interactions that determine climate and suggests that the manmade component of climate change is still to be discerned. Coming from a contractor to Environment Canada, thats a pretty sharp divergence from the claims by Environment Minister David Anderson that the science of climate change is solid and settled.

McBean was a major participant in the singular and devastating direction EC took. He practiced his political view of environmental issues and particularly global warming expressed in a speech to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1995.

As the Canadian government web page noted at the time;

Environment Canada is a strong supporter of, and an active participant in, the IPCC. Dr. John Stone (Environment Canada, retired), holds a position on the Bureau and Working Group II, Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Art Jaques, Director, Greenhouse Gas Division, Environment Canada, is a member of the Task Force Bureau on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. As well, over 30 Canadian scientists from government, universities and the private sector are participating as authors and editors for the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report.

John Stone’s position is critical as the liaison between the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) group directed by McBean and the IPCC. The ACIA Reports are almost the sole source for Arctic coverage in the 2007 IPCC Report.

Green spoke to the exclusion of Canadian skeptics that the Report confirms.

Skeptics of catastrophic climate change theory such as myself have long complained that the way governmental agencies conduct science is badly politicized. We have also complained about a lack of consultation – although some of the most reputable climate scientists in the world work in Canada, they have rarely been consulted or asked to advise the government on the science of climate change.

In 2006, 60 prominent Canadian climate and related experts wrote a letter to Prime Minister Harper asking for an open debate on global warming. It began,

As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government’s climate-change plans.

McBean orchestrated a response letter with another IPCC member, computer modeler Andrew Weaver (Disclaimer: Also with a lawsuit against me). They got 90 signatures, but most were Environment Canada, Government employees or people benefiting from government largess. It’s another form of “the debate is over”.

McBean spent his career promoting these views and it appears they effectively destroyed the Canadian Weather Service while wasting billions of dollars. Other EC employees were more involved. As Donna Laframboise wrote,

The relationship between one country’s climate modelers and the IPCC illustrates this point. George Boer is considered the architect of Canada’s climate modeling efforts. As an employee of Environment Canada, he has spent much of his career attempting to convince the powers-that-be that climate models are a legitimate use of public money.”

They are not well spent. Canada’s Auditor General identified $6.36 billion “climate change funding announcements between 1997 and 2005”, but at what price? Apparently most went to people and programs that agreed with the government position. It left other legislated requirements incomplete. In a December 13, 2011 story Environment and Sustainable Development Commissioner Scott Vaughan reported:

Environment Canada has failed to implement a strategic plan to improve its internal scientific research in areas ranging from managing air and water pollution to toxic chemicals.

Billions are spent on useless computers and climate change while not dealing with real problems. They’re not alone, it’s happening in national weather agencies round the world.

To cover these wastes EC took money from other programs that now make chances of any science virtually impossible. There are fewer weather stations in Canada now than in 1960, and many were replaced with unreliable Automatic Weather Observing Stations (AWOS). Important activities and data collection practices were abandoned. When I chaired the Assiniboine River Management Advisory Board (ARMAB) in Manitoba the worst flood on record occurred. We asked Water Resources why they anticipate the event. They said they had no data on the amount of water in the snow in the valley. We learned EC had canceled flights that used special radar to determine water content. Savings as I recall were $26,000. The cost of unexpected flood damage was $7 million to one level of government alone. Loss of weather data means long continuous records, essential to any climate studies, will fail. This data cannot be replaced or replicated.

Another egregious example of EC’s failure was cancellation of their financial support for a joint program with the National Museum of Canada in the 1980s and 1990s. Run under the auspices of the National Museum of Natural Sciences it was titled Climatic Change in Canada During the Past 20,000 years. This program brought together a multitude of experts in all different aspects of climate and climate reconstruction and produced volumes of collected papers, published in Syllogeus by the museum that put Canada in the forefront of climate research and reconstruction. To my knowledge none of these experts was called to testify before Parliamentary hearings on Kyoto or were appointed to the IPCC. EC deliberately excluded Canadian climate experts – something that continues to this day. Climate change became political and unaccountable because bureaucrats at Environment Canada controlled it.

But McBean wasn’t done. He also established his post-bureaucratic career and control of climate funding before retiring by using $61 million of taxpayer money to set up the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS). Canada’s main funding body for university-based research on climate, atmospheric and related oceanic work. He took over as Chair shortly after he retired. CFCAS did what EC did, that is essentially only fund people who agreed with their political position. As Wikipedia notes, The foundation has invested over $117 million in university-based research related to climate and atmospheric sciences. Most of this is taxpayer’s money, although there may be some Insurance company money because McBean is Director of the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction. Terence Corcoran wrote in the 23 January 2013 National Post,

 

At the Insurance Bureau of Canada, one of its mottos is: Prepare for Severe Weather. Meanwhile, the policy director of the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction is Gordon McBean, a veteran climate alarmist who formerly headed a climate think-tank until its government funding was cut.

Government Trying To Control Bureaucrats.

 

In response to the political activities of climate bureaucrats the current Canadian government has gradually re-assigned people and reduced funding to EC and CFCAS. They are doing what they can within the restrictions of union contracts, legislation and public propaganda by those affected.

What is happening in Canada is politicians elected by the people reining in bureaucrats. They and by extension those they fund respond politically by going to the media and claiming they are being muzzled and it is the death knell of climate science.

Maurice Strong set up the IPCC through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) because he knew it give the IPCC control of every weather office in every nation and thereby most of the politicians. Even those who dare to challenge find it almost impossible to redress even if elected to do so. It’s as basic as Boyd-Orr explained, If people have to choose between freedom and sandwiches they will take sandwiches especially if they don’t understand or have been deceived about the facts.

About these ads

87 thoughts on “Opinion: Global Warming Claims Are Primarily And Deliberately A Product Of Bureaucratic Political Activity

  1. It would be fair to say that agenda 21 serves no purpose except to create more wealth for the minority who stand to benefit. What an original thought!

  2. Strong, while head of Ontario Hydro, bought Costa Rican rain forest supposedly to offset carbon emissions from our coal fired plants. Well our coal fired plants are gone…..I want my money back from the Costa Ricans, with interest.

  3. ‘Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism. – Mary McCarthy’

    Were it genuinely a modern form of despotism society could at least have an excuse for wading into this pool. However, bureaucracy has existed since the dawn of civilization and civilization resolutely refuses to look at, acknowledge, and learn from the past. Quite a few people contend that it was bureaucracy that ultimately undid Ancient Rome. Perhaps two thousand years from now historians will look back on the undoing of what, in that future time, will then be referred to as the Ancient Enlightenment societies (the US most prominent among them), and the Dark (turn your electric lights off, and stone the adulterers) Ages that may follow, and watch in wonderment as their very own bureaucracies also smother them as if it’s something new.

    We still have a choice as to what future historians will see. But the choice won’t last forever.

  4. The fine quotation from Mary McCarthy is not quite accurate. Milovan Djilas documented decades ago that the one-party states behind the Iron Curtain were dystopia in which bureaucracies were the new nobility.

  5. “The question is how do you control a bureaucracy? The simple answer, as the US Founding Fathers intended, was cut off funding, but like all things political it’s easier said than done.”

    Things that are not easy generally require courage and that is what is missing in the US House of representatives. The elected positions are much too sweet and once in power the guiding rule becomes to protect one’s position no matter what the cost to your constituency.

  6. Good article. Since governments and politicians have the ultimate goal of more government, more environmental and energy regulations, more carbon taxation, more climate bureaucracies and global ecological central planning, they manipulated science to achieve these goals.

  7. WTF, I saw on sygration the other day, ATIKOKAN-G1 (a coal plant) idling. They had one of the old gas/oil plants idling also. I guess they figured it would be hotter or more people would turn on their a/c. Either way, the Liberals lied to Al Gore. I just noticed, the oil/gas burning plant is idling today, Lennox-G1, and it is 18. Oh, I see, for heat.

  8. The developed world is at the mercy of whomever controls the energy that they are addicted to. CO2 is the tool being used to implement such control.

    It is stunning to watch it unfold right in front of us. Ironically, the biggest CAGW proponent activists are one of the biggest targets and will be the first to cry foul once they clear their eyes and realize they have been used as puppets.

    Science will then be unsettled once and for all.

  9. Crony capitalism is the worst form of despotism. The money bureaucrats control is peanuts compared to the money crony capitalists control. And money is what really controls.

  10. Loved this article. Speaking to reporters in Ottawa today, provincial energy minister Bob Chiarelli said the province has met its commitment to end coal generation before the end of 2014.

    “It had become 25 per cent of our capacity, and it was literally making people sick”, he said.

    Chiarelli recalled coaching his daughter’s hockey team 10 years ago.

    “On the bench, there would be four or five players, young girls, with asthma puffers….[Now] the incidence of asthma is greatly reduced, particularly children, so that’s part of the reason we decided to do it. It was the right thing to do,” the minister said.

    The government said since 2003, its coal closure plan has eliminated up to 30 megatonnes of emissions annually.

    The Thunder Bay plant has been converted to burning biofuel. Does Bob honestly think that C02 emissions cause asthma? Will burning biofuel rather than coal cause less asthma or more or make any difference. It depends on the amount of particulates escaping.

  11. The Daily Mail headline says, “Canada bans government meteorologists from talking about climate change.” It implies government censorship, but is actually another part of the political battle over global warming. It is reminiscent of James Hansen’s false claim that the Bush White House was muzzling him. John Theon, his NASA boss at the time, says in a US Senate Report it was untrue.

    The Daily Mail article also says:

    “A spokesperson said the policy is because meteorologists are not climate experts”

    Does that mean they are not ‘climate scientists’ or they are not ‘climate experts’? I only ask because Dr. James Hansen is NOT a climate scientist. Never muzzle someone who says:

    “…….the oceans will begin to boil and the planet becomes, uhh, so hot that the ocean ends up in the atmosphere, and that happened to Venus…”
    [Dr. James Hansen]

    The only problem is that the IPCC says no way. Dr. Houghton who helped set up the IPCC says no way. What is wrong with Dr. James Hansen?

  12. All of these scams tie into Mr. Strong in one way or another, sometimes both. To bad he is holed up in China.

  13. Thank you Tim Ball. The current Canadian government is trying hard to cut back on all spending. The bureaucrats obviously are the major expenditures in any government, and, of course, they are going to squeal. The unions will squeal even louder. The Harper government has taken a very moderate and logical path regarding climate change. They know that the science is not settled, and that global temps have not risen since 1998. The wait and see approach is by far the best, as the fabled “tipping points” have no validity. Even Canada’s Weather network has started the doom and gloom approach. I’m waiting, and hoping, that the Harper government will do the most logical thing- stop funding any aspect of the UN’s climate bureaucracy. That would be the ultimate action, and may just entice Australia and a few other nations to follow. I met Maurice Strong in the 1980’s, as he grew up only 70 km from my home. He was persuasive. I fear that urban Canadians will vote the Conservatives out, but there is always hope that the tide will turn before then. Thank God Suzuki is getting old- he made a fool of Canadians and himself in Australia!

  14. I recall a Gordon Bean as an angry public service union boss 30-40 years ago. Same guy?

  15. I’d argue it is incorrect to claim that the “current Canadian government [is] … doing what they can within the restrictions of union contracts, legislation and public propaganda by those affected.”

    The Harper government’s own ministers, and Harper himself, are promoting AGW, carbon taxation, and supporting the Obama administration’s climate regulations and war on coal. For proof, see here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/06/canadas_climate_incoherence.html

  16. “This Canadian story forewarns of the problems of controlling bureaucracy. ”

    Cue the Eisenhower “military-industrial complex” speech…

  17. We were warned. Scientists and politicians are now captive to each other in a circle jerk. History will not be kind to these people.

    PS I hear the former OIL MAN, Maurice Strong, was mistakenly given a $1 MILLION DOLLAR CHECK by a convicted South Korean businessman, Tongsun Park. Iraq, food for oil and all that.

    Eisenhower’s Farewell Address to the Nation
    January 17, 1961

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

    It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

  18. Harold says:
    June 8, 2014 at 3:59 pm

    “This Canadian story forewarns of the problems of controlling bureaucracy. ”

    Cue the Eisenhower “military-industrial complex” speech…

    Damn you’re good Harold!

  19. Is Maurice Strong still hiding in China? What business is his son doing now?

    Guardian -23 June 2010
    One of the strongest criticisms that you face is that, because you have had a varied career involving business interests and roles at the UN, you somehow created the climate change issue to profiteer from your business interests via, say, cap-and-trade and the Chicago Climate Exchange. Or that it is all a Trojan horse for you to advance your political objectives. How to respond to this?
    —–

    “It shouldn’t take anyone too long to understand that it would be pretty difficult for a single person to mount a conspiracy that involves most of the world’s [climate] scientists and to get them all to join this conspiracy. I’m not a scientist, but I’ve been close to science and seen that scientists don’t reach consensus very easily. There’s a tremendous process of dialogue and differences. To see climate scientists reach the level of consensus that they have is a major thing and couldn’t be the result of a conspiracy that one person could ever engineer.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/jun/22/maurice-strong-interview-global-government

    A slippery character if ever there was one. You don’t need to engineer anything, you just need to get the organisations into place and the global warming ball rolling. That he did with the help of Hansen et al. If CAGW is laughed at tomorrow Strong will repeat: “I’m not a scientist,”

  20. JIMBO
    The quote by Eisenhower
    “>>>we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

    Sounds like the Federal Conservative government in Canada has been just trying to prevent Canada from ” becoming captive to the scientific elite ” ( like what is happening in Washington. with respect to climate science .recently. and other parts of Europe. )

  21. Once you blow all the smoke away it’s ALL ABOUT MAKING MONEY and enhancing their power. Do some research on Lord Stern, Gore, Pachauri, Strong et al and the little schemes and co2 investments they set up. Almost every single one of these people has their finger in the MONEY MAKING PIE. It’s not about the grandchildren or humanity, it’s always been about them making as much money as possible. They think that everyone is an idiot and cannot see their schemes.

    The jig is almost over and they know it.

  22. Sierra Rayne;
    The Harper government’s own ministers, and Harper himself, are promoting AGW, carbon taxation, and supporting the Obama administration’s climate regulations and war on coal. For proof, see here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/06/canadas_climate_incoherence.html
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    Well that’s an opinion piece, hardly proof. The observations are for the most part accurate. But for anyone who is paying attention, the Harper government is mostly just sucking up to Obama to try and get the Keystone Pipeline approved. It was the Harper government who withdrew Canada from the Kyoto agreement. As with all things government, actions and words frequently communicate different things.

  23. Sierra Rayne
    “The Harper government’s own ministers, and Harper himself, are promoting AGW, carbon taxation, and supporting the Obama administration’s climate regulations and war on coal.”

    The welfare of the Canadian west and much of Canada depends on the marketing of commodities like the tar sands oil and the development of the Keystone Pipeline or other similar route to ship oil or gas to ASIA and Europe . .Harper is doing what is necessary to market that oil.

  24. A Bureaucracy is made of people.

    Here in the USA, perhaps we do need a guerrilla war to decimate the current bureaucracy in D.C.
    and it’s satellite bureaus elsewhere.

    USA Presidential elections have no effect at all because the Bureaucracy “selects” it’s leader long before any election.

  25. Maurice Wrong

    Guardian – 23 June 2010
    I’ve spent a lot of time in China and, with my environmental interests, China is about as good a place to be at the moment. China was pretty slow at the beginning. [The environment] was a side issue compared to the economy. But China has now recognised that undermining the environment is one of the risks to development. They have become very environmentally minded.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/jun/22/maurice-strong-interview-global-government

    Indeed they have Maurice.

    Canada Free Press – January 17, 2014
    The smog has become so thick in Beijing that the city’s natural light-starved masses have begun flocking to huge digital commercial television screens across the city to observe virtual sunrises.”

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/thanks-to-al-gore-maurice-strong-only-sun-in-china-is-a-digital-one

    China is the world leader in environmentally friendly sunrises. Co2 up, smog up, soot up, water pollution up. Maurice should have been a comedian or circus clown.

  26. Notwithstanding the leadership was evil, it was actually the bureaucracies of Russia and Germany in the 30’s and 40’s that committed most of the atrocities not to mention that communism couldn’t have survived as long as it did without the millions of minions behind the scenes.

  27. SIGINT EX says:
    June 8, 2014 at 5:01 pm
    Here in the USA, perhaps we do need a guerrilla war to decimate the current bureaucracy in D.C.
    >>>>>>>>>

    I for one am growing tired of your regular calls for violence, not to mention wishing death upon the Team.

  28. Jimbo,

    You do most excellent work. Thank you.

    Please forgive my ignorance (implied or explicit!) but do you have a blog of your own I can peruse?

    Andy

  29. herkimer says:
    June 8, 2014 at 4:53 pm
    Sierra Rayne
    “The Harper government’s own ministers, and Harper himself, are promoting AGW, carbon taxation, and supporting the Obama administration’s climate regulations and war on coal.”

    The welfare of the Canadian west and much of Canada depends on the marketing of commodities like the tar sands oil and the development of the Keystone Pipeline or other similar route to ship oil or gas to ASIA and Europe . .Harper is doing what is necessary to market that oil.
    ==========================================================================

    I see Mr. Harper is in lock step with the Obamanater vilifying Russia over the Ukraine crises that was cause by Washington’s meddling …Seems that he is willing to cause a war to sell the oil to countries that can by it already and are making moves to do so .Harper is only a puppet like the rest of the western leaders .

  30. David Ball says:
    June 8, 2014 at 5:32 pm
    ====
    Someone go and help the guy out with a better review……….

  31. Excellent article. Many thanks.

    I am pleased to note that this blog is international and treats the good number of commenters from Canada (and other countries) as equals to Americans.

    I have one question. What was the meaning of “We asked Water Resources why they anticipate the event.” I am wondering if it should be more like “We asked Water Resources why they HAD NOT anticipateD the event.”

    Ian M

  32. Katou says:
    June 8, 2014 at 5:34 pm

    I see Mr. Harper is in lock step with the Obamanater vilifying Russia over the Ukraine crises that was cause by Washington’s meddling …Seems that he is willing to cause a war to sell the oil to countries that can by it already and are making moves to do so .Harper is only a puppet like the rest of the western leaders

    I don’t know about Obama, but Mr.Harper, unlike you it seems, is no fan of the KGB.

  33. Katou;
    I see Mr. Harper is in lock step with the Obamanater vilifying Russia over the Ukraine crises that was cause by Washington’s meddling
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>.

    LOL. You have swamp land in Florida that you are selling too?

  34. As for Ike, I’m still too pissed over the military-industrial complex part to forgive and forget over the scientific-elite part.

    Easier for the younger ones to do so, I suppose. But I grew up during the Cold War. Not so easy to let go even after all this time.

  35. Could it be that the U.S. is just as interested in obtaining electric power from Canada as obtaining oil?
    Closing down U.S. power plants without replacing them means the U.S. will have to get elecricity from other places outside of the U.S.

  36. It is intellectually dishonest to convey information concerning climate anomalies of grave concern to the public using metaphorical language. Speaking in metaphors to induce a desired mass psychological outcome is un scientific and constitutes political and scientific fraud. Climate Change is about politics rather than science. In science, there is an attempt to clarify; in Climate Change, language is misused in order to confuse and mislead the public.

    Climate Change is not man caused climate change. Global warming is not man caused global warming. Carbon(C) the chemical element is not the same as Carbon Dioxide(CO2) the gaseous molecule. People have no carbon foot print in this discussion, just a carbon dioxide foot print. The human body has 18.5% carbon content bound in molecular form. All life is carbon based but that is not the concern. The concern is only carbon dioxide.

    One shows their ignorance and is chastised in scientific circles when using un-scientific language. I can say sun spots but not sun specks. I can say geoengineering but not chemtrails. Why is it the accepted norm to speak in metaphors when discussing climate science? Is it out of laziness one can’t add a couple of extra words in a sentence to clarify the concept being discussed? I think not. I think it is a mass induced psychosis caused by constant repetition for brainwashing purposes. One is almost incapable of saying Carbon Dioxide when that is what they really mean, instead they simply say carbon, as if everyone is supposed to know what is meant. Heck, twenty five percent of the population doesn’t know the Earth revolves around the Sun, so how are they going to know the metaphors? But of course no one believes they are brainwashed.

    If I were an elected official, I would introduce a bill to make it law that everyone in the bureaucracy writing environmental policy papers must use exact scientific language when referring to the substance in question. When speaking to the public on such issues, it would be mandatory to speak of the subject in exact scientific language under penalty of termination. Force out laziness of language and potential brainwashing of the public. Manipulation of the public mind is not what we pay them for.

  37. Latitude says:
    June 8, 2014 at 5:43 pm

    “David Ball says:
    June 8, 2014 at 5:32 pm
    ====
    Someone go and help the guy out with a better review……….”

    I enjoyed it. I could give a toss what anyone else thinks (i.e. “reviews”).

  38. clipe says:
    June 8, 2014 at 6:10 pm
    Well thanks to Snowden we now know about the 5 eyes which Canada and US are a party of . KGB ,me a fan ? no more then CIA or CSIS for that matter .I wonder if Russia is in on the AGW fraud and have RT spewing the same BS all the western medias are .
    davidmhoffer says:
    June 8, 2014 at 6:25 pm
    No I am Native and all our land was stolen by the Crown .Didn’t you get the memo from Brian Mulroney ..Another conservative puppet that liked brown paper bags with cash …

  39. @davidmhoffer: “Well that’s an opinion piece, hardly proof.”

    Oh, it is proof all right. Direct press releases and public statements by Harper himself and his Minister of the Environment constitute proof, except maybe to the Harper-ites (aka, fake conservatives).

    @herkimer: “Harper is doing what is necessary to market that oil.”

    You are right. He’ll say anything to please his oil lobby masters. He’s just a one-trick pony, and a puppet oil lobbyist — which is why he is neither a true conservative nor a good prime minister.

  40. michaelwiseguy Early in my train to be and electric technician I quickly found that about 75% of writing on in electronic magazine on electronics was either incorrect of largely incorrect to be of much use. The real laughter was when they quoted industry experts, basically the “expert” was someone in writers Rolodex who might know something on the subject. they would call them up and ask the what that person though about, that person expertise on the subject was not a question all that matter was the writer had consulted someone, that was back in the 1970, since then the standard have declined even more. Back than at least local news people on TV knew how to correctly pronounce the local town names, to day not so much. After it would not be fair to hire on competency, good looks and proper gender.race mix is what counts. The law you proposal will never get passed because far to many politicians agree with this line “what does it matter” Yes today the fact do not matter just the it the illusion of concern that counts.

  41. the first part most pragmatic and educated adults have by now figured out that politicians and their minions aka bureucrats, apratchniks, etc, will say and do anything to help those that put them in power. First they will help their super constituents, themselves, and then their regular constituents. I have no doubt it has been this way since the time when there were only tribal organisations.
    The second part those in power have to think about the future consequences of their present actions. The Canadians have sandbagged every effort the US has made to put gas and oil pipelines through Canada from the North Slope of Alaska to the continental US. If they had thought about the future they could have used that pipeline to market their oil and gas as the North Slope declined. We should make a deal with them. If we can put an oil and gas pipeline from the North Slope though Canada to the continental US they can buy transport on it also, otherwise enjoy the dangerous and expensive transport as we have had to do. (as in Exxon Valdez)

  42. Sierra Rayne;
    You are right. He’ll say anything to please his oil lobby masters.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Oh I see, he’s gutting the fossil fuel industry in support of Obama’s policies AND he’s pleasing his oil lobby masters. When you look in the mirror, do you wind up in arguments with your reflection?

  43. I’m with Latitude, they’re going ahead regardless! Idiot savants are regulating everything from energy to what ever, who cares… Someone go and help the guy out with a better review ffs

  44. Katou;
    davidmhoffer says:
    June 8, 2014 at 6:25 pm
    No I am Native and all our land was stolen by the Crown .
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

    Which has what to do with your claim that the situation in the Ukraine is the result of meddling by Washington?

  45. davidmhoffer says:
    June 8, 2014 at 8:21 pm

    You asked if I was selling land in Florida .If you didn’t get the dig ,you would also not recognize that the Harper Govt. was the first to send over to Ukraine his underlings to stand along side the Washington imposed Govt . You have heard the Nuland phone conversation haven’t you ? Well maybe you haven’t because you may just gobble up what the the MSM spew out .Just like AGW ,its more about what isn’t being said on MSM then what is .

  46. Tim Ball says –

    “There is always a story behind a headline and it is rarely what the media report or imply”

    how’s this from Chad at the Chicago Sun-Times?

    8 June: Chicago Sun-Times: Chad Merda: Obama says he’d like to ‘go off’ on those who deny climate change
    Photo Caption: President Barack Obama is fed up with people who deny climate change exists.
    How frustrated is President Barack Obama with those people who deny climate change is a real thing? So frustrated, he’d like to “just go off” on them.
    His comments came in an interview with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman.
    Friedman bluntly asked Obama if he wants to “just go off on the climate deniers in Congress.”
    Obama’s answer?
    “Yeah, absolutely,” the president said…

    http://politics.suntimes.com/article/washington/obama-says-hed-go-those-who-deny-climate-change/sun-06082014-235pm

    at NYT, the following two sentences are the full extent of the exchange (in a lengthy piece) that inspired Chad to write the rubbish at the Sun-Times. of course, Obama didn’t say what Chad’s headline claimed he said, but hey, whatever.

    how could Friedman be so stupid as to utter the phrase “CLIMATE DENIERS” to the President? oh, he works for what Gerald Celente calls “The Toilet Paper of Record”:

    7 June: NYT: Thomas L. Friedman: Obama on Obama on Climate
    Do you ever want to just go off on the CLIMATE DENIERS in Congress?
    “Yeah, absolutely,” the president said with a laugh…

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/08/opinion/sunday/friedman-obama-on-obama-on-climate.html?ref=opinion&_r=3&referrer=

    given it’s the CAGW followers who are protesting “climate” & “climate change”, if Obama does want to “go off” on deniers, he should be going off at them because they are denying climate change happened before they discovered CAGW!

  47. Katou says:
    June 8, 2014 at 8:30 pm
    davidmhoffer says:
    June 8, 2014 at 8:21 pm
    You asked if I was selling land in Florida .If you didn’t get the dig

    You are absolutely correct, I did not get the dig. Very clever.

    ,you would also not recognize that the Harper Govt. was the first to send over to Ukraine his underlings to stand along side the Washington imposed Govt . You have heard the Nuland phone conversation haven’t you ? Well maybe you haven’t because you may just gobble up what the the MSM spew out .Just like AGW ,its more about what isn’t being said on MSM then what is .

    Nobody who is familiar with me would suggest that I just gobble up what the MSM spews out. However, for anyone who actually follows international politics to any great degree, it is clear that relations between Harper and Obama are very frosty, that Harper stood by the Ukrainian government to support them quite of his own volition, and what the Nuland phone call demonstrates is that while the US clearly does meddle in the affairs of other countries (the Democrats are sending their campaign expertise to support Justin Trudeau’s election bid for example, talk about interference in the affairs of an ally not to mention pissing off Harper even more than the Keystone Pipeline BS) they just aren’t very good at it. Everything that they tried to do was “soft power”, it accomplished nothing, and the Russians have gotten everything they want out of the situation by using hard power. The US looks embarrassingly impotent, and that goes for both before and after the unstable conditions occurred. Meddled yes. Imposed? LOL.

  48. davidmhoffer says:
    June 8, 2014 at 8:56 pm
    Look there is not a chance in Hell JT does not stand a chance of getting elected Prime minster .You know it and Harper knows it . Yes imposed is what it was because it was not in the Ukraine’s Constitution .It was a cou ,plain and simple .I see that Syria had their Constitutional elections .I think they had a bigger turn out then Ukraine despite the fighting going on in each country . I see Obama is wanting to send even more arms to the rebel forces in Syria . I wonder if Putin might decide to do the same for the Ukrainian people that don’t like their present Govt. Interesting times

  49. Katou;
    I wonder if Putin might decide to do the same for the Ukrainian people that don’t like their present Govt.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Good lord man, he already did, and a bunch of troops under “no indignia” uniforms to boot. Yet you kick the Americans for making some phone calls.

  50. btw the Aussie Prime Minister Abbott is in Canada & our broadcasters SBS & ABC (partially- and fully-funded by taxpayers respectively) feel its important we at home know “CLIMATE PROTESTERS” are on his tail!

    8 June: SBS: PM Abbott heads to Canada
    CLIMATE PROTESTERS who gathered outside the parliament in Ottawa on Saturday were well aware of the Abbott government’s policy of scrapping the carbon tax and other climate programs…
    The protesters sang a song by Australian composer Glyn Lehmann called “I am the earth”…

    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/06/08/pm-abbott-heads-canada

    9 June: ABC: Prime Minister Tony Abbott arrives in Canada for talks with Stephen Harper to boost trade, investment
    By James Glenday in Ottawa
    Ahead of the talks, CLIMATE CHANGE PROTESTERS rallied outside the Canadian parliament, which is close to where Mr Abbott is staying…

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-09/tony-abbott-arrives-canada-for-talks-with-pm-stephen-harper/5509008

    isn’t there something anti-nature about CAGW followers?

  51. davidmhoffer says:
    June 8, 2014 at 9:17 pm
    .
    good lord man, he already did, and a bunch of troops under “no indignia” uniforms to boot. Yet you kick the Americans for making some phone calls.
    ===============================================
    Now I don’t want to get into debating which propaganda might be true .Next thing we will have to debunk the Jew card they tried playing . You do know that the eastern region has many Russian speaking Ukraine’s and many of them were in the army and they are the ones fighting against the regime in Kiev that wants to force them by law not to speak Russian eh . Think Quebec and if we tried that here with the french language .They would hold a referendum so quick to separate it would make your head spin .

  52. It’s nice to see “global warming” being framed as what it really is – a political problem. That simplifies the solution which becomes: How we vote.

    And how we influence voting is as old as the republic – we publicize the crooked nature of other side using their words, methods, agenda, failures, and personality flaws. Because they’ve given so freely of these characteristics it is a simple matter of compiling them into excellent presentations that don’t put the audience to sleep, and to put them in front of opposing audiences because we already agree.

    Paging Topher to the white telephone, please.

  53. Katou;
    I know the history of the region quite well. You’ve got some half truths behind your assertions. There’s no point debating further with you. You are either gobbling up some really bad information and repeating it, or deliberately disseminating it. G’night.

  54. The purpose of the entire “global warming” effort is to be used as a lever to effect the global “progressive” policy agenda. It goes something like this: The “progressives” don’t like the notion of have and have not countries. In their world view, wealthier entities, whether they are people or countries get that way through “exploitation” of others. The poor countries, it would appear, are not poor because they don’t have real property ownership or have a corrupt legal system or are run by a corrupt despot and the assorted cronies, they are poor because they just don’t have money because the rich countries took it all. So primary in the world view of the “progressive” is “redistribution of wealth”.

    Now they can’t exactly go around TELLING companies which countries they can and can not build things in but they can make it extremely expensive to build things in the less desired places. In fact, they can make it SO expensive to build something in a “developed” country that even with the inefficiency, graft, theft, and corruption it is cheaper to do it in the “developing” country. And if you at an organization like the UN, it is for the most part populated with bureaucrats appointed by various tyrants and despots. What this really amounts to is a fleecing of the developed countries by transferring massive amounts of wealth into the pockets of corrupt cronies of various leaders.

    In addition, by controlling CO2 production, the UN can effectively put their hands on the throttle of developed world economies. In order to increase production of anything, more energy must be consumed. In order to consume more energy, energy must be produced. In order to produce more energy, CO2 must be emitted provided you are also very careful to push strongly back against nuclear power. Solar and wind are non-starters for industrial scale power. You can not operate even one electric arc steel mill furnace from windmills and solar panels reliably — if at all. Last I read, some 30% of US energy production involves doing things with water. Pumping it out of the ground, transporting it around, collecting the waste, treating and disposing of it, all takes energy and it all must work 24x7x365. We can’t wait for a breeze to flush our toilets or run our fire hydrants. By controlling CO2 emissions by a country, you are effectively controlling that country’s economy.

    This isn’t about the perils of CO2 emissions. It’s about the perils to the progressive world view if people are left along to emit as they will. They aren’t reducing emissions, they are simply moving them. Meanwhile China at my last count has some 23 nuclear reactors in various states of construction. The latest being Fuqing-1. http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Fuel-loading-at-Fuqing-1-0506145.html

    If China can build a Fuqing nuclear power plant, why can’t we? We have right now, I believe, four plants under construction — two in Georgia and two in South Carolina and another licensed but never completed plant in Tennessee that had been mothballed is being completed and brought on line. That’s it. There was one slated to go in Texas but they said they didn’t have demand for the power, yet this winter their grid nearly collapsed from demand.

  55. If the progressives were serious about REALLY reducing CO2 they would go on a global rampage against coal seam fires. Coal seem fires in India, China, Indonesia and the US produce as much CO2 as ALL of the vehicle traffic in North America. Putting those fires out would be equivalent to removing every car and truck from the road in the US and then some. It would require the development of new engineering practices and technologies, require international cooperation, but it would REALLY do something to take a huge amount of CO2 out of the air without impacting anyone’s lifestyle or increasing regulations AND it would save a huge amount of coal for future generations to use. And that is why it will never be done. Because this isn’t really about CO2.

  56. Katou,
    You need to learn about Ukrainian history and present day Ukraine. Talk to some Ukrainians that have recently emigrated. You will learn that there are no simple explanations. The place is corrupt from top to bottom; it is a way to survive, things are the way they are because of the way they are. The suvival techniques were probably perfected during the time of the Kulak purges or even before. Anyone from the outside that thinks that they can get something for nothing will get nothing for something ( this includes Russia as they learned before with Stepan Bandera.) In addition they will be getting mixed up in a family fight- never an intelligent thing to do. The western Ukranians used outside money to get rid of Yanukovic. The important words are Western Ukranian and used.
    Ms. Lagarde of the IMF is an intelligent person. If you look at her actions you will realise that she knows what will happen to IMF loans to Uraine unless many precautions are taken.
    As for Crimea it has been a sore spot for Russia for a long time. Look up the charge of the light brigade, the battle of Balaklava, etc. The French, the Brits and the Turks have had their teeth broken in Crimea. Trying to do something with Crimea is the equivatent of grabbing the gonads of a grizzly bear and not expect a swift and decisive response.(the Ukrainians had threatened to expel the Russian fleet from Sebastopol upon the end of the lease. Probably the corrupt Ukrainian government wanting a lot more money, collided with the fact that Russia is stingy.)
    You should also look up the Von Ribentrupp-Stalin treaty and how that affected the borders with neighbouring countries. I expect the neighbouring countries to start meddling before too long. Supposedly Hungarian passports have started to be issued to Hungarians speakers in Ukraine already (an illegal act in Ukraine.) Poland Next? In Poland Lviv is still Lvov, and the massacre of Poles is still remembered.
    The Soviets ran Ukraine for about 70 years. Soviet means commitee in Russian. The place was run by commitees of bureaucrats governed by supreme commitees of bureaucrats (supreme soviets.)
    In other words bureaucrats that only answered to themselves and planned everyting from the top down. If you defied the bureucrats, as did the Kulaks, you would end up as they did.
    If you think native Canadians have had it bad with invaders read more Ukrainian history. Ukrain has been run over by just about any one going East or West: the Vikings, ghenghis and his boys, Napoleon, Mr. H, to name a few. The flavor of the soup is added to by each group of tourists, but it is still Ukrainian.

  57. MERE MINISTERS ARE NO MATCH FOR MO OF THE JUNGLE
    Thursday, May 19th, 1994
    Maurice Strong’s jungle adventure lives.

    The Hydro chairman won’t back down from his plan to investigate the purchase of thousands of acres of rain forest in Costa Rica.
    Yesterday, he told reporters it would be “irresponsible” for Hydro not to consider buying a piece of the Central American jungle.

    http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news/multi/strong.htm

    ORDERS OF THE DAY
    ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD
    AMENDMENT ACT (ELECTRICITY
    PRICING), 2003

    Mr O’Toole: It’s a pleasure to listen to some of what the member from Eglinton-Lawrence said, but I’d take time to get prepared to respond, because in the articles I’ve referred to of Friday, December 5, I think it’s important to recognize this: “But a source close to the industry says senior management must accept” some “of the blame,” and I accept that as well.

    “Back in the early 1990s, then-Chairman Maurice Strong” — appointed by Bob Rae — “pensioned off most of the engineers who knew how to run the plants.

    “Three years ago, President Ron Osborne decided to drop Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd — which designed the CANDU reactors.”

    I guess what I’m saying there is, when they went to recover the Darlington plant, none of the skilled people — they almost had to change the Income Tax Act and hire all those engineers and technical people back, exempting them from the rule that prohibits a pension as well as a salary from the same employer.

    You know, I look at Bill 4, and the viewers there should know it’s a small, innocuous technical bill. But it says in many sections — I would refer a lot of people to 79.6. It allows the Ontario Energy Board to affix and approve new rates for transmission. We’re not talking about the generation-side cost.

    You see, there’s the generation, the transmission and the distribution. We heard earlier, we know generation costs are going up; transmission costs are going up, it says right in section 79.6; and we know the LBCs are going to go up. You said it earlier; the parliamentary assistant said that in March 2004, as well as March 2005, they will be able to recoup profit — not a bad word — but up to, it’s my understanding, the point of 9%.

    Of course the minister, by the way, reserves most of the control over the operations, and every article I’ve read said part of it has been the problem of people like Maurice Strong thinking the solution was buying a rainforest in Costa Rica. I mean, these guys were so disconnected, and I put to you I can’t wait, because I think there’s a big decision probably to be made, and we should watch if there’s a Liberal finance minister who becomes the head of Hydro One.

    http://hansardindex.ontla.on.ca/hansardeissue/38-1/l014b.htm

    Hon Mr Eves: I’m sure there are different individuals who have different ideas and opinions about what Hydro One is worth, either through an IPO or through other methods. I note that he’s quoting Professor Myron Gordon. He doesn’t talk about his former Bob Rae government’s good friend Maurice Strong — I believe you were the Attorney General in that government — and what his opinions are about the future of Hydro One. I thought you might want to mention him, seeing as how you people thought he was the person who should lead Hydro and you obviously value his opinion on the future of electricity in the province of Ontario. I find it surprising you didn’t quote him.

    Mr Hampton: I’m more interested in Myron Gordon, who is a world-recognized expert. My point is, Professor Gordon says that Hydro One is worth at least $9.2 billion, and yet we know your government has been entertaining selling it off for $4 billion, possibly $5 billion. I want to know, where is your expert opinion that would support selling off one of Ontario’s most important public assets for basically half price?

    As for Maurice Strong, yes, it was Maurice Strong’s opinion seven years ago that Hydro should be privatized. I was part of a government that said, “No, we’re not going to sell off Ontario’s most important public asset.”
    The question for you to answer is, if Hydro One is worth $9.2 billion, why is your government entertaining offers to sell it for half price?

    http://hansardindex.ontla.on.ca/hansardeissue/37-3/l002a.htm

    Re-Energizing Ontario
    The Empire Club of Canada Addresses (Toronto, Canada), 23 Apr 1993
    As the Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro last summer made clear, our present patterns of production and consumption are not sustainable. We are now caught up in a turbulent process of adjustment in which we must learn to cope with a whole new generation of challenges. Divisions between rich and poor are deepening, domestically and internationally
    snip
    On the issue of privatization, I would only say at this point that I see it as a means, not as an end in itself. In my view the real test of the efficacy of private ownership of all or any part of Ontario Hydro will be the degree to which this would ensure that the interests of its customers and of Ontario would be better served.

    http://speeches.empireclub.org/60008/data?n=7

  58. In the world of power politics, what goes around comes around
    July 29, 2002

    Back in 1994 Ontario Hydro Chairman Maurice Strong opened talks on buying 12,500 hectares (30,875 acres) of a Costa Rican forest in the face of the utility’s then $34 billion debt.
    Strong, a Special Advisor to the Secretary General of the United Nations and President of the United Nations University for Peace in Costa Rica was appointed to Ontario Hydro by former Ontario Premier Bob Rae, who remembered him as a friend of his father’s and called him “Uncle Moe”.
    Uncle Moe gets around and before joining Ontario Hydro. he had served as President, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Petro Canada and earlier as President of Power Corporation of Canada.
    Paul Desmarais is chairman of Power Corporation.
    Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s daughter France, is married to Andre Desmarais, son of Paul Desmarais.
    Ex-Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, now has been a lawyer and lobbyist for Power Corporation, which, together with Ontario Hydro and Hydro Quebec, recently formed the Hong-Kong-based ASIA Power Corp., to help China to develop its energy potential.
    In the world of power, of both the energy and political breed,what goes around seems to come around.
    Guess who’s recently been appointed to lead Ontario Hydro? Uncle Moe’s friend Bob Rae.

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/2002/ed72902.htm

  59. crosspatch says:
    June 8, 2014 at 10:30 pm
    “If the progressives were serious about REALLY reducing CO2 they would go on a global rampage against coal seam fires.”

    I used to live in Pennsylvania and remember hearing about the Centralia, coal seem fire. You’d think we’d have figured out how to put these fires out by now. Maybe when they expect heavy rain in the forecast, they could set up gutters to direct rain water in the fire holes.

    “The Centralia blaze, still burning more than 50 years after it began, ranks as the worst mine fire in the United States. But it is by no means the only one. More than 200 underground and surface coal fires are burning in 14 states, according to the U.S. Department of Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.”

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/01/pictures/130108-centralia-mine-fire/

  60. I am trying to get back on topic here, (and please correct me if I am wrong please). As a long time observer as many Canadians are, from what I understand from Mr. Tim Balls article I may as well stay in bed rather then doing the volunteer work. Look It does not take much time to do them I agree but to read this article I wonder is this all for a waste? if some guy just turns it into a “model” ???.
    I am (and my wife ) are flabbergasted.
    @singint 5.01 pm
    USA Presidential elections have no effect at all because the Bureaucracy “selects” it’s leader long before any election.(singint @5.01). That is so correct and so true, the life long bureaucrats (and their families and their network) have the reins. I have family that GLOAT on that little bit.

  61. The Second Colloquium on the Governance of Sustainable Development
    Innovations in Governance for Sustainable Development
    Summary of the second conference
    December 14, 2004
    The Civil Society in the Decision-making Process: the Canadian Example
    Guest speaker: Elizabeth May
    Executive Director of the Sierra Club of Canada

    As outlined by Elizabeth May, as well as other speakers and writers, it is instructive to read Maurice Strong’s 1972 Stockholm speech and compare it with the issues of Earth Summit 1992. In 1972 and in 1992, Maurice Strong warned urgently about global warming, the devastation of forests, the loss of biodiversity, polluted oceans, the population time bomb. He invited to the conference the environmental NGOs, provided them with money to come, and invited them to become influential in the decision-making process and to continue informing the general public. After Stockholm, environment issues became part of the administrative framework in Canada, the U.S., and Europe.
    Maurice Strong is also behind the Commission on Global Governance(CGG) whose goal is to strengthen “global civil society,” which, it explains, “is best expressed in the global non-governmental movement.” Today, many NGOs have consultative status with the UN’s Economic and Social Council. The CGG proposed that NGOs be brought formally into the UN system, be accredited to the General Assembly as “Civil Society Organizations” and convened in an annual forum ofcivil society.

    http://tinyurl.com/2ojszc

    Founex Conference, Stockholm etc

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/26/stavins-and-tol-on-ipcc-wg3/#comment-534381

  62. Katou says:
    June 8, 2014 at 9:09 pm
    and
    davidmhoffer says:
    June 8, 2014 at 8:56 pm

    Read moonofalabama.org

  63. otsar says:
    June 8, 2014 at 10:34 pm

    Edmonton, Alberta, is full of Ukrainians. In fact, all of Alberta is–outside of Calgary–along with French Canadians and Germans. Edmonton is affectionately known as The Chuk. So you’ve got oil and politics going on in Alberta right now, and Harper knows that.

  64. otsar says:
    June 8, 2014 at 10:34 pm
    Katou,
    You need to learn about Ukrainian history and present day Ukraine. Talk to some Ukrainians that have recently emigrated.
    ============================================
    Thank you for trying to explain a very complicated Ukraine .I have done some looking into it .I would imagine that with the diverse peoples there ,you would get a different flavor from a immigrant from the east as per say the west .What got my goat about how the thing went down was that our 3 political parties stood side by side to acknowledge the Washington installed cou Govt . I kind of have to laugh at you saying Russia is stingy .How much money do they owe Russia for gas ? Ukraine is broke .They cant pay their bills and the loan they got from the IMF is not going to do it .
    The corruption is still there as well .The majority in the east don’t want to be run by Kiev and are willing to fight to keep their culture . The best thing they could have done was to remain neural and do business with both the EU and Russia . The real reason why the US pulled off the move they did ,was to keep Russia contained and kick them out of the Crimea and from their warm water port .
    Like you said ,Ukraine is a very complicated place and the people in Washington misplayed it . People like John Kerry saying that this is the 21st century and you done invade a country was one of the most hypocritical things he could have said after Iraq ,Afghanistan and all the other places they are involved in .The US don’t mind sending drones out and bombing wedding parties ,schools,hospitals and what not .They don’t mind releasing Terrorist either . I suppose NATO can use them like other terrorist to go to try and finish off Syria as well .
    Yes Ukraine is a complicated place with a long complicated history and so are other countries .I guess the US would sooner see a bunch of rebels who execute innocent civilians in Syria then someone who has kept a certain degree of peace within the borders like Saddam was doing in Iraq .
    I guess there is a technocrat controlling a bunch of bureaucrats trying to sell us their garbage and wanting us to lap it up and just trust them .No thanks .

  65. policycritic says:
    June 9, 2014 at 12:49 am
    ================
    Thanks . There are so many small stories inside the situation there . I feel sorry for the people there .They may end up with a cold cold winter next season .I still don’t know how France and Germany are going to go . Failing to supply the ships wouldn’t really help their economy .Germany does a ton of business with Russia and China wants to partner with Russia to develop a high speed rail into Europe .With the US economy not looking very good and China and India emerging and agreeing to use their own currencies ,it doesn’t look good for the USD . I think there is going to be a bunch of chickens coming home to roost in the US ….not good

  66. FRAUD

    Ok, mods now I have your attention, there is a very interesting story on Bloomberg.com about the republicans going all out to make the EPA coal overreach an election issue at your upcoming senate election.

    The story is at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-05/republicans-plan-to-attack-over-epa-rules-in-fall-elections.html

    The article indicates that the Presidents overreach on this issue does not have unanimous Democrat support, so now is the ideal time to go on the offensive to undermine it.

    There is a followup story here

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-03/obama-officials-seek-democratic-support-for-epa-coal-rule.html

    And here

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-05/republicans-can-t-block-epa-s-greenhouse-gas-rules-hoyer.html

    We should have a discussion on this and how best to help US Republicans and dissident Democrats overthrow this travesty. Also, we should expose the likely outcome of the rules to the punters in the USA. Unlike the MSM WUWT has access to broad information from all around the world. The experience in Europe (and the UK) and in Australia shows just how much the little guy is going to be hit by what is effectively a CO2 tax. Can the average American afford an electric bill twice what it is now and about 3-10% increase in all energy intensive products ( eg such as aluminium, solar panels and fertiliser)

    Anthony?

  67. @Crosspatch.

    This idea that it’s all about wealth distribution has come up a lot, but you’re wrong. If it were about wealth and fairness, then they would be building fossil power plants in every underprivileged nation in the world, digging wells and providing jobs. The redistribution idea is just a feel good cover story. It’s not about that , it’s simply about money and power, the Socialists in control of the unelected UN bureaucracy want a world government run by them where noone is rich except for the party faithful, and everyone with a differing view is poor and powerless. This means the destruction of powerful capitalist entities that might oppose the plan, and the elimination of the concept of private property ownership. It’s right there in the UN declaration itself.

    Agenda 21 ( the UN sustainability plan) is about bringing that to realisation.

    Global warming and UNFCCC IPCC and cousins were about providing an excuse and funding of the program through UN run carbon trading, and mandatory Donations from signatories to the UN using the cover story of an imagined “Planetary emergency”. Signing onto UN global warming gives a slice of your national sovereignty to the unelected UN, it effectively allows the UN to dictate your nations energy policy. If you control the energy supply, you effectively control everything.

    Like always, it’s about Power

    Many do think that world government in peace and harmony would be a good thing, but I always ask them, suppose you don’t like your world government, where are you going to go?

  68. “Opinion: Global Warming Claims Are Primarily And Deliberately A Product Of Bureaucratic Political Activity”

    Is this really opinion, or fact?

    Hmm…

  69. “Sierra Rayne (@rayne_sierra) says:”
    June 8, 2014 at 7:41 pm
    @davidmhoffer: “Well that’s an opinion piece, hardly proof.”

    Oh, it is proof all right. Direct press releases and public statements by Harper himself and his Minister of the Environment constitute proof, except maybe to the Harper-ites (aka, fake conservatives).

    @herkimer: “Harper is doing what is necessary to market that oil.”

    You are right. He’ll say anything to please his oil lobby masters. He’s just a one-trick pony, and a puppet oil lobbyist — which is why he is neither a true conservative nor a good prime minister.” ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Here is a prime example of the L.I.V. (low information voter) in Canada. It is likely that their only source of information is the CBC. Clearly no understanding of economics/economy, politics, and pretty much everything else. It is advisable to seek all sources for information, even if it is distasteful.
    For example, I listen to the CBC for the comedy. Very informative (in a negative forcing kinda way), but very funny for it’s delusion and short sightedness.

  70. davidmhoffer: I know this may be a difficult concept for you, but Harper will say and do anything to get KXL approved, including hoisting carbon taxation on the Canadian taxpayers to do so (aka, throwing them under the bus to get his little pipeline approved). The pipeline should be approved, but with absolutely no conditions. I’m not willing to pay further carbon taxes (beyond what Harper has already given us) and a higher cost of living just to try and get KXL approved. That ain’t conservatism by the CPC, it is liberalism, and if I wanted liberalism, I’d just vote for the LPC or NDP and get my entitlement goodies along with it.

    Riddle me this: why are Harper and his environment minister publicly, repeatedly, and very emphatically congratulating Obama on his new climate regulations? and even encouraging Obama to go further, while also stating that Canada will go further on its AGW-hysteria induced GHG reduction strategies? Why? Why is the Canadian oil and gas industry calling for carbon taxation themselves? Why?

    I’ll answer the question for you. They just pass the carbon tax on to consumers, so they could care less about it for the most part, especially if in their overall strategy it means a net profit increase by allowing them increased export opportunities. But the strategy is terrible for the Canadian energy consuming public, and it sure ain’t a conservative strategy — which is expected, since the oil industry in Canada is dominantly liberal anyway, not conservative.

  71. This idea that it’s all about wealth distribution has come up a lot, but you’re wrong. If it were about wealth and fairness, then they would be building fossil power plants in every underprivileged nation in the world, digging wells and providing jobs. The redistribution idea is just a feel good cover story. It’s not about that , it’s simply about money and power, the Socialists in control of the unelected UN bureaucracy want a world government run by them where noone is rich except for the party faithful, and everyone with a differing view is poor and powerless.

    Well, I wouldn’t go so far as to say it has anything to do with “fairness”. They are simply moving the jobs there for the sake of it. But they ARE building power plants in those countries hand over fist and there is no push-back to using nuclear there, either. Only in “developed” countries is there massive resistance to nuclear. And that is for really no reason. If you look at the safety record of nuclear, it is just amazing. We had a worst case scenario with Fukushima, THREE reactors of 1960’s design in various stages of melt. Nobody dead, nobody injured. Chernobyl death toll so far — 64 people. Organic veggies killed more people in 2011 ( German sprouts and Colorado cantaloupe) than Chernoby, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima combined.

    Here are the bottom 4 “emerging” economies of the top 20.

    Philippines
    GDP growth, 2013 to 2017: 20.4%
    200 MW coal plant inaugurated in the Philippines
    Meralco to build 300 MW coal fired power plant in the Philippines
    Conal Holdings plans $1bn coal, hydro plant investment in the Philippines
    Aboitiz’s Therma South to build 300 MW coal plant in Davao City, Philippines

    Morocco
    GDP growth, 2013 to 2017: 27.7%
    Morocco plans $1.5 bln power station
    Morocco receives $187m loan from Islamic bank for gas power plant
    Mitsubishi to supply steam turbines for Morocco coal plants

    Hungary
    GDP growth, 2013 to 2017: 15.6%
    Russia to invest $14bn in Hungary nuclear power expansion project
    Siemens awarded Hungary power plant contract by E.ON
    Ukrainian-owned gas provider to build Hungary’s biggest power plant
    Swedish technical consulting group SWECO designs CHP plant in Hungary
    Mitsubishi & Sumitomo bag CCGT Danube deal in Hungary
    Alpiq to build 400 MW CCGT plant in Budapest, Hungary

    Brazil
    GDP growth, 2013 to 2017: 22.3%
    Westinghouse forms business unit to develop nuclear in Brazil
    Brazil cuts high electricity costs to boost economy (what is happening to US rates?)
    Alstom renews contract to service power generation equipment in Brazil
    Brazil adds 280MW of thermo power to grid
    Brazil to offer nuclear energy tax incentives

    Mexico
    GDP growth, 2013 to 2017: 17.5%
    Alstom, Isolux sign contract to convert power station in Mexico to fire petroleum coke
    Toshiba to supply steam turbines for thermal power plant in Mexico
    GE natural gas-fired turbine in Mexico to use chiller plant
    Iberdrola to build & operate natural gas-fired power plant in Mexico

  72. davidmhoffer says:
    June 8, 2014 at 4:48 pm
    the Harper government is mostly just sucking up to Obama to try and get the Keystone Pipeline approved.

    Katou says:
    June 8, 2014 at 5:34 pm
    I see Mr. Harper is in lock step with the Obamanater vilifying Russia over the Ukraine crises that was cause by Washington’s meddling
    ———-
    The underlying issue here is oil in the Artic, and the need for the USA to have free access to Canada’s north for its own agenda.

  73. Tim Ball says:

    The Obama administration used the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) and Administrative Law to bypass the checks and balances of the people (Congress). By losing the lawsuit brought against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the State of Massachusetts that said the EPA were not fulfilling their role of protecting the people from “harmful substances”, they triggered arbitration by SCOTUS.

    The Supreme Court ruled on that case in 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency). The Obama Administration didn’t start in 2009. Bush was still in office when the case was decided, so it was his Administration that lost the lawsuit.

    Sorry to throw a few inconvenient facts in the way of your conspiracy theories.

  74. Hey, at least they’re causing millions of excess deaths among the world’s poorest, who can barely feed/shelter themselves even before we hike up the energy costs.

    Or maybe that’s a benefit to the Malthusians.

  75. I don’t think most people fully understand how profound are the effects our political economy shifting towards public employment with unfunded retirement pensions. The pensions are growing, the number of people receiving pensions are growing, they’re retiring earlier, they’re living longer, they’re getting cost-of-living raises that outpace GDP growth, and they’re organized to enhance these benefits even more via politics, and they’re predisposed to want the social safety net to also embrace these features, so there are commonalities, less adversity and animosity from private sector retirees. One day soon, if we keep on this path, we won’t be able to afford teachers, police, firefighters, meat inspectors, customs agents, and a standing voluntary professional military, because all the money needed to pay them will instead be going to retired teachers, police, et. al. To paraphrase Barbie, maintaining limited government via a Constitution is tough.

  76. Thank-you Dr. Ball. I must admit to originally believing that humans had a considerable amount to do with Climate Changes that we have seen over the past hundred years or so. That was up until about three to four years ago, then I began to appreciate Dr. Ball’s informative views. Since that time, I have done some research to investigate some long-term climate records (yes there are some still remaining, though Dr. Ball is correct, much of the long-term data is being lost or compromised), to see for myself what has transpired over the past century. I analyzed some long-term data (away from urban heat island influences). I did not find any significant human signal in the data (see http//www.bcclimate.com). The major influences to the the long-term record had to do with features such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and I believe our own Sun. And contrary to the global warming advocates, that human endeavours are the major climate forcing, I now do not concur! I think that recently the emphasis has shifted from warming, largely induced by the Sun, and the recovery of Earth from the Last Ice Age, as well as the Little Ice Age, to no further warming, perhaps even to a slight cooling. I have been attempting to get this message across through letter writing to newspapers, but to no avail. There is a definite reluctance to even print letters such as mine. Contrary to the present situation, where scientists such as Dr. Andrew Weaver, and others. in their arrogance, continue to ignore the facts and scientists such as Dr. Tim Ball and Dr. Roy Spencer, the tide does finally appear to be changing. This may not be realized for a few years yet, that is if the current prediction of a strong El Nino holds true. But shortly thereafter, the relatively minor roll of man in this issue will finally be revealed. Rod Chilton, climatologist.

  77. @crosspath,

    Both the World Bank and Obama have said they will not fund fossil power in the developing world, so exactly how is the UN and the west trying to raise the developing world from poverty…. With sunbeams, unicorn farts, and pixie dust?

  78. “Sierra Rayne (@rayne_sierra) says:
    June 9, 2014 at 7:48 am
    davidmhoffer: I know this may be a difficult concept for you, but Harper will say and do anything to get KXL approved, including hoisting carbon taxation on the Canadian taxpayers to do so (aka, throwing them under the bus to get his little pipeline approved). The pipeline should be approved, but with absolutely no conditions. I’m not willing to pay further carbon taxes (beyond what Harper has already given us) and a higher cost of living just to try and get KXL approved. That ain’t conservatism by the CPC, it is liberalism, and if I wanted liberalism, I’d just vote for the LPC or NDP and get my entitlement goodies along with it.

    Riddle me this: why are Harper and his environment minister publicly, repeatedly, and very emphatically congratulating Obama on his new climate regulations? and even encouraging Obama to go further, while also stating that Canada will go further on its AGW-hysteria induced GHG reduction strategies? Why? Why is the Canadian oil and gas industry calling for carbon taxation themselves? Why?

    I’ll answer the question for you. They just pass the carbon tax on to consumers, so they could care less about it for the most part, especially if in their overall strategy it means a net profit increase by allowing them increased export opportunities. But the strategy is terrible for the Canadian energy consuming public, and it sure ain’t a conservative strategy — which is expected, since the oil industry in Canada is dominantly liberal anyway, not conservative.” ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I don’t even know where to begin with this post post. It is completely opposite from reality. I think I would like Sierra to post some links to substantiate this comment.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/10/australia-and-canada-decide-to-take-a-path-of-climate-realism/

  79. Much of this is known but not written down,, so thanks.Tim.
    However, i am mildly critical of the emphasis on individuals rather than ideas; on personal foibles and individual behaviour rather than ideologies, institutions and commercial interests.. The period Tim describes was one of much green enthusiasm (and also fear), to which politicians and hence bureaucracies had and did respond ..in order to get votes and jobs and approval. All bureaucracies – like other institutions – want to grow . Of course,Tim is right in that bureaucracy (especially at UN at U supported by Greenpeace et al..) used the climate threat to further their power over people and gain resources for development, especially at the international level. (See book by me and A Kellow on International Environmental Policy: Interests and the failure of the Kyoto Protocol. (2002 Elgar)

    What a wonderful pollutant is CO2! It moves across all political boundaries but come/came from the ‘rich’ you could fleece for ‘development’ ; it could be measured when emitted and inside products (embedded carbon!), as well as in fuels. Certain fuels for which ‘clean alternatives’ already existed became ‘clean’ and ‘good’, but in the late 1980s had to call for protection in order to survive cheap oil and gas..the oil crises had ended! etc.. Air pollution control and modelling had already been well rehearsed for acid rain, and emission reduction has become a branch of innovation.. So decarbonisation became a further and very powerful stimulus for much technological innovation as well as regulation by ‘economic instruments’ and now ‘nudging’ -, getting the social sciences in on the act.

    Isn’t that what capitalism needs? Creative destruction? Somebody has to pay for it of course. And it wasn’t the polluter! The investors in green energy , and in clean this and the other (all of course sustainable) ,are now the main believers in the warming threat; and of course those politicians who must respond to voters.
    The green lobby is now wealthy and well organised., Science hasn’t been that important for a long time, it is used as a fig leaf for policies that are widely approved of, by now, among many industries and investors; the big science bodies make the right noises in return not only for enormous funding but also for reputation as honoured advisors, publishers and consultants to bureaucracy,….here Tim is quite right. Serious funding and status issues at stake. Science has been bought or ‘captured’, but when has it not?

Comments are closed.