Todays Disastrous Climate and Energy Policies – What Not to Do

Canadian, Maurice Strong, Created Todays Disastrous Climate and Energy Policies, in Ontario and Canada. A Possible Positive Side is The World Learning What Not to Do

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

The recent article about the hypocrisy of Justin Trudeau missed the major point that the problem began with another Canadian, Maurice Strong, in the fateful year of 1992. In that year, he chaired the Rio Conference at which the entire anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deception was formalized. He was also appointed Chair of Ontario Hydro, the Provincial agency that controls all energy production in the Province. He used that opportunity to apply his solutions to his falsely created deception. I wrote about these tragic convergences in a WUWT article, “Ontario, Canada: A Mirror of America’s Economic Future Mortgaged to falsified Climate Science.”

The following article originally appeared as my regular column in the magazine The Landowners. It explains how Canadian socialism perpetuates and exacerbates Strong’s failed policies.

Ontario On Federal Welfare Because Of Green Energy Policies.

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, 1816

I stopped golfing because my game did ruin a good walk. While I was playing, I learned there were many aspects of the game with affinity to life. One was that you have 20 bad shots and are ready to quit, but one good shot keeps you going for 20 more bad ones. Another that perplexed me was the requirement for and use of a handicap. The joke among good golfers is that in a tournament you fear the high handicapper with a hot putter. It speaks to the fact that the handicap is a pure form of socialism. Instead of winning on personal merit and ability, you can win because of a statistical adjustment – an equalization.

Canada has a federal process that is like the golf handicap system. It is called “equalization payments.” Many consider it sacrosanct and untouchable, but it masks and perpetuates real problems. Formalized in 1957, it initially planned to give residents of each province the same per capita revenue as those in the two wealthiest provinces British Columbia and Ontario, using personal, corporate, and inheritance taxes. Like all government programs they are never reduced but grow, almost always for political rather than practical reasons. In 1962 they added 50 percent of natural resource income to the mix, and in 1967 they expanded it to include all government revenues, except energy. It is reported that Canada now has the most expansive and generous, redistribution of wealth system, in the world. To guarantee the continuance of the system it was included, by an amendment to the constitution, through the Canada Act 1982. This was the Act that transferred political power to Ottawa from Westminster and used as an opportunity to entrench such political ideologies.

Provinces are designated, “have” or “have not”, based upon their ability to generate tax revenue. A dramatic turn occurred in 2009-2010 because Ontario, the only “have” province, from the start, became a “have not’ province. Newfoundland and Labrador, a “have not” province from the start, became a “have” province.

In 1992, when Ontario was a “have” province, Maurice Strong was appointed Chairman of Ontario Hydro. In that same year, he chaired the “Earth Summit” of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), in Rio, a conference he promulgated and organized. At that conference, the concepts of global warming, as a threat to the planet, were formalized. Through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) they formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The objective was to produce the science that human CO2 was causing global warming. It began with the direction to use the definition of climate change approved by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Article 1 of the UNFCCC at the “Earth Summit,” defined Climate Change as:

…a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods.[1]

This makes the human impact the primary purpose of the research. The problem is you cannot determine human contribution unless you know the amount and cause of natural climate change.

The IPCC has failed. We know that, because science is tested by its ability to predict and every prediction they have made was wrong. But before that was even established, Maurice Strong applied the green energy policies they claimed were necessary to offset global warming to the Province Ontario.

Strong’s plan for Ontario was illogical and damaging on many levels. As one report noted,

“Within no time of his arrival, he firmly redirected and re-structured Ontario Hydro. At the time, Ontario Hydro was hell-bent on building many more nuclear reactors, despite dropping demand and rising prices. Maurice Strong grabbed the Corporation by the scruff of the neck, reduced the workforce by one third, stopped the nuclear expansion plans, cut capital expenditures, froze the price of electricity, pushed for sustainable development, made business units more accountable.”

It was supposedly designed to reduce production of CO2, but cancelled nuclear power plant construction. It built windmills that are very inefficient and kill birds and bats by the millions but do not reduce CO2 production. Wind does not blow all the time or even steadily, therefore power production is intermittent. This means fossil fuel power plants must be kept running all the time, since the pick up must be immediate and seamless, so there is no drop in power supply. Most systems restrict wind power input to 12 percent because, if the wind stops blowing, anything more causes an overload.

Ontario became the testing ground for Strong’s green energy policy, and the people are paying a very high price. Worse, it is completely unnecessary, because the justification for adopting the policy that human CO2 was causing global warming, is wrong. For the last 19 years, global temperature has leveled and declined while CO2 levels continue to increase.

Further proof of the failure of the green agenda and energy policies is they are failing in every country where they were adopted. Germany is a good example as a March 14, 2013, Forbes article notes.

There’s nothing wrong with expanding renewable energy sources. The more choices available in this (or any) marketplace the better consumers will be served – both from a price and a quality standpoint. However serious problems are caused when government starts using taxpayer resources to subsidize or incentivize these expansions. Things get even worse when centralized planners start manipulating market choices or trying to manage the marketplace itself by controlling the generation of power.

The article title is “Germany’s Green Energy Disaster: A Cautionary Tale for World Leaders.” Change Germany to Ontario and the world leaders would have known, back in 2003, when Dalton McGuinty was elected. The after effects of Strong’s policies kept accumulating, so a 2010 Toronto Sun headline warned, “Expect a 46% hydro rate.” Strong’s policies were continued and exacerbated because of the political input of David Suzuki in McGuinty’s re-election; actions that forced Suzuki to resign from his Foundation.

The Ontario government of Premier Kathleen Wynne continues the destructive policies instead of recognizing the root cause. The reason is because the real economic and social costs of the damaging energy policies are masked by Federal Transfer payments. In 2009 – 2010 Ontario received $347 million in transfer payments, while Newfoundland received nothing. Table 1 shows the total transfer payments to Ontario including equalization.


Table 1

Transfers allow Ontario leaders to avoid facing reality. Worse, it allows them to pursue even more damaging policies. For example, McGuinty and Wynne have both pushed fracking aside, even though the claims of damage are proved wrong. They refuse to allow development of nuclear power, which is already proved as a reliable, safe source, in Ontario, and with advances in technology can be cheaper and more efficient. Look at the success story and safety record in France, where nuclear has dominated power production since 1984 (Figure 1)


Figure 1

Ironically, France, under the socialist government of Francois Hollande, was elected in 2012 proposing a one-third reduction of nuclear power by 2025. Wynne is planning to add insult to injury with a proposed “carbon tax”. Why do people keep voting for those who promise programs that are proven failures? The answer is partly provided by a 19th century quote.

A democracy cannot survive as a permanent form of government. It can last only until its citizens discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority who vote will vote for the candidates promising the greatest benefits from the public purse, with the result that a democracy will always collapse from loose fiscal policies, always followed with a dictatorship.

George Bernard Shaw summarized the reality in stark terms. “A government with the policy to rob Peter to pay Paul can be assured of the support of Paul.” The Canadian equalization scheme aids and abets this by protecting governments from accountability for their failed policies. What makes it worse, is the policy was chosen to reduce CO2 emissions, adopted blindly by ideologues who did not look at or understand the science.


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 15, 2017 10:37 am

WUWT Readers, I’ve finally completed the arguments against the AGW Theory. Thank you for all your inputs, and please keep them coming. Once again, thanks for all the comments. I’ve seen from the response from the climate alarmists we must be on to something.
How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate.

Reply to  co2islife
January 15, 2017 12:22 pm

My compliments.
A very thorough and comprehensive work.
If you run into any alarmist who thinks that they know CAGW theory and the 97%, this will give them something new to think about.

Reply to  TonyL
January 15, 2017 12:48 pm

CO2, talking points #4. “It is truly alarming how such foundational figures can even demonstrate even the basics of the “science” that they have manufactured and promoted at great tax-payer expense.” First “can” to “can’t”?

Reply to  co2islife
January 15, 2017 1:23 pm

Co2Life, that’s a great set of arguments, and I am starting to explore all the additional supportive links you provide! I recommend to WUWT readers that they take an afternoon and do that!
A couple of points I would add:
I pointed out that the record for the coldest day was set after the record for the hottest day in 6 out of the 7 continents. That’s the reverse of what is to be expected after a century of “runaway warming.” Tom Nelson has today pointed something else out:
Tom Nelson ‏@tan123 9h9 hours ago
Check out the dates of highest recorded temperature for each continent
The years that the records for the hottest day was set for all the continents and Oceania was: 1913, 1942, 1931, 1960, 1977, 1905, 1974, and 1912. Take the average of of those 8 years and we get 1939 to be the average year that the record for the hottest day was set.
The 1930s were hotter than today!

Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 15, 2017 1:47 pm

Thanks, I greatly appreciate the comment. That research is what I’ve been looking for. It proves new energy is being added to the system, something CO2 can’t do by trapping outgoing radiation.

Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 16, 2017 5:49 am

co2 has made a great list of points about AGW failings. Excellent memory aid.
However, averaging temperatures across is a meaningless excercise. Plenty of posts about that here on WUWT. A thermometer is not an energy meter. Energy drives the climate.
If you take average a few random points on a trend line you’ll most likely get an answer near the middle. It does make a good number to trumpet in a tweet though. The DustBowl is still in the history books.

Reply to  co2islife
January 15, 2017 1:27 pm

Co2Life, one other point, regarding the supposed “98% consensus.”
At best that’s a consensus of ideology, not science!
It is only a “consensus” among leftist scientists.
Correct for ideology and … poof … there’s no “90% consensus,” there’s no 80%, there’s not even 50%. And limit the survey to conservative scientists and we got 90%+ consensus
against the leftist climate scam!

Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 15, 2017 3:33 pm

Yep, I plan to expand upon that one. Thanks

Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 15, 2017 4:52 pm


Reply to  Eric Simpson
January 16, 2017 8:50 am

Consensus is for political matters and opinions. In science you don’t get to vote on the right answer. According to the IPCC a room of students should get to vote on the answers to the science test. The problem with that method is that the students don’t get to grade the tests.
So far the graded tests have been abysmal.

Reply to  co2islife
January 15, 2017 3:13 pm

At the risk of being off subject,
I came across this post which somehow reminds me of the IPCC, governments, various foundations, groups and activists who miss the point about science and pragmatic truth.
Perhaps the little boy is the one who shouted “but the emperor has got no clothes on ” 🙂

Reply to  co2islife
January 16, 2017 4:44 am

Just on point 1, no one on the non-skeptic side ever denied that the climate is not constantly changing…
but we look at and understand the several reasons for climate change, solar, orbital, volcanic, etc.
Then we look at which of these is in effect now and the actual change currently… and we conclude its warming and the only active climatic effect is (human produced) CO2.
so I’d say, as a non-skeptic obviously needing convincing, you lost me at point one.
On another tack, I am more than a little obsessed, people here tell me, with arctic sea ice. Because it is an obvious sign of climate change.
your presentation needs to do more to explain why declining sea ice is NOT caused by climate change.

Darrell Demick
Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2017 5:55 am

Sorry Griff, but you lost me at “the only active climactic effect is (human produced) CO2.” I could not disagree more vehemently with that statement.
I also agree that the changing levels of Arctic sea ice are a result of climate change, however I am having a terribly difficult time rationalizing that the changing global ocean currents (bringing warm water to the Arctic, melting the sea ice) are as a result of “only human produced effects”, especially given that the Arctic has been ice-free in the geologic past, polar bears survived during these times, and all of this occurred prior to human industrial CO2 releases to the atmosphere.
Please remember that we have had glacial events (i.e. ice ages) when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were significantly higher than current. I do not see any correlation between CO2 driving global temperature, in actuality the geologic history of this planet shows the exact opposite is the truth.

Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2017 6:02 am

Great idea. I think I addressed that in one smoking gun, but I’ll expand upon it.

Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2017 7:13 am

Hi Griff, good to see you are back.
You confuse me. Are you talking about “Climate Change” as in “the climate always changes” or are you talking about Global Warming caused by man?
“no one on the non-skeptic side ever denied that the climate is not constantly changing”
Before today it was colder during the Little Ice Age.
Before then, it was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period.
Before then, it was colder than today during the European Dark Ages.
Before then, it was warmer than today during the Roman Optimum.
So things are changing, OK. Why?
” we look at and understand the several reasons for climate change, solar, orbital, volcanic, etc.”
It must be CO2, we can not think of anything else.
You have done two things here:
A) The logical fallacy “Argument from Ignorance”, that is “it must be, because we do not know what else it could be”.
B) You shifted your focus from natural CC to AGW. When you skip back and forth between natural CC and AGW, your points get confused. If you do it on purpose, people suspect you are up to something.
Arctic Sea Ice:
Yes, indeed. We have records going back a very long time. I agree, the historical data is very sparse compared to the modern satellite record. But the data does show where ships could go and where they could not go, so the data is a fair measure of ice extent. One thing is abundantly clear, and that is that long term, arctic ice is tremendously variable. In a historical context, what the ice is doing now does not seem to be unusual. I also note that the modern data sets all start in the late 1970s or early 1980s at what appears to be a high point in arctic sea ice. Interestingly, there is weather sat data going back a decade earlier which shows significantly less ice. Yet that data is excluded from the record. (Admittedly, that data is somewhat sparse compared to modern monitoring. {But sparse data never stopped the sea temperature people.})
“it is an obvious sign of climate change”
Now, are talking about natural Climate Change, or AGW?
See what I mean?

Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2017 9:53 am

“Just on point 1, no one on the non-skeptic side ever denied that the climate is not constantly changing…”
Only true until ~1950 changing. From 1970 onward, no one on the non-skeptic side ever acknowledged any natural change, essentially supposed to be zero.
“but we look at and understand the several reasons for climate change, solar, orbital, volcanic, etc.”
You don’t. Your kind refused, and some still refuse, to see MWP. Refused to consider that treemometers are very bad proxies, that can be easily cherrypicked to show what you want beforehand. Refused to admit some wrongdoing or whistle-blowing against their idols (Climate gate ? no no no, that is benign in itself, only someone “hacked” CRU). So much for the “look”.
And for the “understand”, well, if it were true, the natural change from 1970 wouldn’t be “unknown”, we would have precise explanations for what happened in the past, MWP, LIA, or even the recent “missing heat” issue, what happened to the “tropical hotspot”, why there is still ice at north pole, etc.
You cannot deliver. You don’t understand. You just think you do, which is far worse.
In fact, Lorenz demonstrated this just cannot be done.
But you have a point: AGW believers are lost at point one : the simple fact that recent change may (just : “may”) be natural is already far to much to accept.

Malcolm Carter
Reply to  Griff
January 17, 2017 11:26 am

Interesting to call the other side the non-skeptic side. Being a skeptic is the hallmark of being a scientist.

Reply to  co2islife
January 16, 2017 9:30 am

“The AGW Theory is similar to claiming that lung cancer causes smoking.”
Means that AGW is some sort of cancer …
I would rather “The AGW Theory is similar to claiming that Nile’s floods cause rain in Ethiopia”

January 15, 2017 10:46 am

Why is it that it is the rich already green countries and provinces that are most zealous about reducing their already insignificant CO2 emissions? Any why do their consumers and voters go along with it? I’m genuinely puzzled, can a green-leaning reader shed any light?

Reply to  climanrecon
January 15, 2017 3:32 pm

Here’s a sample of an article from 2011 out of Vancouver that might explain how shaming was used.

Reply to  climanrecon
January 15, 2017 6:13 pm

People are problem solvers through evolution. If we weren’t the Arctic and North America would would never have been inhabited. In a way, we exist to solve problems. We consistently look for things that are “problems;” it is why we criticize other drivers. People are also explorers. That harks directly back to problem solving. Want to go to Mars, what problems and challenges need to be dealt with to get there, get people there, keep them alive there.
Civilization, especially affluent civilization, reduces the degree and scope of real life problems to the point that individuals begin to invent problems, and to postulate that humans are the drivers of these problems as well. Not only have they “identified” solvable issues, but they have also delineated “moral imperatives,” since the “cause” of these problems is bad behaviour on the part of humanity – the “original sin” idea in new clothes. This leads to “causes,” and to “wars” against crime, environmental damage, poverty and climate change. It also leads to “moral majorities” and religious intolerance, since any religion asserts that it really does have the “true” solutions to the “problems” besetting us.
So the short of it is that the affluent citizens of “rich already green countries” don’t have anything better to than identify “problems.” You can see it cockamamie arguments about environmentalism in California. Is Jerry Brown a green jerk or a down to earth pragmatist. Whenever you see a “conservative” complain about the “snail darter” or “the Delta Smelt,” remember that that specific complaint places that specific conservative on the same side of the environmental debate as Jerry Brown and against the north state conservatives. There is no consistency to be found attempting to categorize and explain “green” versus whatever. The categories really make no rational sense. Why would the poorest people in the US persistently side with the very richest politically? Why would sternly, morally conservative voters – both Catholic and Protestant vote for Trump who has patently never been in shouting distance of their values? Who literally holds them in contempt and would categorize many of their homes as “slums.” Why would “greens” vote for Democrats for that matter? Politics is a theater of the absurd. Assume it absurd, lean back, open beer or pour a scotch and smile.

John Harmsworth
Reply to  Duster
January 16, 2017 7:20 am

I don’t disagree with anything you say Duster. I just don’t see anything to smile about.

Darrell Demick
Reply to  climanrecon
January 16, 2017 6:11 am

There are some very good comments and issues identified at this level and in other posts that follow. An indirect quote of the late, great Sir Winston Churchill (okay, could be an urban legend, but it is still a great quote) goes something like: “When you are young and do not vote (left), you have no heart. When you grow older and you do not vote (right), you have no brain.”
My personal experience with those involved in attempting to get what we truly believe to be the real science at the forefront, is that the current suite of those working this issue are, …… , old. As was stated in a posting a little further on, school children are being taught to believe that we will be a “water world” in the not too distant future. What is being taught in schools nowadays is very difficult to comprehend, however irrespective of that issue (which does need to be addressed, IMHO), we therefore have young people who truly believe what they have been taught. If you tell people the same lie, over and over again, they will eventually believe it.
This manifests itself into the college/university ranks – however that appears, for the most part, to be research funding driven – always easy to get funding to work on solving a potential global catastrophe than it is to measure the annual snowfall at the poles. Snowfall doesn’t make for sensational press or research funding, pictures of thin polar bears or icebergs the size of Manhattan, or larger, calving. does.
We are fighting an uphill battle, however we are also getting noticed. Continue to spread the good word so that the uneducated just might take a look and do their own digging into this topic (I like to tell people, “don’t believe me, but please don’t blindly believe politicians or mainstream media – do your own research on the topic and formulate your own opinion based on the available research”).
Unfortunately it just might have to be done one person (voter) at a time.

January 15, 2017 10:55 am

Ontario Hydro was already a festering cesspool before Strong arrived. Contractors and employees alike treated it as a cash cow. Earthmover drivers were told to drive around at the back of construction sites to give the illusion of progress. Dump truck drivers would punch in at the beginning of a shift, go back to their farms until the end of the day, and return to the construction site to punch out. There were lots of stories.
Strong messed things up worse, Mike Harris compounded the problem, Dalton McGuinty continued the trajectory, and finally Kathleen Wynne cluelessly blunders on.
The federal Liberals, unable to see the freight train thundering down on them have decided that the whole country should have a carbon tax. They are getting it both barrels from the disgusted citizens of Ontario who have had enough and don’t want any more thank you! Slapstick at its best.

January 15, 2017 10:58 am

I live in Ontario, we have more power than we know what to do with, yet the Liberals keep building wind/solar power. Our electricity prices have skyrocketed. I cannot understand the reasoning, we get the majority of our power from Nuclear and Hydro already, we can cover our needs almost 100% with these most of the time. Both sources don’t generate CO2, I can only explain building more ‘renewable’ sources as purely an ideological one. We are tiny in comparison to the USA and China. Our whole Canadian population is smaller than just California.
Like today, the wind is not really blowing and it is overcast. The supply chart below shows ~95% of our power mix is from non-CO2 sources. The new carbon tax is just a money grab.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Duncan
January 15, 2017 1:09 pm

Wynne’s plan was to build all this capacity so that she could shut down natural gas as a source of heating! After a leaked secret memo, she apologized and rationalized this was one of a series of ideas and was not official.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 15, 2017 2:07 pm

@Gary, Wynne can take my natural gas heating furnace out of my cold dead hands. I can only hope, like the Trump win, Canadians will wake up to the Liberal feel good bait and switch. There is no deficit that is safe under Liberal control. Running a province or country cannot always be sunny days (with other peoples money). Ontario has the world’s largest sub-sovereign debt, at $307 billion (per capita).

Reply to  Duncan
January 15, 2017 1:13 pm

Duncan, what I find even more amazing…
They were able to convince people living above 40 degrees north……that warmer is going to kill them

Reply to  Latitude
January 15, 2017 2:20 pm

Latitude, we are in agreement. Although “convince” is not the right word, “lied” to is. I’ve met children (10-12 years old) around here saying well be under water in X amount of time. Toronto Ontario for example is ~250ft above sea level. Propaganda at its finest.

January 15, 2017 11:02 am

Unfortunately, New York State’s Governor Cuomo is utilizing the ‘Rob Peter to pay Paul’ system which is perpetuating the INSANITY! Consider this recent announcement by NY Gov. Cuomo to further subsidize the consumer FRAUD of industrial wind at taxpayer & ratepayer expense. Between what New York State is offering, and the federal Wind Production Tax Credit – PTC (aka: Pork-To-Cronies), Big Wind LLCs will be getting nearly $50 per MWh in subsidies in NY – which is nearly twice the wholesale value of electricity!?!?! That is outright INSANITY! This legalized thievery will never stop as long as energy-illiterate, crony-corruptocrats continue to funnel our money into these losing propositions, and no one is holding them accountable.

Reply to  marykaybarton
January 15, 2017 7:13 pm

NCPR/North Country Public Radio, Feb.28, 2016
‘Electricity is what powers trade between Quebec and New York’
Scroll down and read at:

Bruce Cobb
January 15, 2017 11:03 am

Oh, the humanidiocy.

Pop Piasa
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 15, 2017 11:59 am

Consider that my next bumpersticker. Thanks!

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 15, 2017 12:10 pm

The greatest threat now facing humankind is stupidity. This is the main forcing that results in CO2-induced catastrophic global warming.
I’m working on the math for this.

Darrell Demick
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
January 16, 2017 6:15 am

Well, Robert, if the renewable movement is really a trillion dollar plus per year industry, I still cannot forgive my late parents for instilling way too much integrity into my character ……
Of course I cannot thank my parents enough for that! But I can, unfortunately, understand why those who continue to manifest this “movement” do so – would be nice to be a pig feeding at that trough of moolah!!
I consider this issue to be the “witch hunt” of our generation.

Mark from the Midwest
January 15, 2017 11:04 am

“Canada now has the most expansive and generous, redistribution of wealth system, in the world.”
I believe that Switzerland has the most generous system of redistribution of wealth. It goes by other names including “full employment” a “healthy economy” and a “solid system of public education.” But I’m sure Trudeau and other socialists have very good reasons for thinking those aren’t useful attributes of an enlightened society.

Reply to  Mark from the Midwest
January 15, 2017 4:28 pm

Isn’t Switzerland the country that had the unemployment benefits set at the same salary you had before you lost your job? That includes managing directors and company directors.

Reply to  Hivemind
January 16, 2017 5:14 am

In Switzerland you pay 2.2% of your wage in and get 70% of your last wage out (for 400 days). The unemployment-administration wastes a third of your premiums for itself.
Switzerland is not really good, but it looks good, because nearly everybody else is so bad. Every vice and folly seeps in within 10 years from Germany and France, 20 years after it had been invented in America.

Crispin in Waterloo
January 15, 2017 11:11 am

Thanks Dr B.
Here is the magnificent contribution made by Ontario’s wind over the past week:
Now, isn’t that worth a few billion in subsidies over 20 years? Look at the green line. That is your renewable energy economy right there. It looks like the Nortel share price.
And just for the record, you can follow the generators in detail at:
Are we doing better than the UK? The power engineers predicted load shedding in the UK starting this winter.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
January 15, 2017 11:46 am

We haven’t had any really cold weather in the UK yet this winter to test the system. The cold is confined to the continent (what will be the remains of the EU we hope).

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
January 15, 2017 12:10 pm

Your first link is to the US Bonneville Power Authority. Nothing to do with Ontario. What am I missing?

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
January 15, 2017 12:12 pm

Here is the magnificent contribution made by Ontario’s wind over the past week:

As far as I can tell, the link you provide is for the Bonneville Power Administration in the Pacific Northwest, nowhere near Ontario. On the other hand, the contribution from wind is probably similar.

Are we doing better than the UK? The power engineers predicted load shedding in the UK starting this winter.

1 – Ontario is tied into the North American grid.
2 – As a result of lessons learned after the blackout in 2003, Ontario’s infrastructure has been improved. link
In theory, Ontario is in much better shape than the UK.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
January 16, 2017 4:48 am

They keep predicting that and it keeps not happening, despite the shut down of coal power plants and the loss of a 1 GW power line from France last autumn.
On the other hand the UK recently set yet another new wind power record, on a full working day, peaking at 11GW or 26% of then demand and averaging at over 20% of demand for the whole day.
Considering there is in the pipeline wind projects equivalent to 1.5 times current installed base… and a recommend to go ahead with tidal lagoon power which would provide 10 to 12% of UK electricity…

Darrell Demick
Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2017 6:25 am

And how much of that money goes into your pocket, Griff? Outgoing President Obama is so very proud of the fact that during his administration, that renewable energy in the US doubled.
From 2% to 4%.
Ohhhhhhhhhh ………….
And at a cost of only $857 billion, … , in grant funding. Therefore the cost of installation of that whopping 2% is greater than that, however we have a hard number for 1/50 of the demand. Therefore by extrapolation, we are talking $42.85 trillion, or a mere $122,500/person in the US. Every man, woman, child, homeless person, irrespective of nationality, color, mental capacity, age, ….. , seriously??!?!!?
There isn’t enough land in the world for conversion to wind/solar. And I daresay there isn’t enough rare earth elements in the world for both, and there isn’t enough lithium in the world for the most amazing leach of all, Elon Musk, so that we can all have electric vehicles.
Live in your dream world, Griff, but please do so without increasing my energy bill by one penny.

Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2017 8:02 am

Well this is a typical case of cherry picking. For the period may 15 2011 to today (15:30) the wind contribution to the UK demand is 6.1% (/

Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2017 2:15 pm

Griff, the last time I saw a claim like that from you (14th Dec) I checked the figures and what you said was not true.
You claimed wind had delivered 23% on an unspecified day and for an unspecified duration, whereas for the month to that time wind had never reached 23%, and it had only passed 22% for 6 x 5 minutes or 0.15% of the time. And the average from wind was 7.94%, whereas the average figures from Coal, Nuclear & CCGT were 11.14%, 21.25% & 49.55%.
So supply details of it will be obvious that this claim is also bogus.

Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2017 3:02 pm

But at 2250, on a not-warm January night (16 January) the wind – from the gridwatch.templar site was 2.29%.
This at a time when energy is needed.
By inspection [I didn’t record the figures], this afternoon, Demand was >50 GW. Wind was under 2 GW [not negligible, but hardly huge. And warm, turning power has to be available to cover for wind.
Some, yes, from hydro, although I believe the Californian Taliban do not consider hydro [natural or pumped] to be ‘Renewable’; please correct me if it is only ‘pumped’ that is, in some way, not ‘renewable’.
And, for some reason [maintenance, possibly, who knows? I don’t] “Bio” has fallen from a fairly steady, over several days, 2GW to about one and a half.
Some con artists out there!

Reply to  Griff
January 16, 2017 4:00 pm

“By inspection [I didn’t record the figures]”
On the gridwatch site there is a Download button near the top LH corner. You can select which items you are interested in [1] (default is All) and the time range (default is 22:30 on 13 May 2009 to now). Data is in CSV format.
This is how I was able to show that Griff’s earlier comment was not true.
N.B. Everything is recorded in 5-minute periods, so if you take the defaults you get a *lot* of data.
1.Items available are:
French ICT
Dutch ICT
Irish ICT

Reply to  Griff
January 17, 2017 7:53 am

On the other hand, Brittanias’ Miraculous Wind Power delivered
2.5% of demand last night in the midst of the wind-season (19 h avg. 847 MW),
1.6% of demand on wind-season Dec. 2-3 (37 h avg. 621 MW) and
2.2% of demand on wind-season Noc 27 (25 h avg. 790 MW).
All that was not too bad compared with June/July 2011 (507 hours with avg. of 546 MW = 1.64% of demand).
I couldn’t find “Griff”s’ 11 GW on my cursorily inspection of gridwatchs’ data. Perhaps they are of the same nature as his numbers of German energy production.

January 15, 2017 11:13 am

Well-said Tim. Thank you. Keep up the good work.It is appreciated by many.

January 15, 2017 11:31 am

It’s actually hard to believe that there are politicians in Canada stupid enough to worry about global warming. We all know the scare isn’t true, but if it were, Canada shouldn’t be afraid of a little warming. Are they really fearful their winters will be more like Minnesota’s? Don’t they have better things to worry about?
Seems to me that Canada needs some politicians who will put Canada first.

Reply to  Duncan
January 15, 2017 12:02 pm

You have to wonder about the Northern Boreal and all heavily forested areas for that matter. High CO2 levels seem to correlate with them, at least at some times of the year. OCO2 material, on the other hand, is very thin on the ground…. for some reason.

Reply to  Duncan
January 15, 2017 12:09 pm

Duncan add in all the evergreen species that grow all over the country from the US border to the boreal forests as well please. Cedar trees grow all year round The only reason the greens get Canada to be regarded as a CO2 “polluter” is they give the tar sands a arbitrarily negative rating.

Reply to  Duncan
January 15, 2017 12:33 pm

Yes, I noticed too, winter/spring OCO2 shows high CO2 concentrations in the whole northern hemisphere. From summer on it is in the ‘blue’. This is a well known winter/summer transition and shows up in the Mauna Loa CO2 records. Once summer kicks in, CO2 drops quickly only to rise again.comment image

Reply to  Duncan
January 15, 2017 12:58 pm

@Asybot 99% of the Oil Sand’s oil is sent to the USA, sure some of it may come back as consumer fuel. It should not matter if the oil comes from Canada or Saudia Arabia, what we consume in relation to our landmass/sequestration capability was my point. If that oil is included in the Canadian total calculations, it would be misleading.

Reply to  Duncan
January 15, 2017 4:36 pm

I don’t know if it is still the case, but in the Kyoto protocol, CO2 emissions were costed against the country that mined the coal, drilled the oil,etc. This heavily penalised countries like Australia that are net energy exporters and gave a big free pass to European and South Pacific countries that import all their fuels.
It was a very political decision and nothing to do with honest treatment of the facts.

Reply to  Duncan
January 15, 2017 10:45 pm

Boreal forests have been known as net emitters of CO2 for years. Canada was denied credits for its forests way back under Kyoto if memory serves. Somewhere I have the links.
Ah – here they are in a note to my forestry son-in-law back two years ago (the graphics won’t show but you get the idea:

Our discussion on Boreal Forests. Tropical forests are great CO2 absorbers. Boreal forests are believed to be net emitters.
Old news from about 2005 – boreal forests may be net emitters of CO2 rather than sinks – and you put your finger on it about forest litter.
“It took about five years for Canada to give up on the idea of getting credit for forests. Let’s hope that it doesn’t take as long for those who are still promoting simplistic solutions to the carbon problem to accept what the science is telling them.”
See here—->
Boreal forests contain about 5 times as much CO2 as the vegetation.
The OCO2 satellite shows a neat “breathing” pattern from summer to winter as well. Lots of CO2 emissions in winter, absorption in summer then back to emitting.
Here is the one year animation of our living, breathing earth from NASA:

Average over the year clearly shows the boreal forests as net emitters of CO2 per the following satellite data from 2014/2015. And surprisingly, some of the equatorial tropical forests, especially in Africa are also net emitters. Not quite what was expected when the satellite was launched.
See if I can find the pictures Here is fall – note the CO2 in Canada, northern US and Russia from forested areas.
Emissions February to March:
Summer – huge absorption:
Now for a real shocker. The concentrations of CO2 do not match well with Anthropogenic sources except over China (Although at certain times of the year it appears that southern California, Seattle and the Eastern US show but that could also be some natural variation as well):
Just to show some other neat stuff on how the Earth’s atmosphere looks from a year of satellite monitoring of precipitation, see here:
Have a good day.

Reply to  Duncan
January 16, 2017 4:50 am

Assuming it doesn’t all die off due to increased pest attack as the climate warms…

David Ball
Reply to  Duncan
January 18, 2017 6:56 pm

Griff, the number of times an infestation or a blight has devastated the forest over the millennia the forest has existed would astound you. Your knowledge base has so many voids in it.

Reply to  Cardin Drake
January 15, 2017 2:12 pm

My observations lead me to believe that Canadians aren’t too concerned about a little warming. Rather, they are worried about increased drought/flooding, tornadoes/hurricanes, forest fires/disease, Arctic changes, and most of all Polly Bears (a symbol). The media doesn’t cover Dr. Crockford- they cover David Suzuki and two U. Alberta activists who study polar bears and need continuing funding. This shows the importance of the funding decisions to support “anyone” studying “anything” that relates to CAGW. Tim is right about Maurice Strong – I actually knew him because he grew up 50 miles from where I live. Because he became well-known/famous many locals worshipped him. Very few people followed his ideology and were aware of his underlying agenda. The only effective way to start changing this mess is to defund the UNEP, WMO, UNFCCC, IPCC stream. This is where Strong built the plan and this is where one has to start tearing it down. For that matter, you can defund the whole UN, which no longer has a useful purpose.

January 15, 2017 11:37 am

…you cannot determine human contribution unless you know the amount and cause of natural climate change.

One might think that would be self-evident from the start. However the self-evident is irrelevant.
What is relevant is to establish a desired premise regardless of how flawed or specious the premise. Once the premise is established, almost anything can be built on top of it as demonstrated by the climate change/climate science industry.
Recently in America the premise was established that Russians threatened democracy by “hacking” elections and required drastic action. A senator even calling it “an act of war”. The reality is that Podesta at the DNC gave access to his emails by responding to a phishing email. The more self-evident issue of emails exposing unethical behavior between the DNC, Sanders campaign, Clinton campaign, the Clinton Foundation, and media journalists required little followup. A few people got fired and then rehired in a different position, case closed.

Reply to  Alx
January 15, 2017 12:11 pm

Alx, And they still blame it on Bush! ( Pelosi in a speech very recently) Talk about deniers!! (LOL)

Reply to  Alx
January 15, 2017 12:41 pm

U.S. House of Representatives, Aug.10, 2012
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Re: Auto Industry & CAFE
‘A Dismissal of Safety, Choice, and Cost: …”
P.6: “Aspen Discussions’
NRDC, Sierra Club and Union of Concerned Scientists
EarthJustice, July 8, 2016
‘Multiple Advocacy Groups File Lawsuit Against Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’
Website has a link to the FERC court filing.
Some of the same organizations involved in CAFE.
Renewable energy sources need access to a grid.
Sierra Club involved in the war on coal.
EarthJustice U.S. and Ecojustice Canada have interlocking Boards.
All of this activity just by chance?

Reply to  Barbara
January 16, 2017 11:47 am

NRDC Board of Trustees
Includes: Leonardo DiCaprio.

R. Shearer
January 15, 2017 11:44 am

How about BC? Is it the success story for lower energy costs and CO2 reduction as proclaimed by warmists?

Reply to  R. Shearer
January 15, 2017 12:15 pm

It was the foresight of “Wackie” Bennett and Washington politicians of the day ( 1950’s) that needed power and irrigation to develop, Seeing fossil fuels like oil and gas and coal were still in the ground

Reply to  asybot
January 15, 2017 10:55 pm

Read the “Columbia River Treaty” and see how the US paid for flood control and damage to the salmon fishery and contacts with the US for power and you will see how unwacky Wacky Bennett and his son were. They were truly visionary though they had a few pigs in the trough but people knew their hearts were in the right place. Read about how Highways Minister “Flying Phil Gaglardri” kept getting speeding tickets on roads he knew were designed for way above the posted speed limit. And the railway to nowhere based on the belief that if you build it, they will come. Doesn’t always happen.
An old BC lad now living in Oilberta. (Well, hangin’ on actually.)

January 15, 2017 12:51 pm

The top of the front page story in the Sunday edition of Reno Gazzette-Journal today: “Climate fight takes center stage at Lake Tahoe” by Benjamin Spillman ( And therein you will be pleased to find:
Also among the speakers was climate scientist Richard Somerville, a climate scientist and professor emeritus at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at University of California, San Diego.
Somerville is also one of the scientists who operate the Doomsday Clock. Created in 1947 the clock is a symbolic device scientists use to estimate how close global civilization is to apocalypse.
It was created with atomic bombs in mind but the factors it considers now include nuclear proliferation and climate change.
“Climate change if you don’t do anything about it does threaten humanity,” Somerville said, “We have taken control of the climate. We are the ones with our hand on the thermostat and your kids and their kids are going to have to deal with it.”
So there you have it. Climate “control” is as simple as your hand on a thermostat. Somerville is one of the 97%, so it’s settled science.
If you think CAGW skeptics are winning the battle for public opinion, better think again.

Reply to  brians356
January 15, 2017 1:11 pm

As I like to say, in saner times anyone claiming to be able to control the climate would have been led away by men in white coats. This man is truly delusional!

Reply to  Andrew Pearson
January 15, 2017 2:27 pm

The debt clock is much more dangerous than the doomsday clock.

Reply to  brians356
January 15, 2017 1:45 pm

“If you think CAGW skeptics are winning the battle for public opinion, better think again.”

Ah yes, the ever popular “We get the most press” claim.
An interesting point of view claim from very eco-Californian “Lake Tahoe”.
As some kind of counterpoint to Obama’s end of term destruct spiral?
Or to Trump’s initial entry into swamp politics?
Let us know when:
A) Pollsters actually define what they mean by “climate change” in their vague very generic questions.
B) Pollsters give the polled a thorough list of issues and concerns; i.e. not just twelve or twenty.
C) Concern about climate change actually rises in the polls above many very real problems; e.g. economy.
When only twelve issues/concerns are used in a poll, ranking “climate whatever” as 11th or 12th is not enlightening.
Note the International poll version offers slightly more choices and still ‘climate whatever’ ranks least.
Alarmists traveling to the world’s best vacation spots, hogging the compliant press by spending billions of dollars are unable to interest the masses.
Then skeptics are already winning, with the meager funds we poor skeptics contribute. Hooray!

Gary Pearse
January 15, 2017 12:55 pm

I think it’s time for someone well qualified to write a readable book on the history of the development of AGW. I have written a few commentaries at WUWT on the fact that Maurice Strong, a rural Manitoba highschool dropout, born to a poor card-carrying Communist Party family created UNEP, The UNFCC, and it’s offspring IPCC for the express purpose of destroying western capitalism/free enterprise/democracy through controlling world energy and centralized out of country governance.
What does this say about the legitimacy of the “science”! I don’t believe this powerful fact can be known by many people working in the science. It has been a pure political play from day one. My effort to get this across hasn’t seemed to developed much interest at WUWT.

Tim Ball
Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 15, 2017 4:50 pm

Please see my latest publication on my web page. A 100 page summary of the science and political machinations titled “Human Caused Global Warming: the Biggest Deception in History” subtitled, “The Why, What, Where, When, and How it was Achieved.”

January 15, 2017 1:03 pm

I can strongly recommend the book by Rupert Darwall, “The Age of Global Warming, A History”

Gary Pearse
Reply to  climanrecon
January 15, 2017 1:27 pm

Does the book give pride of place to Maurice Strong? Maurice died peacefully last year at his adopted home – China, which he admired all his life.

Timo - not that one
Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 15, 2017 9:22 pm

Yes. Maurice Strong fled to China during the Oil for Food scandal, where he influenced the Chinese to use AGW to, how do you say it… “make America uncompetitive”. And then they laugh at Trump for saying it out loud.

Reply to  climanrecon
January 15, 2017 1:28 pm


January 15, 2017 1:23 pm

Sorry Tim, outside of Canada, no one cares about Canadian energy policy let alone look for Canada for leadership on just about anyplace.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Retired Kit P
January 15, 2017 1:39 pm

I guess New York, Massachusetts, and several others which run on cheap hydro power from Quebec, Minnesota – Ontario, Pacific NW – BC, and oil and gas from Alberta, Saskatchewan and BC to the heartland may care a little bit! I’m not trying to be smug. I too have been straightened out a few times here on WUWT.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
January 17, 2017 12:59 pm

Gosh Gary somehow I do not feel schooled. Still do not care about goverment energy policy in Canada. Watermelons in Canada along with those in some US cities like to pretend that they do not NEED coal fired power plant on cold winter days.

Lee L
January 15, 2017 1:25 pm

R Shearer… living here in Vancouver, BC you wouldn’t get the idea that any warmists are proclaiming us a success story. No no no.. we are, apparently, missing the huge opportunity to develop wind. The long planned expansion ( site C) to the biggest hydroelectric dam system in the province meets with resistance from the green cabal at every step. No they are definitely not touting our success. They are instead, telling us that site C will cause us to starve by flooding a small acreage of arable land, and that BC doesn’t need the power from the dam expansion anyway. Strangely, in the same sentence they think the province needs the power from wind generation expansion and that we will be moving to electric cars , electric bikes and electric heat very soon..
Similarly, Local Agenda 21 ( sustainable development) is in full swing at all the halls of municipal power, and Vancouver is pretty much ground zero for that. Our zealot ridden city council has recently proclaimed that we will ‘phase out’ natural gas even though it provides 40 percent of the city’s household heating. There are no longer any ‘city limits’ in municipal planning documents… only an ‘urban containment boundary’ beyond which evil humans will not be living and within which their new available dwellings will be for high density living.
In case you think I am exaggerating, or am just marching in a tinfoil hat brigade, I invite you to g**gle “Elizabeth Ball Agenda 21” and see what proposal was most recently passed by this council. It is most remarkable for actually USING the moniker Agenda 21 which they try never to state, preferring to say they are involved in ‘sustainable development’.
A very interesting take on the funding for the environmental Taliban in Canada was uncovered by Vivian Krause who lives in North Vancouver. She seems to have reactivated her blog, where you can read about how Canadian Environmental ‘non-profits’ have been funded in large part by American green money.
G**gle her blog.

Reply to  Lee L
January 15, 2017 5:37 pm

So the “heat” has been taken off from Vivian in B.C?

Reply to  Barbara
January 15, 2017 7:00 pm

Use internet search:
Vivian Krause + DeSmog Blog.
NRDC + British Columbia.
Much more information on the internet on both topics.

Reply to  Barbara
January 15, 2017 9:07 pm

Also internet search:
Vivian Krause + Ecojustice Canada for more information.

Reply to  Barbara
January 16, 2017 2:21 pm

‘Rethink Campaigns’
“After a five year hiatus, this blog is back …”
Article has references to U.S. organizations.

Reply to  Barbara
January 17, 2017 6:54 pm

Parliament of Canada, Ottawa, Nov.1, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee On Transport And Communications
Vivian Krause testimony.
Read at:

Reply to  Barbara
January 17, 2017 10:38 pm

Parliament of Canada, June 6, 2012
‘Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance’
Issue 21-Evidence-June 6, 2012 (afternoon meeting)
Vivian Krause testimony.

R. Shearer
Reply to  Lee L
January 15, 2017 5:52 pm

Thank you.

January 15, 2017 1:31 pm

It looks like the price of Ontario electricity really exploded only in the last 6 years. From 2010. So it seems whatever Strong did had little effect upon electricity price for the first 17 years of his Chair of Ontario Hydro. Inflation has little effect on prices too. Inflation was about 16% over 10 years to 2016.
Ontario Historical Electricity Prices

Gary Pearse
Reply to  mark4asp
January 15, 2017 1:44 pm

You know that Strong invented UNEP, UNFCC, & IPCC to bankrupt western economies, don’t you?

Lee L
Reply to  mark4asp
January 15, 2017 2:06 pm

What Strong did was guide the globalization of the environmental movement via his positions in the UN. His work as Chair of Ontario Hydro was merely on his way to the United Nations where his true influence has born its evil fruit.
It is interesting to note that prior to Strong’s Ontario Hydro gig he was CEO of Petro Canada, a Canadian oil company created as part of an attempt to nationalize the Canadian oil industry executed by none other than Pierre Trudeau, the father of our present Prime Minister ( Justin Trudeau).

Tim Ball
Reply to  mark4asp
January 15, 2017 5:05 pm

What a canard. It takes time for the damage of failing to prepare for the future to kick in. Similarly, it will take time for remedial action to kick in, if and when taken. In Ontario the problem is pushed down the road because there is no willingness to acknowledge the problem due to the welfare payments.

January 15, 2017 1:32 pm

It is slightly comforting to people in Australia to see that Canada seems to have even sillier politicians than those available in Australia, and possibly even sillier Energy and Taxation regulations….or maybe not.

Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
January 15, 2017 2:33 pm

Pretty much twiddle-dum and twiddle-dee.

Darrell Demick
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
January 16, 2017 7:01 am

Reinvention of the square wheel!!!!!

January 15, 2017 1:35 pm

Was Maurice Strong the creator of Agenda 21?

January 15, 2017 1:35 pm

The prize that drives liberals toward climate change policy scare tactics and distortion of science and science funding was already spelled out in the Waxman Markey carbon tax bill. It is to unleash a gusher of revenue with at least half the money going to power politics and vote buying on a historic scale. It even had redistribution wealth and inner city redevelopment for the urban activist organizers. Short of that they will settle for fraud with Energy loans and grants to friends and cite energy program averages to tout the success and ignore the default rate and who walked away with what. This is a major money grab campaign and the climate is a side show and science was just a tool to be manipulated.

January 15, 2017 1:38 pm

Now we have a greatly expanded KMI oil pipeline going in to the coast that will supply the refineries for liberals on the west coast. That should be good for another 20 years of hypocrisy.

January 15, 2017 1:44 pm

Another point leaving me less convinced of Maurice Strong’s influence is his support for nuclear power. Nuclear power, competition and sustainable development (8 September 1995), by Maurice Strong. I put the influence of climate change politics down to a loss of nerve and sense by Western business and political classes.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  mark4asp
January 15, 2017 5:26 pm

Google Maurice Strong and get an education on it. Caution: Wiki is not the right place to get the real dope.

January 15, 2017 1:57 pm

Almost all of Wynne’s policies are disasters. Why should climate be any different? Problem is that the opposition parties do not run credible candidates.

golf charlie
January 15, 2017 3:04 pm

From Wikipedia The Brandt Report
“This is the report written by the Independent Commission, first chaired by Willy Brandt (the former German Chancellor) in 1980, to review international development issues. The result of this report provided an understanding of drastic differences in the economic development for both the North and South hemispheres of the World
The Brandt Report suggests primarily that a great chasm in standard of living exists along the North-South divide and there should therefore be a large transfer of resources from developed to developing countries. The countries North of the divide are extremely wealthy due to their successful trade in manufactured goods, whereas the countries South of the divide suffer poverty due to their trade in intermediate goods, where the export incomes are low.”
The Brandt Report offered no mechanism for reversing the imbalance between North and South, and then someone (Maurice Strong?) invented Global Warming.

Ore-gonE Left
January 15, 2017 3:26 pm

If fear the optimism the “skeptics” are implying here. Please do not let your guard down. The battle is far from won. The polls mean nothing. The power resides in the political class and the so-called educators. Until we can get the fundamentals of science back, in the classrooms across the globe, the battle will need to be fought. Trump is a good start, but in the end will not stop the idiocy that comes from the educators at almost every level of education. Grade 1 through graduate programs at universities of “higher” education.
This website is a bastion of education, that in my dreams, is read in classrooms daily. Now that is optimism I can live with!!

Steve from Rockwood
January 15, 2017 3:27 pm

“For example, McGuinty and Wynne have both pushed fracking aside, even though the claims of damage are proved wrong.”
Unless you know something the rest of us do not, Ontario geology is not really suited to fracking because the oil & gas is too shallow. It’s kind of like the mayor of Iqaluit pushing aside beaches and winter sun-tanning.

January 15, 2017 3:59 pm

PM Photo Op is about to learn what promoting higher taxes and massive increases to the countries debt is going to do to Canadians .
The Carbon tax supports a massive fraud and the chances of a USA administration imposing one are virtually zero .

January 15, 2017 4:50 pm

This is why Canada, which is celebrating its 150th year in 2017, is unlikely to make it to 200. The conservative provinces won’t remain part of the country for long if they have to work and pay taxes to prop up the failed liberal policies in Ontario.

January 15, 2017 5:06 pm

“….the problem began with another Canadian, Maurice Strong, in the fateful year of 1992. In that year, he chaired the Rio Conference at which the entire anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deception was formalized.
Margaret Thatcher started promoting the cult 3 years earlier…

I never heard of “Maurice Strong” until I started reading articles by Tim Ball at WUWT.
Thatcher, on the other hand, was an extremely well known public figure. Her message was heard by people all over the planet.
The Montreal Protocol was signed by Reagan.
Confirmation bias is when you reject or ignore evidence that isn’t concordant with your favorite narrative.
Promotion of a heavily subsidized, complicated, and risky method of boiling water–a.k.a, nuclear power–has always been the covert objective of the war against cheap, abundant, life-enriching hydrocarbons.

Reply to  Khwarizmi
January 15, 2017 5:24 pm

Thatcher liked ‘Global Warming’ because it was another excuse to close down the coal mines, whose Trotskyite unions had held the country to ransom for decades. Nuclear power really didn’t come into it.

Reply to  Khwarizmi
January 15, 2017 11:34 pm

Maurice was involved in the UN environmental programs since 1972 and moved to Kenya to head up the programs. Read some history here. He was on the gravy train for a very long time – :
THIS IS FROM a 1972 BBC interview with Maurice Strong, Founding Member of the United Nations Environmental Program:
Shorter readable version:
He believed in World Government through external control. (And licenses to have babies – before 1972.)

Tim Ball
Reply to  Khwarizmi
January 16, 2017 11:12 pm

Notice I said “formalized.”

RT Rider
January 15, 2017 5:35 pm

Although I’ve been reading this blog for years, I haven’t participated in the comment section of the site, until now.
Prior to, and during the the tenure of Maurice Strong, as chairman of Ontario Hydro, I was a partner in a private power development company headquartered in Ontario – although doing business in several provinces in Canada. We specialized in hydropower development.
Although I considered Strong a world class grifter and conman, the plight of Ontario Hydro was baked in the cake before he arrived. What Strong recognized, was an opportunity to make a lot of money off the predicament of Hydro by taking it private. What he didn’t realize was how desperate it’s predicament was and, therefore, never came about because of it’s financial insolvency.
For years, Hydro was falsifying it’s costing of nuclear power and failing to price it’s energy properly in the rate base. Hydro was a beneficiary of the hydraulic power network which, for the most part, was developed and built by others. The low cost of this energy hid a lot of mismanagement in the company, most of which was dictated by the incompetents who ran the government, and used Hydro as a slush fund for political gain.
The final straw, as the cliche goes, was the monumental incompetence in the design and construction of the Darlington nuclear plant. It was this disaster that finally bankrupted Hydro.
Strong’s boss, and the man who brought him into Hydro, was the egregious fool and incompetent blowhard, Bob Rae, who through a major stroke of misfortune for the province, became premier of Ontario when the NDP won the election in 92. The only comparable disaster was the election of the even greater fool and liar, Dalton McGuinty, followed by his successor , the equally egregious Kathleen Wynn.
Talk about rule by idiots! The first foible – the nuclear debacle – cost the province $26 billion in stranded asset write downs. My estimation of the current idiocy, wind and solar stranded costs, is $12 -13 billion. Given that the majority of the previous debt is still roughly $20 billion, the new total will be over $30 billion when it is finally recognized which, I am. sure, will be rather soon

Edward Katz
January 15, 2017 5:59 pm

Another factor that caused the precipitous rise in Ontario’s electricity rates was its ill-advised decision in the early 1990s to cancel its contract with Manitoba Hydro, in its neighboring western province, to build the 1300 MW Conawapa dam. This structure would have provided a major source of clean energy to compensate for the closing of a number of coal plants. Evidently Ontario’s government somehow concluded that hydro electricity wasn’t clean enough, or maybe Maurice Strong, always easily influenced by the Greens, decided the construction of hydro dams is too hard on the environment. So Ontario paid out several millions in cancellation penalties and left its citizens with electricity costs some 2.5 times higher than Manitoba’s. And here’s the clincher. Current premier Katherine Wynne claims that Ontario’s Green policies enabled the province to close two—count ’em, two—coal plants in 2015. Meanwhile, that same year China announced the approval of 155 new ones.

Gary Pearse
January 15, 2017 6:01 pm

Well after some years of trying to inform people about Maurice Strong without much reaction, I’m pleased to see that some are catching on. I know Tim Ball has done this a number of times, but as you can see here, MS’s Ontario Hydro gig doesn’t impress. The best is to see three things: a) he was a deeply committed communist, admired Mao and actually moved to Beijing where he died of old age b) he was very smart and became a billionaire using the capitalist system to finance his world governance view and using the UN and NGO’s of environment as his centre and his army (he apparently owned one of the largest ranches in Colorado), he created the UNEP and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is the parent of IPCC and the man behind Agenda 21. He was widely sought after as a consultant to Lib/Democrat governments for new world order stuff c) Look at his quotes on bringing down western economies. Here is a peach:
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Here is a link. You will instantly recognize his lofty contacts and network (US presidents, other heads of states, foundations, world bank, etc. etc. have sought his advice:

January 15, 2017 6:11 pm

Many people do not seem to understand basic concepts of finance. For many manufacturers, when you increase input prices such as electricity you directly impact on profit margin. Profit is not the revenue you receive from selling a good or service rather it os the difference between the revenue and the input costs.
When you reduce profits, you reduce the ability of projects to meet the economic hurdle rate of return. When projects fail to meet this hurdle rate, they do not get built.

January 15, 2017 8:26 pm

Equalization may be coming to an end for the simple reason that there are no more have provinces. It has been Alberta, Saskatchewan and BC with Newfoundland kind of a have province but really not, over the last decade. With the collapse of oil, Alberta and Saskatchewan are out, leaving BC, and they are not rich enough to carry the rest of Canada.

Reply to  maureen
January 16, 2017 6:52 am

I wrote this circa 2009 on Canadian equalization and transfer payments.
Albertans have paid the Rest of Canada about $1 million (with nominal interest, per family of four) in transfer payments over the past ~60 years.
Regards, Allan
End ALL equalization payments and other tax transfers from Alberta to the so-called “have-not provinces”.
Equalization is not the temporary “hand-up” it was intended to be.
Equalization has become a permanent “hand-out”, that enables and even encourages the adoption and entrenchment of dysfunctional provincial policies.
Quebec separatism is the “king” of such dysfunctional policies. Without equalization to make it affordable, Quebec separatism would have withered and died in the 1970’s. Quebec separatism is clearly counterproductive and imbecilic for Quebec, EXCEPT if the Federal government pays them to keep it up, which they do.
Ontario is currently experiencing one of the most dysfunctional, idiotic governments in its history. As Ontario slides into “have-not” status, equalization payments will lessen the blow of Ontario’s self-immolation, and make it more likely to continue.
Let us not forget the Maritimes, where dysfunctional and corrupt governments have been the norm rather than the exception for many decades. Why govern yourselves competently when someone will pay you billions every year to do it badly?
We are governed by scoundrels and imbeciles. Now we know why. We continue to elect these idiots because we pay ourselves generously to do so.
“The trade of governing has always been monopolized by the most ignorant and the most rascally individuals of mankind.”
– Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man

January 16, 2017 1:28 am

David Suzuki still seems to be involved with his Foundation, although the post states he was forced to resign.

Reply to  Perry
January 16, 2017 12:11 pm

David Suzuki Foundation Board
Includes: Dr. Samantha Nutt
Dr. Nutt is the wife of Dr. Eric Hoskins, Ontario MPP, and Minister of Health.

January 16, 2017 1:54 am

I have just been reading articles on a web site called It contains a lot about Maurice Strong and why the global warmists will not accept the failure of their “science”. It is worth a read but I can find no reference to who wrote it. Can anyone help shed some light on this.

Reply to  davec
January 16, 2017 7:01 am

Hi davec,
I published this article about Maurice Strong in 2003 – probably not what you are seeking.
Editors often change my titles. I called this article “Strong Reservations”. 🙂
Best, Allan
Strong would be worrisome adviser to Martin
Allan M.R. MacRae
The Hamilton Spectator
Recent reports suggest that Maurice Strong will be appointed senior adviser for international affairs and environmental issues to prime minister-in-waiting Paul Martin Jr.
This news brought cheers from the radical environmental movement and the political left, who regard Strong as a saviour of the planet. It also elicited groans from the right, who regard Strong as a power-mad left-wing ideologue.
Strong has reportedly bought a condo in Ottawa and has a long history with Martin and his father, so the rumours may be true.
Should Canadians be concerned about Strong’s influence on our next PM?
In 1976, Strong was appointed founding president and chairman of PetroCanada, a part of our federal government’s misguided energy strategy. The divisive and destructive National Energy Program followed in 1980.
PetroCanada, under Strong and his successors, bought foreign-owned oil companies at ever-increasing prices, culminating in the controversial PetroFina Canada takeover in 1981. Enormous profits were made through insider trading, but no one was convicted of wrongdoing.
Strong is an advocate of world governance by an intrusive global bureaucracy, a serious concern for those who cherish democracy. The Vatican has criticized his Earth Charter as an “eco-religion” that seeks to supplant traditional Christian values.
Strong is a man of considerable achievements. Perhaps his greatest triumph is the Kyoto Protocol, which he launched as Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.
However, if the deeply flawed Kyoto process is any indication, Canadians should be concerned about Strong’s influence on Martin.
The Kyoto process occurred as follows:
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) commissioned climate scientists from around the world to record the current state of climate science research. They wrote a scientific, nonpolitical document that reached no alarming conclusions about imminent catastrophic human-made global warming.
Then a group of IPCC bureaucrats wrote the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), a very different document that was not approved by the scientists. The SPM reached a radically different set of conclusions, stating that human-made catastrophic global warming was an imminent threat to the planet. It is the SPM that is incorrectly quoted by politicians and the press to support Kyoto.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Sloan Professor of Meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was one of the lead authors of the full IPCC scientists’ report and a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel on climate change. In the June 11, 2001, edition of the Wall Street Journal, Lindzen wrote: “The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science, but it is not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers is, but it is also a very different document. It represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations’ Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists. The resulting document has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.”
Lindzen and other scientists on both sides of the Kyoto debate testified before the U.S. Senate in 2001. The Senate then voted 95-0 against Kyoto, blocking its passage.
In contrast, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, urged on by environmental extremists, ratified Kyoto in late 2002 without conducting any independent scientific investigations. Strong, environmentalist David Suzuki and the federal government constantly cited the corrupted SPM to support their case, and did not tell Canadians what the IPCC scientists really said.
Recent work, including groundbreaking research by University of Ottawa geology professor Dr. Jan Veizer and Israeli astrophysicist Dr. Nir J. Shaviv, further verifies that the Kyoto Protocol is based on junk science and humankind is not causing catastrophic global warming.
The breakthrough work by Veizer and Shaviv estimates an upper limit to the impact of CO2 on global warming, allowing us to conclude that human-caused increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not harmful.
The process that led to ratification of the Kyoto Protocol was incompetent and corrupt, and was used to stampede gullible politicians and the public to support a costly boondoggle. Kyoto gives unelected bureaucrats unprecedented powers to interfere in the lives of every business and individual, by artificially controlling our energy consumption.
Why does this matter? Kyoto is a fraudulent abuse of government power, and a diversion from much more important priorities.
Who was harmed?
Danish mathematics professor Bjorn Lomborg estimates that, for the cost of Kyoto compliance for just one year, we could provide clean water and sanitation to every community in the developing world forever. In the 10 years that Kyoto has been the focus of billions of dollars in spending, about 15 million children have died before their fifth birthday due to contaminated water.
Yet not one person has died due to catastrophic human-made global warming, and probably no one ever will.
Unfortunately, Kyoto advocates will continue to mislead the public, saying the science is settled.
It is true that the science is becoming increasingly settled — increasingly settled against the flawed theory of human-made global warming and the Kyoto Protocol.
Canadians are justified in asking whether we want Maurice Strong, the primary architect of the Kyoto fiasco, to act as Paul Martin’s senior adviser.
Allan M. R. MacRae is a Calgary-based professional engineer and investment banker.

Lawrie Ayres
January 16, 2017 12:26 pm

We Australians have the same stupid redistribution system where well managed states prop up the under performers. Tasmania and South Australia are both basket cases with very Green policies and very poor outcomes allowed to continue through the large transfer of funds from the productive, conservative states. Only by stopping this practice will voters realise the stupidity of their leader’s policies.

January 16, 2017 7:08 pm

“…Canada now has the most expansive and generous, redistribution of wealth system, in the world….”
And yet, today, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) Newsnetwork announced that two Canadian men own between them 33% of all the wealth in Canada. Am I mistaken in finding that and the quote from the article above contradictory?
Similarly, Oxfam reported that 8 men have a combined wealth equal to that of the entire poorer half of the world population, some 3.6 billion people. One year ago it took the 62 richest people in the world to fill those shoes.
There definitely seems to be some major wealth distribution going on in the world, but Canada doesn’t seem to be the leader. Neither of its two richest were among Oxfam’s top eight.
Could there be some trickery in these statistics?

January 17, 2017 2:26 pm

Dr. Ball
You are one of the few people here who understands that global warming is a political boogeyman used to scare people, not real science.
The boogeyman could have been global cooling, acid rain, hole in the ozone layer, ocean acidification — it doesn’t matter what boogeyman is chosen, as long as enough people can be convinced a catastrophe is on the way … unless … UNLESS … U N L E S S the government seizes more power over corporations and energy use to stop it.
This is what I call: “Save the Earth” socialism”.
It’s too hard to convince people that socialism will make everyone prosperous, so there has to be another reason to choose it — and that reason is now “to save the Earth”.
The scientists and their models are just props in a deliberate play for political power.
The models are just complex ways to present a personal opinion and make it seem more important.
The simulations are nothing more than the personal opinions of a small group of politically connected scientists made to look “scientific” with a lot of math!
The catastrophe is always off in the future — we can’t refute anything in the future, can we?
The warmunists prefer that we skeptics argue with them, ad each other, about “pauses”, and tenths of a degree “adjustments”, and other minor issues.
Meanwhile, they will ridicule, and character attack in return — no need to debate anything where 105% of scientists agree the “science is settled” (was 97% — a recent survey found 105% agreement — so even if 5% change their minds, it’s still 100%).
One problem is skeptics are afraid of the politics and character attacks — so they hunker down and look at tenths and hundredths of a degree C. measurements.
There is no hope in overturning the global warming scare unless high level skeptics in positions of power speak up and take the character attacks that follow.
Trump is a tough guy, and knows how to launch character attacks as well as any Republican, but perhaps even he is not tough enough to want to speak out against the global warming hoax.
As long as the bureaucrats control the actuals (global temperature compilations) I believe we will never see global cooling — they will just adjust the data to show warming EVEN WHEN THERE IS COOLING !
There is too much money and reputations, invested in this “CO2 is evil” global warming boogeyman to let it go.
We skeptics can not change leftist minds with reason, because their beliefs were never created with reason in the first place.
My climate blog for non-scientists
Leftists should stay away

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights