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.

clip_image002

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)

clip_image004

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.


[1] http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2536.php

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
124 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
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.

Amber
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 .

MarkG
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.

Khwarizmi
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.

MarkG
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 – :
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/environmentalist-maurice-strong-dies-at-86/
THIS IS FROM a 1972 BBC interview with Maurice Strong, Founding Member of the United Nations Environmental Program:
https://youtu.be/1YCatox0Lxo
Also:
https://youtu.be/Qu_XGuP_LY8
Shorter readable version: http://www.mauricestrong.net/index.php/short-biography-mainmenu-6
He believed in World Government through external control. (And licenses to have babies – before 1972.)
WJD

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.

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:
http://www.afn.org/%7Egovern/strong.html

AP
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.

maureen
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

Perry
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.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/about/people/co-founders/

Barbara
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.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/about/people/board

davec
January 16, 2017 1:54 am

I have just been reading articles on a web site called green-agenda.com. 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
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com