
By Allan Chatenay
(sent via email 21-Oct-2017)
Dear Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister McKenna; Canada has a problem.
Climate Change is Killing Us.
Or more precisely, your view of climate change is killing us.
The first issue is to understand the words “climate change.” In the recent public discourse, “climate change” has come to mean “blaming humans for changing the climate by using oil and gas and coal.” That creates a major difficulty, because it means that anytime the uninformed see an aspect of climate that either they haven’t seen before or an aspect that is genuinely changed, the underlying assumption is that it must be our own fault and it must be change for the worse. This view of our climate as primarily anthropomorphic is useful for scaring the populace into submission so you can tax and regulate us to death, but in fact it is the modern-day equivalent of the geocentric view of the universe dating back to Ptolemy.
So, let’s be clear. There is no doubt that the climate is changing. The climate has always changed and always will. The climate will never stay the same – nor should it. The only thing more absurd than denying climate change is thinking that humans can stop it from changing. But when people today say the words “climate change” they mean something else. They mean that humans are to blame.
It is only natural that because we humans tend to incorrectly perceive our- selves as the centre of things we would tend to blame ourselves when the earth’s climate changes. This flaw in human thought is not new.
The Maya, Inca and Aztecs used to do the same thing. In a vain attempt to control the weather and the resulting crop yields, they would engage in human sacrifices including decapitation, blood offerings and live heart extractions. If those efforts didn’t work and the crops failed, then the assumption would be that they didn’t do enough of it – leading to more sacrifices. Today it seems obvious to almost all of us that blood offerings don’t change the weather. I find it strange though that when the sacrificial offerings are from our own treasury, especially if the victims of sacrifice are either corporations or wealthy individuals, you and many other Canadians continue to believe essentially the same thing. And what leaders know is that being the master of the sacrifice concentrates power in those conducting the ritual.
Your government’s view that Canada can stop the global climate from changing by taxing Canadians, killing billions of dollars of new projects and chasing foreign investment away when none of the major global powers are doing the same is profoundly harmful and irresponsible. You have created a graveyard of cancelled mega-projects that are severely damaging to Canada but that strongly benefit other nations for no good reason. The Energy East cancella- tion resulting from the NEB including ‘climate change’ considerations in its evaluation of that project is the latest serious casualty. Insanity! You should be ashamed that we will now unnecessarily import oil from dictatorships when we could be building a stronger Canada.
Just 18,000 years ago almost all of Canada sat under giant thick sheets of ice. Both the Cordilleran and Laurentide Ice Sheets were continuous sheets thousands of kilometres across and several kilometres thick. They melted entirely without human intervention (as did their equivalents in Asia and Europe). They melted so quickly that the rocks upon which they rested (including the Canadian Precambrian Shield) are still rebounding from the rapid removal of their incredible weight. Sea levels have risen over 100 metres during that period separating Alaska from Russia and modifying ocean cur- rents around the globe. The changes we are observing and living through at present are simply the tail end of that monumental transformation and are absolutely in keeping with natural climate change.
Imagine the energy required to melt several continental ice sheets thousands of kilometres across and several kilometres thick, thereby raising the sea level by over 100 metres in just a few thousand years – a blink of an eye in geological time just on the edge of recorded human history. Let the fact that humans had nothing to do with that sink in, and then ask yourself how taxing Canadians and issuing government subsidies to install windmills and solar panels will stop that sort of planetary-scale climate change.
Rather than the disaster that you would have us believe has befallen us or will befall us in future, what we have in fact observed is that access to abundant and reliable energy has increased human life spans, reduced famine and suffering and lead to unprecedented levels of prosperity around the globe. Access to secure sources of energy reduces the impact of climate to humans, not the other way around.
Today, humans are more able to respond to natural disasters than ever before largely because we have access to abundant energy – and this is a good thing. Life before hydrocarbon energy was available was much harder and many lives were cut short by starvation and disease. Today, anti-hydrocarbon positions are written with computers made of and powered by hydrocarbons by people who got to work in a vehicle powered by hydrocarbons, who demand access to health care that is only possible because of hydrocarbon energy and who go on vacations to warmer climates in planes powered by hydrocarbons. The hypocrisy is telling – no opponent of hydrocarbon energy seems prepared or willing to live without it – including you and your government.
It is noteworthy that the two primary products of hydrocarbon combustion are H2O and CO2, which (along with the sun and nutrients from the earth) also happen to be the very building blocks of life on earth. This is because hydro- carbons are themselves the natural product of organic growth and decay. The primary indisputable and measurable impact of increased levels of CO2 on earth is that plants will grow quicker – which is why greenhouses routinely pump CO2 into their greenhouses (to levels 300% higher than current atmos- pheric levels) to accelerate plant growth. CO2 should be celebrated just as water is, not vilified as a ‘pollutant’ – which it clearly is not.
There is no invisible thermometer controlled by taxation and regulation and subsidy that will change the output of the sun or our relationship with the sun. It turns out that the earth and the sun and the universe at large just don’t care that much about humans or our actions. The simple fact of the matter is that we are vastly more affected by the planet than the planet is by us – and one day in the distant future we will simply be another sedimentary layer in the geological record.
However, just as Galileo was persecuted during his time for advancing a heliocentric theory and questioning the geocentric view of the universe, those of us who question this anthropocentric view of climate are now also subject to ridicule and persecution.
This persecution takes shape in the notion that if I deploy scientific knowledge to refute many of the alarmist claims made by those who believe climate change is anthropogenic, then I must be a ‘denier’ – an epithet closely linked
to neo-Nazism that would subtly try to link me to that horrible way of thinking.
Statements like “the science is settled” or “97% of scientists agree” are extremely troubling as they are themselves anti-scientific and designed to sup- press the relentless questioning that is essential to the scientific method. Even Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s statement that “the good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it” misappropriates the scientific method to declare science as an infallible source of truth rather than a process of finding and discovering truth through questioning and testing. People in your government tend to say things like “Canadians know…” or “We all know…” when it comes to the anthropocentric view of climate change. In fact, we may not know, or we may know the opposite.
Instead, I prefer Albert Einstein’s statement that “The important thing is to never stop questioning” as the ultimate piece of scientific advice.
The anthropocentric view of climate change has confused the masses and under your leadership is causing Canada to make a series of terrible decisions. In subscribing to this ill-conceived view of hydrocarbon energy as a bad thing, Canadians are suffering terrible casualties to your Liberal government’s economic friendly fire.
I have no doubt that you believe you are doing the right thing and that your intentions are good. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and history is full of leaders who destroyed their nations in fits of madness and in pursuit of vanity and folly.
It is high time you considered that you might be wrong. Many of us can already see that you are.
Best Regards, Allan Châtenay
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I suspect if you added the line “If you do advocate for this position and change your ways, we will endow you with Ministers for Life positions” they would then completely agree with you.
Hey Tom! You probably didn’t get a chance to say hello to Justin, but he was just in Florida on vacay. I guess he likes it warm. The stinking hypocrite!
Perhaps he was here for the Lightning vs Leafs game in Tampa on Tuesday. (Tampa won 4-3)
You probably wouldn’t spot him – dressed as he no doubt was, as a Cuban Immigrant.
Yeah, while reading this I was thinking, why don’t they go live in an igloo or a snow cave, and talk smack about the use of hydrocarbons there all winter, as at least they would have some credibility, as they beg for helicopter evac and sob about how they don’t want it to end this way.
U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/
WOW
UN Agenda21 – Canada
‘Economic Aspects Of Sustainable Development In Canada’
Webpages at:
http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/canada/eco.htm
And:
UN Agenda21 – USA
‘Economic Aspects Of Sustainable Development USA’
Webpages at:
http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/usa/eco.htm
Also other information on this topic at these websites.
UN Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform
‘National Assessment Report for WSSD’, 8 Jun 2011
‘Sustainable Development: A Canadian Perspective’
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=504&nr=166&menu=139
Multi-page presentation regarding Canada.
UN Sustainable Development
‘National Assessment Report for WSSD’ Canada is on page 2 at this website or select any item.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?menu=1629&str=Agenda21
I highly doubt that he would understand all the big words you used, so would just quit reading. He seems to me to be a simple young child who really does not understand how the real world works. I do believe that comes from a sense of self entitlement and having had most everything done for him. Poor soul. I mean poor us.
Yes, scratch an Enviro and a communist is revealed.
That’s right. When the Berlin Wall came down, all those Western Communists didn’t just ride off into the sunset singing “Kumbaya”. They moved into the nearest available Left-wing groups. And nowadays that’s the Enviro/Green parties. (One obvious example here in Oz being Greens Party Senator Lee Rhiannon).
Unfortunately Trudeau and the like are in the communist control mode, climate included.
You’re right. No amount of thoughtful reasoning will change the minds of the commie climate faithful. They didn’t think their way into their anthropocentric view of climate – it was preached to them. Climate Barbie is a fitting nickname for Catherine McKenna, though it’s probably an insult to Barbie.
Excellent.
I agree – an excellent article. Thank you Mr. Chatenay.
However, Justin (Mr. Dressup) and McKenna (Climate Barbie) are too uneducated and ignorant to understand or accept it.
Great letter, but it will probably or should I say most certainly be ignored.
[there are some stray hyphens in the text that could stand to be cleaned up]]
Agreed, wont change a thing. “Environment Canada” department has been changed to “Environment and Climate Change Canada” under Justin’s watch. No joke! Too invested, only political change will remove it (him).
https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change.html
Having sent many letters to both, it may well be that you won’t hear a word from them in response. The level of disillusionment in both of these people is beyond words.
This is a crisis for Canada. We need an intervention now.
Thanks for trying Allan Chatenay.
“The climate will never stay the same – nor should it.”
Don’t know about “should”; that seems equally anthropomorphic. I would say “nor will it.”
Nature doesn’t seem to take much heed of what we think “should” happen.
Perhaps “nor should we expect it to” is closer to the point.
I think he is saying we shouldn’t attempt to keep it the same. I agree, short of something like a return of glaciation.
Sorry but I don’t think Climate Barbie is listening . . .
It is too long – her lips will get tired before half way through.
That’s a good letter. Might be a little long for either of them. There seem to be a lot of Liberal party Kens available too. It’s a good thing I didn’t formulate the letter because I would have sent it to Justin, Catherine, and Ken Hardie, Ken McDonald, Ken Filson, Ken Dryden… etc. Just about the whole cabinet is made by Mattel.
Nice letter, to the point, and correct. But will do nothing to change their minds. You’re a climate denier in their view. There is no way they will ever change course, too much power in their hands, and too big of egos and reputation to preserve. If they were to agree and admit you are correct, that would put into question every policy they have imposed on us. The entire “progressive” movement would be up for scruteny and distrust. They cannot let that happen.
The only way this can become main stream is if we elect the people who accept that the climate changes all on its own. I
I couldn’t say about McKenna but Trudeau is no “true believer” He is a massive cynic and pragmatist. A politician. He seeks to play the populace like a violin. He basically told Suzuki to take a hike when his ideas sounded politically difficult.
Virtually every country on Earth is promoting this garbage because it creates political license to tax and spend. They are all the same. They want power.
In Canada a powerful political coalition against “carbon taxes” is shaping up. The Ontario election in June will likely take them out of the carbon blame game and Alberta will definitely follow next year. The next federal election isn’t that far away and Justin’s numbers aren’t looking so hot so he will soon be scrounging on street corners for votes.
That’s why I walk around with a smile on my face.
I hope a coalition against carbon taxes is shaping up.
A tax to change the weather, just how stupid do they think Canadians are anyway?
Hmm… the “progressive”conservatives voted to stay in the Paris agreement too. They all are progressive liberals in canaduh, even the Conservatives
“But will do nothing to change their minds” – Wrong! Enough letters like this, continuously being written and published, will eventually bear fruit – especially as weather observations will back them up. You can fool all people some of the time – some people all of the time – but not all people all of the time.
When the weave is ignorance and the weft is delusion the result is bound to be a fantastic fabrication.
Nice try, but you’re addressing a vainglorious twit whose attitude is that he is a supreme being of some kind and doesn’t care what you think.
So true. And he’s apparently not alone in that belief…
SEPTEMBER 19: Arch of Baal” erected in New York City
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/09/19/justin-trudeau-praised-un_n_12093658.html
SEPTEMBER 19: Justin Trudeau Hailed At UN in New York As ‘Example’ To The World
https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/25404-at-world-government-summit-top-globalists-drop-the-mask
At “World Government Summit,” Top Globalists Drop The Mask
https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/asia/item/28339-creepy-world-government-summit-targets-america-freedom
Creepy “World Government Summit” Targets America, Freedom
The human body is mostly carbon…
“The number 666 relates to the carbon atom, and man. Carbon-12; one of 5 elements in the human DNA is composed of 6 protons, 6 electrons and 6 neutrons, which equates to 666. Carbon-12 is the most abundant of the two stable isotopes of the element carbon, accounting for 98.89% of carbon.
https://www.google.com/search?as_q=&as_epq=%22carbon%22+%226+protons%22+%226+neutrons%22+%226+electrons%22&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights=
And if globalists were to succeed in replacing cash with a carbon chip….
Robot cashier: “Present your hand, comrade….you have zero carbon points. Put back the powdered milk. First warning…”
Your idea is interesting. You may want to look at 1Kings 10:14 where the number 666 is first mentioned.
The only good news: the “Arch of Baal” was only there for a week.
+100 Sarah:))
As long as people are gaining obscene amounts of money and power by pretending to combat climate change, you will never get them to publicly admit it is a lie.
Maybe it’s not humans after all. The very same methodology used to blame humans can be used to blame other agents of climate change. Pls see:
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3144908
(Not in response to your excellent letter, just in general) I dislike the common rebuttal lead-in phrase “the climate has always changed, has always been changing”, It is uncomfortably imitative of the claim it is in response to, “the climate is changing”. Those who pose a generality in discussion first always have the upper hand because the listening audience fits it into some more specific context before they have finished speaking. Replying with a gainsay is a psychologically weak response because the alarmists usually have a specific angle or talking point in mind (CO2, sea level etc) and you’re countering with a obvious generality. Groupthink manifests itself not only in propagation of inconclusive conclusions, but also in the breakdown of communication and erosion of our ability to debate.
Opposition to hydrocarbon chemistry is a Darwinian dead end. You’ll starve and freeze and be eaten by your fellow humans in the first great purge. Then they’ll eat your children unless your children are strong because they have eaten you first. I’d counter with that instead. It would liven up any room.
I have to agree with you. I dislike that particular phrase precisely because to the average person it sounds like you are contradicting yourself. To effectively communicate with people it is necessary to understand how people communicate. Most people do not listen or read everything you say even in one sentence. They seize upon the first thing they hear and their minds run with it. You say “yes the climate is changing -” and they think “Ah Ha! So you admit you are wrong”. The rest goes out the window. I believe that is actually the default mode of listening for most people. It takes some conscious effort to still the mind and hear the rest of the story. This is why in a verbal argument people will always think you said something you didn’t say. Because collectively and on average we really don’t listen.
This also happens to be the number one way the media lies. By taking advantage of this near universal human trait to make quick decisions based upon a fragment of information which confirms their existing bias.
As to how you break through that? I have no idea. However, no matter how cute or clever you think it might be, mimicking one of the Pavlovian triggers liberals have spent decades indoctrinating into people ain’t it.
Some time ago I read a book called “Rules for Radicals” I then read the first book by Saul D. Alinsky “Reveille For Radicals”…to understand the leftist tactics.
Along came “Rules For Radicals Defeated” by Jeff Hedgpeth and another by a fake name David Kahane (Michael Walsh) called “Rules for Radical Conservatives” and one by Steve Deace called “Rules for Patriots” there are other books that help you to counteract the Alinskyite tactics.
You are both right in how people perceive the first thing they hear or read. This is why headlines often mislead people to think one thing; when the rest of the article is often the opposite, and the case in point being the headline to this article. It grabbed your attention because it was the opposite of what you’d expect on WUWT.
I will look for those titles.
I will point out we have been witness to one of the most effective and most public counter attacks to the leftist propaganda apparatus ever seen. Whether by design, native instinct, or blind luck Trump took the “fake news” trope or hash tag and just turned it around. Fake news entered the public lexicon as a coordinated effort between the mainstream media, the DNC, and the Hillary campaign. They began to run stories on it and she began using it on the campaign trail almost simultaneously. Not coincidentally, democrat law makers began making rumbles about legislation to combat the threat of fake news.
Make no mistake, as Wikileaks showed, there was a great deal of collusion and cooperation between the Hillary campaign, the DNC, and the mainstream media. I haven’t read all of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, but if he didn’t mention infiltrating the media by any means necessary he should have.
My opinion is Trump correctly read the public’s growing distrust of the media and seized the opportunity he had created and they had granted him by the 24/7 attempts to try and defeat him by giving him unprecedented coverage over every thing he said or did. He beat them at their own game using their own platforms.
Whatever goal they hope to achieve, which I assume was discrediting anything anti Hillary coming from alternative news and media outlets, it misfired big time.
I found and saved this link. I think it explains a lot.
https://www.cheatography.com/davidpol/cheat-sheets/saul-alinsky-s-12-rules-for-radicals/
Maybe a phrase like “Yes, the climate is improving” is better response than “the climate is always changing”.
The climate is definitely not getting worse IMHO.
“Maybe a phrase like “Yes, the climate is improving” is better response than “the climate is always changing”.
The climate is definitely not getting worse IMHO.”
Improvement is subjective. If one region greens, and another becomes desert, one could argue that one improved and one got worse. There is no “the climate”.
“…and are absolutely in keeping with natural climate change.”
Nice to see an author using Natural Climate Change, instead of climate change – not that you sciency types could understand why.
Maybe that’s a possible reply to the conundrum being discussed above:
“Those who pose a generality in discussion first always have the upper hand because the listening audience fits it into some more specific context before they have finished speaking. ” – Hocus Locus re: the usual answer to “Climate Change”
Interrupt the warmist and ask – “Wait – do you mean Natural Climate Change or Human-induced Climate Change?”
– May be a start…..
You might think about sending fancy socks a P.S:
Inspired by an article in the Toronto Stat about extreme weather events, I did a feeble Steve McIntyre imitation and ‘audited’ the data. It turns out that our government, environmental activists, the insurance industry and the media have been deliberately misleading us.
Ontario annual high temperatures are down, hot days are less frequent, there is less severe cold, winds speeds and heavy gusts have moderated, there is less snow annually, heavy snowstorms are fewer and there is no detectable change in rainstorm frequency or severity. Ontario weather has become more benign in the last 125 years while atmospheric CO₂ levels have gone up 39%.
These facts can easily be verified. Decades of detailed Environment Canada data for hundreds of Ontario weather stations can be found here:
https://www.weatherstats.ca/
Yes, while extreme weather events have moderated the annual mean temperature has increased roughly one degree C during the period due primarily to cold winter nights becoming warmer rather than rising hot summer temperatures.
Yep. Came to the same conclusion using EC data.
All thanks to the Glorious Leadership of Kathleen Wynne! Sarc/
Or as she is known in some circles as Orville Redenbacher. Note the similarities!
Jordan Peterson recently expressed his thoughts on Kathleen Wynne’s identity politics being downright dangerous. Her climate change mitigation expenditures and efforts are dangerous as well. She needs to be held accountable for the damage she’s done.
A 39% increase in atmospheric CO2 constitutes a miniscule increase in aggregate atmospheric greenhouse gasses when water vapor is taken into consideration.
I read a Facebook post this morning; that I didn’t save to be able to give it here. That generally alluded to; Climate Change melting the Arctic Glaciers will re-introduce viruses and bacteria that has been dormant in the ice and Tundra to the environment, killing many people and other animals. It seems they have a new tactical weapon to scare ignorant people to fight Climate Change of AGW. Simply, their theory is factual that some viruses and bacteria do survive being frozen and when thawed will re-enter the environment. Cases are known of Anthrax in animals having died and being frozen, thawed and contaminated the waterways that killed other animals the next season of warming. They contend that scientists have brought viruses back to life from animals that lived during the Last Ice Age that had been frozen.
Then when the ice age glaciation period ended, with miles of 100,000+ years of stored virus glaciers running around the world as ocean water, life should have been exterminated…
Except for a few large mammals, it didn’t happen and isn’t likely to happen.
AtheoK
What you just said is why I never gave it much of my time. They never tend to look at the past and then use it as a scare tactic for the ignorant to fear. The commenters on that site; were mostly enthralled with it as another reason to stop AGW and the demon CO2. Trying to inject common sense was like – as my dad would say about a drunk he witnessed – “Arguing with a stop sign.”
If that was the case wouldn’t the indigenous people have been wiped out. They came over from Siberia on the ice bridge and were here when the ice melted. All those released viruses would certainly have had an effect!!
FlyRite, If you think about it, there is no one alive that can say if there were or were not illnesses, that could be linked to that era. I live in the “Valley of the Sun” in central Arizona. This desert is an ancient ocean bed that many of the mountains here are Precambrian Granite that are nearly identical to those of the South Africa Rand District. We have a pathogenic Coccidioides Fungus that has laid dormant in the soil from when this was an ocean. It gets airborne during dust storms or when the soil is disturbed by animals walking, digging or anybody doing their yard work gardening to farming and construction of any kind. As it enters the mucus membranes the moisture reactivates it in the lungs and the lymph nodes.
We call this “Valley Fever” because (1) it causes fatigue in even healthy people that are well rested, (2) it causes a fever because the immune system is trying to get rid of it, (3) it causes weight loss because it carries carbohydrates and proteins to the places nutrients are needed to fight the fungus, (4) chest pain can occur as the fungus spreads infecting the heart as anemia and arrhythmia, (5) it causes rashes of painful red bumps that can turn brown like painful freckles or as raised red bumps resembling pimples or blisters, (6) coughing because it enters the lungs before other organs and inflames them, (6) chronic pneumonia is stage 2 with extremely intense coughing often resulting in vomiting, (7) blood sputum (coughing up blood) from ruptured vessels in the lungs from the intense coughing, (8) to stage 3 causing lung nodules in its most fatal form as growths of tissues in the lungs and can become cancerous, (9) and then there is the meningitis where it gets into the brain and fluid surrounding the spinal cord….to (10) death in severe cases because it was not treated or the patient’s immune system was just not able to fight it off.
There are many cases of flesh eating bacteria, spores and viruses that have been around for all of our existence and others that have mutated from those.
Wel said, and I love it when observations are used to directly falsify the pseudo climate catastrophe.
So stateith: Allan Châtenay
Allan C, ….. me thinks you are 98% correct in what you stated in your above commentary, as well as what you stated in the above quote, ….. but it matters not a “twit” because, …… what you, Allan, think is the “right thing” subject matter, …… has nothing whatsoever to do with what Prime Minister Trudeau thinks is the “right thing” subject matter.
Allan C, ….. it is obvious to me that you are worried about Canada’s economic future, ….. whereas I am pretty confident that Prime Minister Trudeau is only interested in his political future.
Cheers
True Dough is just using perceived “climate change” as an excuse for his new carbon tax. As governments like our tax and spend Liberals, and even worse the NDP, keep spending and spending, they need to dream up new and innovative ways to take even more of your hard earned money, to spend on some special interest groups shiny new toy, or to line their or their friend’s pockets.
True
Outstanding letter!
+1
all of the above comments
This all revolves around a very simple thought: “how come the people who insist on managing your life never manage their lives the way they wish to manage yours?”. Feel free to bring up Ghandi as the exception that proves the rule. Another way to ask is to wonder why administrative lawyer types who came up through the party ranks as administrative wonks and hacks end up mismanaging all kinds of scientific and technical elements of society? Avoid the abuse by removing large aspects of civil life from the clutches of government, where they never belonged in the first place.
Yup! Trudeau just got back from vacation in Florida! Blatant hypocrisy
“The exception that proves the rule” is of course a nonsense statement until you understand that ‘proves’ is an Old English word meaning to ‘TEST’ Thus the exception tests the rule. Rather different.
I would recommend that Trudeau dictate that Ottawa be selected as a test city to lead the way to the elimination of fossil fuel use within 5 years.
A word or “two” about Trudeau and McKenna from a “grizzled” ancient Canadian. Between them, they have the brain power of a gnat on a good day. Trudeau has a sock and costume fetish while McKenna is still searching for her hair bows. Their “balanced” budget promise is right on a Liberal track currently sitting around a $12 billion deficit and rising every second. The climate is changing here. Right now the temps in southern Ontario are 10C below the norm for this time of year. There’s still snow on my deck and on the front lawn. Considering the natural forces in play including the suns’s full minimum phase, this is natural climate change and certainly not AGW.
Canada East was held up by the new regulations as mentioned, but before that it was also being held up by various Quebec local politicians who claimed to fear pipe leaks getting into the St. Lawrence, even as the Mayors of Montreal and Quebec city obtained approval to discharge millions of litres of raw sewage into the river. Hence climate Barbie’s new nickname – Sewage Barbie.
It’s not science I don’t believe in, it’s certain scientists, whose rice bowls are intimately and inextricably connected to a certain hypothesis, that I have an issue with. A career is a terrible thing to waste (especially when it’s yours)
[ Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s statement that “the good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it” ]
What a strange quote. A more accurate quote would be along the lines: [ the thing about science is that the truth exists regardless of whatever science you believe in ].
It is amazing how language can be corrupted so easily. It used to be that if a skeptic used the term “climate change” to mean man-made climate change, even slipping in doing it, in posts believers would pile on and describe you as ignorant stupid etc for not knowing the difference between climate change and man-made climate change.
Fast forward a bit and the same people that were condemning the use of climate change as meaning man-made climate change are now embracing and using that term to mean man-made climate change. Talk about no principles or consistency.
And of course now it is being called carbon pollution. Talk about total corruption of the language. The debate on climate change is definitely accelerating the corruption of language.
I notice that several of the comments are quite negative in the sense that the people this is addressed to will pay it no attention. But that isn’t the point. It’s an excellent letter.
Because many here are already convinced that its points are valid, an attitude develops along the lines of “Sure, but they’ll never listen, so what’s the point?”
I would remind people of the recent study that showed that “fake news” travels the internet world far, far, faster than the truth. No doubt this is because something fake is often incredible (in both senses, spectacular, and not credible) and it’s passed because of the spectacle. The truth gets the same treatment that this article is getting in the comments here, i.e., “Sure, but so what?”
It seems to me that the true audience for a letter like the one above is the rest of the world, not the addressees themselves. So, instead of wallowing in helplessness, pass it on. It’s an excellent letter and if enough people read it, maybe it will have an impact on the powers that be. They, as noted by another commenter, are politicians first and foremost and therefore always have an ear to the ground. If they start to hear rumblings, it could affect their thinking on what it will take to survive (not mankind’s survival now, but their political careers.) Just my two cents.
+100%
Thanks Rod. After working on these two for so long,to no avail, the temptation is to slip into despair, especially when the negative impacts are being experienced directly.
I hope you’re right.