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
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.
Thanks for the good effort Allan.
Regardless whether the ‘ROYAL THEY’ read it or not I have friends I will be forwarding it to. At least it re enforces the points I have been making regarding Global Warming (since morphed into ‘climate change’) for the last few years as according to them I live on the ‘dark side’ of course.
These Globalists-Malthusians know perfectly well that AGW is fake. They invented it (Margaret Mead did.)
2018 marks the Northeast US’s greatest snowcover in 135 years. Now that’s what I call climate change! I’m waiting for the “concensus” explanation for that one.
That may be the “consensus” position, however like all the other “consensus” position, the actual science refutes it.
Rob
Which is it? AGW means my grandkids wont know what snow is or is it the more snow there is proves CAGW theory. It’s really easy when everything that can happen proves what you believe, kind of like signs from god.
Rob
It must be nice to live in your world, someone tells you that we have the most snow in the last 135 years (you know around the end of the LIA) and you say its proof of CAGW because of the nor’easters (cause we never had nor’easters before CAGW) caused by global warming. Everything that can happen no matter what proves to YOU that YOU are right, sanity is not your strong point is it?
Mark W
Rob said “Obviously you don’t live on the East Coast.”, not sure if you do or not, but I do and have for a very long time and there is nothing dramatically different about the weather we are having on the east coast from any we have had in the past, reminds me a lot of the mid to late 70s and the early 90s. Robs just looking for signs from his weather gods to justify his sacrificing of people on the altar of his beliefs.
Rob
These storms aren’t any more frequent than a zillion times in the past, they aren’t any stronger either, they are just typical mid-atlantic/ new england storms. You are just making things up in your own mind, i have lived through literally hundreds of these storms in my long years and much worse. Plus they have zero to do with the high level of snow cover in the northern hemisphere. You are self deluding you should really talk to someone about it, it is not healthy.
Rob
Either YOU don’t live on the east coast like you said about MarkW or you are just really young, because if you did or you aren’t you wouldn’t post the nonsense that you have posted.
Rob
I have lost power twice this year from the storms and hundreds of times in my life from many other storms, once for 3 weeks! how much of the record 200 inches of snow in Erie Pa is from these storms? Zero is the correct answer, these storms are not unusual at all, what is unusual is the persistent cold temperatures that we have had throughout March but again if you have lived in this area like you claim for any real length of time you remember plenty of times when it was like this or worse and you remember plenty of times when you go years without weather like this on the east coast.
Again you are posting nonsense that anyone that has experience living here for any length of time would be able to tell you. I have seen februaries with 70 degree weather and no storms and Aprils with 30+ inches and 20 degree weather, when the patterns line up it is not uncommon to have one nor’easter after the other its just what happens when you have cold storms coming from the west and warm moist air coming up the gulf stream. Again you must be young because there is no way if you have lived here for as long as I have that you would think this is unusual in frequency or severity, its called winter, get used to it.
Rob
“But it does make sense that the eastern U.S. has seen so many nor’easters in the last few weeks, he said. If the atmosphere is in the mood to produce a nor’easter, it doesn’t stop after making just one.
“One of the things we emphasized in the book is the episodic nature of these storms. They come in batches,” Uccellini told me. Northeast snowstorms can only emerge from a very specific set of circumstances. When those circumstances are achieved, storms can follow one after another, walloping the coast week after week.”
Louis W. Uccellini foremost expert on Nor’easters
Rob
I don’t live in Erie, was just pointing out that most of the snow that is making the coverage in this area unusual, every nor’easter covers the mid-atlantic to new england I 95 corridor, from Washington to Boston, what’s causing the unusual level of snow in this part of the US is the inland snow from Erie through New york and up into Maine.
Rob
“I’ll repeat it for you Bob…..“especially this late in March””
So its unusually cold in March because of CAGW,
Just so you know unusual doesn’t mean it’s not normal it just means its the dominant state.
Here i will help you understand, it’s unusual for it to snow in Georgia, but once in a while it does and thats normal.
Rob
” I never say “CAGW” because there is no “C” in the science of AGW.”
There also isn’t anything unusual about the weather or the climate just because you lost power twice this winter. You and I and the rest of the mid-atlantic/ new england I 95 corridor have experienced what we call in these parts WINTER!
Stop making a few storms into a world changing event, this is a normal weather pattern that comes around every 8 or 10 years or so, sometimes more often, sometimes less, but it is nothing unusual nor does it indicate a change in the climate, its a winter weather pattern one that has happened many many times.
I do agree though that there is no C in AGW, there is only a small W for that matter but no AGW or CAGW in the winter weather we have experienced. But if it makes your feel better go sacrifice a goat or something to your AGW gods and maybe you will survive, or better yet sacrifice your evil consumer ways and give up all forms of modern comforts and then maybe, just maybe we will all have a nicer winter next year.
Rob
“Bob, hopefully, the third time is a charm…….“this late in March.””
You can say it a million times, it has nothing to do with AGW nor is anything other than just unusual.
But i give up trying to reason with the irrational and self delusional, but do remember you can always sacrifice to your AGW gods you may just be saved.
Rob,
Its was the witches … that wan not absolute consensus but close enuf to kill a few of them.
I’ll bet if they had just killed all the suspected witches outright & immediately, those little girls would not have continued with the same afflictions. But I do wonder what those little girls would have done next/instead to get attention and exercise their new found power.
Likewise, without CO2 over 350 ppm there would not be people claiming that 4 nor’easters in late winter/early spring on the east coast were the work of CO2. What, I wonder, would you be doing if world wide actions took place that immediately that would get you to the 350 ppm; what would be your new affliction?
(in this analogy, you are the little girl).
Glad someone mentioned Georgia, that’s where I have lived all my life. Right outside Atlanta. Down here we have no snow to speak of most of the time, but every 20 years or so we get a batch of snow years. It’s kind of a big deal. Because we have problems with that whole driving on ice and snow thing. These events really stand out.
It happened in the late 50’s, then the late 70’s, then the late 90’s, and again after 2010. We are currently in that cold winter pattern which is common during snow years. Last year’s snow total was the highest in my limited record, the next highest was in the late 50’s to early 60’s. I say limited because I only have records going back to the 40’s.
As far as hot days go, we have what we call Dog Days. That usually occurs in August. I am not sure why we call them Dog Days (or Dog Daze as some would say) except dogs don’t move around much when it is really hot. They mostly lay around in shade, under front porches, or anywhere they can get some relief, panting as hard as they can. Dogs love AC. The hottest period in recent memory was in the mid to late 90’s. Since then we rarely see days above 95° F.
Those of us who grew up without air conditioning and who relied upon the old fashioned attic fan to keep from bursting into flame have a pretty good working knowledge of when the evening cool would come. That was when you could get unmiserable enough to go to sleep. You can feel the evening chill come on, usually when a bit of wind would pick up, as a sudden drop in temperature. In the mid 90’s in August there would be years where for a week or so that cool off just didn’t happen. Growing up that would happen in August about one to two hours after midnight. Now, it comes about an hour or so after dark. Lately dog days have been easier to live with than at any other time in my life.
If you examine data sets like the GHCN properly, understanding most of the data they have from the 27,721 temperature reporting stations in that set cover no more than 40 of the last 120 years, and look only at stations reporting every year you will see temperatures are not going up and up. There are only 493 stations that go from 1900 to 2011, the last year in that record according to Berkeley Earth, covering each year. And 1936 was the hottest year on record. Hot days did bump up in the late 90’s but no where near what happened in the 30’s. Cold days, that is days which failed to go above freezing, also decreased in the 90’s. But that is no different from what happened in the 30’s.
All over the world I see people saying similar things to what I just said. Yet, sure as you are born, some smug know it all is going to pop up here and say “But Climate Change is a World Wide Phenomena”. Just not in my part of the world huh? Just not in anyone’s part of the world! Only when you cobble together a bunch of unrelated and incomplete crap data can you even find global warming.
Rob
I can’t believe I am going to waste my time but I will bite, The AMO is in a slight cooling phase and may be headed for a longer cooling phase, what pray tell does that have to do with AGW and what do you see in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation for March of 2018 that is some how remarkable or unprecedented? Discuss away genius.
Ugh why I am i doing this?
Richard,
There’s a one in a million chance that the current provincial election campaign might make a difference.
My MPP is the Environment critic and I’m trying to ‘educate’ him. You might do the same.
A major (sane) professional association has links to Doug Ford (Progressive Conservative leader) and is trying to reach him directly.
It would take a lot of courage for a politician to take this on but Ford has proven that he’s not a coward!
Let us pray!
Agreed, I used to love reading the news about how the left wing councillors would berate Rob Ford because he would spent only pennies of his office staff account while they often were thousands over, trying to buy votes with pens, team sponsorship and leaflets. Doug has a following in Toronto and should do better than other PCs but I think his greatest asset is rural Ontario. He could engage and offer to protect people from the onerous wind turbine movement that ignores them. Recently in southern Ontario families have seen their water wells contaminated coincidentally after pile driving started on a nearby wind farm. Government investigation says, not the wind farm fault.
https://stopthesethings.com/2018/03/16/water-wars-wind-turbine-construction-destroying-underground-water-supplies-in-ontario/
If he can get out these kinds of issues of which there are many and then day after day tell the people of Ontario how many billions were wasted through gas plant fiasco, Orange and E-Health (total $3 billion and counting) and what that money could have done for health care, education or just taxing less he might win.
Polski
What’s with this progressive crap that the Conservatives have adopted. More pandering to the liberals. Stop already. Write your MP and tell them to drop it. They need to start controlling the narrative, not acknowledge the liberal narrative
It is an excellent letter. It serves a great purpose in reminding our “Natural Governing Party” that there are voters out here who don’t support their thoughtless virtue signalling when it has negative real-world consequences.
The grand coalition of climate unchangers is actually just a cheap political convenience. It will collapse quite easily. Witness the fact that the Democrats in the U.S. have almost stopped mentioning it due to its expense and the end of the California drought and the bitter winter making it look like a stupid idea. Which it is! The climate change meme is headed for collapse in Canada also. Carbon tax will be dead within 2 years.
The road to Hell is paved with progressives.
Well written, smart and thoughtful. Now let’s elect a Prime Minister who can understand such a well presented argument and get rid of the wannabe beach model.
A more powerful closing quote instead of Einstein would be Richard Feynman: ” If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” Then show him the famous graph of model outputs vs. satellite and weather balloon observations. That’s what convinced me.
May I have a link to the “famous graph”.?
Thank you.
I wouldn’t trust Trudeau. He wears brown shoes with a blue suit.
I only voted liberal because he promised to legalise weed, and look what’s happening to that today.
Reply from Trud. staffer : TLDR . Oh , by the way ….want to buy some carbon credits ?
And thanks for your vote …
climate change policies are killing tourism with gas prices now more than double the US. Canada is a huge country with large distances between the cities. unlike Europe where you can visit 5 countries in a day on a tank of gas. in Canada a tank of gas barely makes a dent getting from one province to the next.
Allan, you should not remind them of human sacrifices. Now they’ll ask for them.
Allan Châtenay does a very good job of pointing out why the term ‘climate change’, as used in the political context for political ends, is a harmful and wasteful canard, resulting in an ineffective investment of our money and time.
But perhaps the term ‘climate change’ is the perfect solution to the policy problems created by its global-warming-cum-climate-change makeover, because ‘climate change’, at root, refers to a complex set of massive changes to weather that unfold on a time scale and in ways not easily comprehended by humans.
The weather we experienced as children is perhaps different from the weather we experience today. We might consider that strange or unwanted (it might require us to change) but it is probably normal. We have a geologic time scale, helping us to account for stalactite growth or rocks eroded by water and wind over extremely long periods of time, but we lack a climate change timescale.
As an aspect of our understanding of human and natural history, climate change seems to be rarely appreciated or understood. But that could change.
Days ago I had the pleasure of a few guided tours through tropical rainforests, the professional guides sometimes drawing attention to endemic species threatened by climate change. While I awaited their pleas for taking personal responsibility, not a single guide called attention to human activities per se. They made no call to action. This is how it should be, where climate change is shown to play an important role in an ecosystem and that remains the focus.
On one of these tours was a Dutchman who knew that ice skates with metal blades were likely invented by the Dutch, leading sometimes to international dominance in speed skating, but he was unaware that his ancestors would have had to have been living through winters where freezing temperatures were the norm for such a development to take seed. Upon mentioning the Scottish developed curling during the Little Ice Age, all at our dinner table seemed surprised.
Collectively, we have little understanding of our climate history and it shows in the misguided policies of recent governments. If we teach our children that climate change occurs normally and usually gradually, and if we also draw their attention to climate features throughout natural and human history, including art and industry, then we improve our chances to respond efficiently and effectively to inevitable changes in the climate. Many examples come to mind. Hans Brinker or A Christmas Carol could be presented in the context of climate. Sacred architecture, like Gothic cathedrals, could be studied in relation to climate change. The Roman expansion could be reviewed in light of climate change.
We have to develop a nuanced appreciation of climate change. Drastic climate conditions underpin the Bering Strait crossing theory. But there is so much more to be said about climate, our planet and us. We should aim to embrace climate change influences on human history and better understand our influence, if any, on climate change.
That brings us back to the present, and Allan Châtenay drawing attention to our hubris and follies.
You have to remember that Trudeau’s primary advisor is Gerald Butts who came from the World Wildlife Fund. I have written to the Feds and Manitoba and the best you get is a motherhood reply. I asked my member 3 pointed questions and he has not replied at all. He will be reminded the next time he has “coffee” for his constituents.
These kinds of statements drive me nuts. This is Fake News! Galileo was not persecuted for advancing the heliocentric theory. He was placed under house arrest in an Italian mansion (villa?) for stating (without proof) that the heliocentric model was fact, even when he had been warned not to. Here is some good reading:
https://thonyc.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/galileo-the-church-and-heliocentricity-a-rough-guide/
Interestingly, it wasn’t until 1725 when James Bradley discovered stellar aberration that proof of a heliocentric model had been made, over 100 years after Galileo.
Galileo drew sketches of airplanes and helicopters 200 years before man’s first flight!
My open chart for a letter….
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Great letter. If you can somehow get the larger reaches of the Canadian citizens who perhaps need to understand the role they mus play in the folks they vote for, there is a chance for realism to take hold.
It’s a world wide problem.
And just who is Allan Chatenay and who is he affilliated with? I agree that the only constant in life is change and once you accept that everything else falls into place and that the carbon tax is full of hot air and just another tax grab. But what credentials do you have to back it up?
Fantastic analysis of Canada’s and Europe’s leaders gross arrogance and stupidity about the minuscule climate change we have witnessed since 1850. But no bureaucrats and politicians ever saw a tax or campaign contribution they didn’t like!
I am afraid your fine letter will be greek to Trudeau. He would not understand a single word. He exists within a bubble of warm and fuzzy feelings cannot imagine any concept which involves reality. A complete disaster for Canada and another lesson that elections have real consequences. Woe onto Canada if they renew their contract with the Liberals. GK
“Sacfice” (“no gain without pain”) is a peculiar aspect of the human mind set.
Self mutilation and sacrifice of life to appease some deity was not just peculiar to the natives of central and South America.
It shows up historically the world over including the Holy Bible.
The old testament is rife with sacrifices of sheep and lambs ( pretty much a routine) which basically insured that Priests where the best fed people in camp.( I don’t think God actually showed up to pick up the carcass.).
Ole Abraham seriously considered sacrificing his son Issac (God told him to), and Christ himself is held up as the sacred sacrifice that redeemed the rest of us from eaternal damination.
Since religions in this somewhat enlightened age have lost their credibility our collective physic has supplanted this primordial need to suffer with the pseudo science of “Climate Change”.
Well said Ken, although I would also add Darwinian evolution to climate change.
Allan Chatenay:
Excellent letter!
Well stated, excellent analogies and solid logic.
Entirely the wrong thing to send to a politician or government employees.
Too many complex ideas.
A politician looking for ten seconds of information to support their decisions, will stop at the first sentence.
A government employee tasked with summarizing or responding will stop at the first easy statement you make, then will ignore the rest. Especially employees tasked with summarizing/responding to piles of letters.
Your letter makes an excellent article for people like us who will read it through. Publishing for people who decide on ten seconds of information or the socially fixated shallow public need to read it as simple solid statements, with links to further detail.
There are some who believe the Mayan ruling class were overthrown during a very extended severe drought.
One the public are trained to sacrifice to the gods, they’re very willing to sacrifice the ruling class when desperate. That’s a claim that should clear Justin’s thoughts, for ten seconds.
Maybe it’s time to accidentally disable government’s heat and AC systems during winter’s coldest time. Force those characters who normally dash from vehicle to controlled temperature buildings and back, to experience a little winter weather.
ATheoK
I agree. I doubt that he ever saw the letter, some staffer more than likely skimmed through it and that was the end of it. Politicians have agendas; all the other opposing views that are out there, are just White Noise to be ignored. I always view politicians like the old Charlie Brown cartoons portrayed adults and teachers.
“…one day in the distant future we will simply be another sedimentary layer in the geological record.” What an optimist you are – first, to think that Justin Trudeau and gang (after all, one thing Canadians will never have to fear is a Canadian dictatorship – you need a real army for that) can be persuaded to change their(proclaimed) views, and secondly, to think that the demise of humanity is necessarily in the “distant” future.
In fact, while you may be right to think that we lack the power to damage the earth in the long run, the evidence is that we have produced (and continue to produce ) toxic substances which we lack the knowledge or technology to control under the best circumstances, let alone under the circumstances of a collapse of this global house of cards that cannot even support the alimentary and health needs of humanity now. These toxins have the potential to severely damage, and perhaps extinguish, many higher life forms on Earth, once we lose all hope of monitoring or containing them.
It might take nothing more than a successful EMP attack by a cornered dictatorship, or a sufficiently strong and focused CME to make the wheels come off our present joyride.
otropogo
You couldn’t fathom the number of doomsday sci fi movies, and books your comment triggered in my head. Science Fiction is often based upon modicums of facts, hyped to the xtremes. It is why the scare tactics have worked in the extremists favor, for their AGW and CC plot to destroy the fossil fuels industries and fill government coffers. It is the classic story of the Have Nots becoming the Haves in government; where the power of the new Haves control the ousted Haves by becoming totalitarian.
Sorry. All I meant to “trigger” was some realistic though processes. I’ve read my share of science fiction too, and long ago realized that reality is quite as horrific as anything dreamed up by Sci-Fi writers. I have no interest in scaring anyone. I’d just like us to have a fighting chance to advance civilization further instead of sinking back into a grim tooth and claw dog-eat-dog struggle for survival. For that to happen, a lot of people need to wake up and take a good look at the creaky limb humanity has climbed out on and how far it is to the bottom.
otropogo
I feel you missed my point. I was just pointing out that most science fiction writers base their stories on what scientist have discovered or alluded to outcomes of apocalypses. That having read your comment, it created a series of such Sci Fi to fit your comment. Only those that cannot separate facts from fiction would be really triggered by such nonsense. The trigger I had, was just a flow of books and movies that took those to xtremes.
The ignorant just think or perhaps don’t even think that climate has actually changed before. They don’t know about the warming over 170 years since the LIA. They don’t know about abrupt climate change or interglacial periods or that the trend over 8000 years is actually down whether or not there are a few extra CO2 particles per million. The actual increase of CO2 per volume of air is approx 0.012% over 150 years. I stand to be corrected.
A brilliant piece of writing and one to promulgate all over social media.
Despite What You’ve Heard, Global Warming Isn’t Making Weather More Extreme
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/despite-what-youve-heard-global-warming-isnt-making-weather-more-extreme/
Don’t forget Trudeau is the Prime Minister who as soon as he took office stopped Canadian jets from bombing ISIS positions. Yes you read that correctly. He is a looneytune.
This is an excellent letter to Prime Minister Trudeau & Environment Minister McKenna, unfortunately as they are both first-grade idiots, they will not understand it and probably will not even notice it.
“CO2 should be celebrated just as water is, not vilified as a ‘pollutant’ – which it clearly is not.”
Wow, great line! Can’t wait to deploy it in the wild.
The reality is that the climate change we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero.
If the future is anything like that past, the current interglacial period will end and during the next ice age ice sheets will eventually cover most of Canada as wiell as parts of Europe and Asia and ther is nothing that we can do to stop it. So we need to enjoy the current interglacial period while it lasts..
Anthony Watts has given is a good overview of past climate change. I will concentrate on recent time is misrepresented by alarmist “climate science” of people who do not know what climate science is. Current opinion among this group is that global temperature is rising because of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that we, the people, put there. There The gas then absorbs radiant energy coming from the sun, gets warn, and passes that warmth on to other gas molecules in the air. People like James Hansen have warned us that this heating can become a “dangerous greenhouse warming.” According to Hansen this could go far enough to evaporate the oceans. All this amounts to nothing but pseudo-scientific hypothecating. If you look at recent climate history, you will find that since the late 1800-s global temperature has gone through several stages if warning and cooling. According to HadXRUT3 graph, which I showed as figure 23 in “What Warming,” there was a cooling period over 30 years long that lasted from 1887 tp 1910. In 1910 warming took over and it lasted till 1940, another 30-year stretch. Then in 1940 cooling returned and so on. Warming did follow that 1940 cooling nut slowly; such that global temperature did not reach the 1940 values again until the year 1980. It is quite impossible to attribute any of these up and down temperature changes to carbon dioxide greenhouse effect. Fortunately, the HadCRUT3 temperature curve I used also shows carbon dioxide amount in air. That curve is extremely smooth, no kinks or anything.. In 1910 when cooling suddenly becomes warming, carbon dioxide had to be added to the atmosphere but the carbon dioxide curve proves it did not happen. . Such c changes in atmospheric CO2 amount simply never happen. It follows that bone of the global temperature changes for the past century and a half can be attributed to the greenhouse effect as constantly drummed into our ears. It has gone further of course and influenced politicians to fund expensive projects to decarbonize the atmosphere because these bozos really believe that carbon dioxide is warming up the world. And now the Prime Minister of Canada has fallen for the same trap. The greenhouse theory just may be a useful theory in an appropriate setting but invoking it for global warming is nothing but pure pseudoscience.
Good letter, but with the odd editorial hiccup, for example: “which is why greenhouses routinely pump CO2 into their greenhouses”.
Toronto Sun just did a piece on Gerald “PM” Butts, Trudeau’s principal secretary. He is a far-left Green and is compared to Bush’s Cheney.
http://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/furey-youd-think-sooner-or-later-trudeaus-going-to-have-to-cut-gerald-butts-loose
An excellent and accurate article. It will, of course, be ignored by those it is written to.
As a person with a long history of interest in climate change (>40 years since high school) I share the same view. My interest was brought about primarily due to my fascination of the many ice ages that have come and gone and also the theory that the Dark Ages in Europe were due to a drop in global temperature….long before the extensive use of hydrocarbons.
We should be spending to adapt to the coming changes. Trying to stop it is farcical, like trying to stop a speeding train.
I have stated many times before that very powerful people have changed word pollution to global warming as cleaning up pollution does not keep the power with the elite ,the change to global warming can be turned on the public and tax is the tool .
Allan Chatenay,
Hear, hear!
Thank you for putting forth so many logical points. I could not have worded it like this, and am so happy you did!
Fantastic letter hitting this progressive ‘fantasy’ squarely on the head!!
I couldn’t agree more! Very well said.
Barbara shared this information and link on March 23rd as one of the first comments after the letter.
I am wondering if everyone who follows the link below realizes the information on that page was last updated in 1997??? Maybe there is a more current reference that could be provided?
Barbara March 23, 2018 at 8:14 pm
UN Agenda21 – Canada
‘Economic Aspects Of Sustainable Development In Canada’
Webpages at:
http://www.un.org/esa/agenda21/natlinfo/countr/canada/eco.htm
Exactly what I’ve been saying for quite a while now. This letter is spot on.
A fabulous treatise to “reason” i would add the carbon emissions from forest fires in BC last year should have caused a huge rise in temperatures but for some reason we were really cold with lots of precipitation – thank God for hydro carbons enabling effective fire fighting. – even if a fire started from a careless humans cigarette, the forest by my house was ready for a forest fire that cleaned the forest floor , killed bad bugs and prepped the soil for new forest – we couldnt see the mountain side for 3 weeks this summer because of terrible carbon laced smoke – pity!!!
But a natural phenomena