Hypothesis: Radical Greens are the Great Killers of Our Age
By Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng.
1. Introduction.
On December 6, 2018 I was informed in a letter from the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) that I was “the 2019 Summit Award recipient of the Centennial Leadership Award. This is APEGA’s most prestigious award and is given to members of APEGA in recognition of continued leadership in the profession and in the community, attaining the highest distinction relating to engineering or geoscience.” That award has now been withdrawn by the Executive and the unanimous vote of APEGA Council, because of posts I wrote on wattsupwiththat.com
Two of my several accomplishments that resulted in the Centennial Award were:
· Innovations, by myself or with colleagues, which created 500,000 jobs, caused $250 billion in capital investment in Alberta and made Canada the fifth-largest oil producer in the world;
· Taking decisive actions that incurred significant personal risks when staff at the Mazeppa sour gas project were afraid to act, which may have saved up to 300,000 lives in Calgary.
For brevity, I have not included in this treatise all the details and references that support my statements. For the record, I have two engineering degrees related to the earth sciences, have worked on six continents, and have diligently studied the subject fields since 1985. In the late 1960s I was a member of an environmental group at Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, which predated Greenpeace. We focused on real air, water and soil pollution, which was largely cleaned up by the 1980’s and 1990’s.
APEGA objected to my following posts, which were written as my personal opinions:
“In the 20th Century, socialists Stalin, Hitler and Mao caused the deaths of over 200 million people, mostly their own citizens. Lesser killers like Pol Pot and the many tin-pot dictators of South America and Africa killed and destroyed the lives of many more.
Modern Green Death probably started with the 1972-2002 effective ban of DDT, which caused global deaths from malaria to increase from about 1 million to almost two million per year. Most of these deaths were children under five in sub-Saharan Africa – just babies for Christ’s sake!”
– February 1, 2019
“…radical greens (really radical leftists) are the great killers of our time. Now the greens are blinding and killing babies by opposing golden rice…” – March 10, 2019
“The Green movement is really a smokescreen for the old Marxists – and they are the great killers of our age.” – March 11, 2019
APEGA refused to discuss the evidence, and baselessly claimed the moral high ground.
2. My hypothesis is that “Radical Greens are the Great Killers of Our Age”.
Here is some of the supporting evidence:
- The banning of DDT from ~1972 to 2002, which caused the malaria deaths of tens of millions of children under five years of age, and sickened and killed many more adults and children;
https://iea.org.uk/publications/research/malaria-and-the-ddt-story
- The fierce green opposition to golden rice, actions that blinded and killed millions of children;
https://reason.com/blog/2013/09/30/scientists-call-out-greenpeace-for-killi
https://reason.com/blog/2016/06/29/100-nobel-laureates-demand-that-greenpea
https://reason.com/blog/2019/03/07/life-saving-golden-rice-finally-gets-to - The misallocation of scarce global resources for destructive intermittent “green energy” schemes, which are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy;
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/green-energy-revolution-near-impossible - Properly allocated, a fraction of the trillions of dollars squandered on green energy schemes could have installed clean drinking water and sanitation systems into every community on the planet, saving the lives of many tens of millions of children and adults; the remaining funds could have significantly reduced deaths from malaria and malnutrition;
Global Crises, Global Solutions, The 1st Copenhagen Consensus, edited by Bjørn Lomborg, 2004,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 648 pp. - The number of Excess Winter Deaths and shattered lives caused by runaway energy costs in the developed world and lack of access to modern energy in the developing world probably exceeds the tens of millions of malaria deaths caused by the DDT ban; Excess Winter Deaths (more deaths in winter than non-winter months) total about two million souls per year, which demonstrates that Earth is colder-than-optimum for humanity;
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf - Indoor air pollution from cooking fires kills many women and children in the developing world;
https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2004/statement5/en/ - In addition to runaway energy costs and increased winter deaths, intermittent wind and solar power schemes have reduced grid reliability and increased the risk of power outages;
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/eonwindreport2005.pdf
https://www.thegwpf.com/increasing-electricity-system-fragility-in-the-uk/ - Huge areas of agricultural land have been diverted from growing food to biofuels production, driving up food costs and causing hunger among the world’s poorest people.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2430252/
3. There is NO credible scientific evidence that climate is highly sensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2, and ample evidence to the contrary. Catastrophic humanmade global warming is a false crisis.
Competent scientists have known this fact for decades. In a written debate in 2002 sponsored by APEGA and co-authored on our side by Dr. Sallie Baliunas, Dr. Tim Patterson and me, we concluded:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”
Many scientific observations demonstrate that both these statements are correct-to-date.
The current usage of the term “climate change” is vague and the definition is routinely changed in the literature, such that it has become a non-falsifiable hypothesis. It is therefore non-scientific nonsense.
“A theory that is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific.” – Karl Popper
Climate has always changed. Current climate is not unusual and is beneficial to humanity and the environment. Earth is in a ~10,000 year warm period during a ~100,000 year cycle of global ice ages.
The term “catastrophic human-made global warming” is a falsifiable hypothesis, and it was falsified decades ago – when fossil fuel combustion and atmospheric CO2 increased sharply after ~1940, while global temperature cooled from ~1945 to ~1977. Also, there is no credible evidence that weather is becoming more chaotic – both hurricanes and tornadoes are at multi-decade low levels of activity.
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/11/Khandekar-Extreme-Weather.pdf
Even if all the observed global warming is ascribed to increasing atmospheric CO2, the calculated maximum climate sensitivity to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 is only about 1 degree C, which is not enough to produce dangerous global warming. https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/2017_christy_mcnider-1.pdf
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1
Climate computer models cited by the IPCC and other climate activists employ much higher assumed sensitivity values that create false alarm. The ability to predict is perhaps the most objective measure of scientific competence. All the scary predictions by climate activists of dangerous global warming and wilder weather have proven false-to-date – a perfectly negative predictive track record.
Based on current knowledge, the only significant impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 is greatly increased plant and crop yields, and possibly some minor beneficial warming of climate.
4. Humanity needs modern energy to survive – to grow and transport our food and provide shelter, warmth and ~everything we need to live. Green energy schemes have been costly failures.
Fully ~85% of global primary energy is from fossil fuels – oil, coal and natural gas. The remaining ~15% is almost all nuclear and hydro. Green energy has increased from above 1% to less than 2%, despite many trillions of dollars in wasted subsidies. The 85% fossil fuels component is essentially unchanged in past decades, and is unlikely to significantly change in future decades.
https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html
The fatal flaw of grid-connected green energy is that it is not green and produces little useful (dispatchable) energy, primarily due to intermittency – the wind does not blow all the time, and the Sun shines only part of the day. Intermittent grid-connected green energy requires almost 100% backup (“spinning reserve”) from conventional energy sources. Renewable wind and solar electrical generation schemes typically do not even significantly reduce CO2 emissions – all they do is increase energy costs.
Claims that grid-scale energy storage will solve the intermittency problem have proven false to date. The only proven grid-scale “super-battery” is pumped storage, and suitable sites are rare – Alberta is bigger than many countries, and has no sites suitable for grid-scale pumped storage systems.
https://www.thegwpf.org/new-paper-grid-scale-electricity-storage-cant-save-renewables/
5. The trillions of dollars of scarce global resources wasted on global warming hysteria, anti-fossil fuel fanaticism and green energy schemes, properly deployed, could have improved and saved many lives.
About two million children below the age of five die from contaminated water every year – about 70 million dead kids since the advent of global warming alarmism. Bjørn Lomborg estimates that a fraction of these squandered green energy funds could have put clean water and sanitation systems into every community in the world.
Waste of funds and loss of opportunity due to global warming alarmism and green energy nonsense have harmed people around the world. In North America and Europe, trillions of dollars have been wasted on grid-connected green energy schemes that have increased energy costs, increased winter mortality, and reduced the stability of vital electrical grids.
https://www.thegwpf.com/germany-risks-complete-loss-of-control-of-energiewende-federal-audit-office-warns/
In the developing world, the installation of electrical energy grids has been stalled for decades due to false global warming alarmism.
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2014/09/27/lighting-a-dark-continent
Last winter England and Wales experienced over 50,000 excess winter deaths. That British per-capita excess winter death rate was ~three times the average excess winter death rate of the USA and Canada.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/excess-winter-mortality-in-england-and-wales-2017-to-2018-provisional-and-2016-to-2017-final
Energy costs are much higher in Britain, due to radical green opposition to the fracking of gassy shales.
https://www.thegwpf.org/uk-media-coverage-of-shale-gas-is-hopelessly-biased/
The anti-oil-pipeline campaign has cost ~$120 billion dollars in lost oil revenues and destroyed ~200,000 jobs in Alberta and across Canada. This is an enormous financial and job loss for Canada.
https://www.canadaaction.ca/wcs_vs_wti_price_differential_big_for_canada
https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/gwyn-morgan-talk-about-collusion-how-foreign-backed-anti-oil-activists-infiltrated-canadas-government
The funds wasted on baseless global warming hysteria, anti-fossil-fuel fanaticism and destructive green energy schemes, properly deployed, could have saved or improved the lives of many millions of people.
6. The conduct of climate activists has been destructive, deceitful and violent.
Global warming alarmists have shouted down legitimate debate and committed deceitful and violent acts in support of their false cause.
The Climategate emails provide irrefutable evidence of scientific collusion and fraudulent misconduct.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf
In Canada, skeptic climatologist Dr. Tim Ball and other skeptics have received threats, and buildings related to the energy industry including the Calgary Petroleum Club were firebombed. In the USA, skeptic scientists have had their homes invaded, and several highly competent skeptic scientists have been harassed and driven from their academic posts.
7. Radical greens have caused enormous harm to the environment, for example:
· Clear-cutting the tropical rainforests to grow sugar cane and palm oil for biofuels;
· Rapid draining of the vital Ogallala aquifer in the USA for corn ethanol and biodiesel production;
· Clear-cutting forests in the eastern USA to provide wood for the Drax power plant in Britain;
· Destructive bird-and-bat-chopping wind power turbines.
8. Why are the radical greens so anti-environmental?
Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder and Past-President of Greenpeace, provided the answer decades ago. Moore observed that Eco-Extremism is the new “false-front” for economic Marxists, who were discredited after the fall of the Soviet Union circa 1990 and took over the Green movement to further their political objectives. This is described in Moore’s essay, “Hard Choices for the Environmental Movement” written in 1994 – note especially “The Rise of Eco-Extremism”, at
http://ecosense.me/2012/12/30/key-environmental-issues-4/
For radical greens, it was never about the environment – the environment was a smokescreen for their extreme-left totalitarian political objectives.
To better understand radical green objectives, see http://www.green-agenda.com/, excerpted below:
· “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations
· “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
– Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
· “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
· “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.”
– Christopher Manes, Earth First!
· “A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
– Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
· “One American burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
– Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier
· “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
· “I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
· “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
· “The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival or millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth – social and environmental.”
– Ingrid Newkirk, former President of PETA
· “The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
– David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club, founder of Friends of the Earth
9. Conclusion
The evidence strongly supports my hypothesis that “Radical Greens are the Great Killers of Our Age”.
The number of deaths and shattered lives caused by radical-green activism since ~1970 rivals the death tolls of the great killers of the 20th Century – Stalin, Hitler and Mao – they advocate similar extreme-left totalitarian policies and are indifferent to the resulting environmental damage and human suffering.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It should be mentioned that DDT was never banned for use as a malaria controller. It was banned
for agricultural use. It has been used continuously as an anti-mosquito pesticide to control malaria.
The issue is then of course that mosquitos have evolved to be resistant to DDT. So there is not evidence
that a ban on DDT has caused any excess of deaths due to malaria since to begin with there was no such
ban.
Similarly opposing golden rice has not caused any increases in blindness since there are plenty of
alternatives. It is easy to fortify food to contain vitamin A. So what is lacking is a lack of desire to
fix the problem since it doesn’t cost that much especially compared to the nearly 1 trillion dollars
that the US spends on the military every year.
Exactly.
Shut up griff. You’re not fit to lick Allan’s boots.
Mr MacRae holds his opinions very dearly, but that is all they are: opinions, most of them completely unfounded it seems. Alan opinions change all the time your will too. Likening environmentalism to Nazism is more than a bit nutty.
Loydo
And your opinions on the matter are founded on what, the nutty 97%?
Loydo your comment is straight out of the Marx book of social engagement.
“These are my principles if you don’t like them I have plenty more for you to look at”..
Groucho Marx.
Loydo
When you are old enough to go to school they are going to teach you history. And if your reading abilities are good enough you will understand how enviromentalisms roots are deep in national socialisms doctrines.
Then you will see the light, if you want to see. If you don´t want to see, you are history denier like your thougts impress to be.
Before that you should stop your “ad hominem” attacs, because they makes you look very stupid. But it´s very good you use them because it´s an evidence of sour loser.
Thank you for that, and now you can go trolling somewhere where your capabilities are adequate.
Loydo, would you care to back up your claims?
Mr. MacRae did.
The fact that activists use environmentalism as an excuse to control the lives of others is very much akin to Nazism.
By the way, you really need to learn the difference between an opinion, and facts that don’t fit your agenda.
opposing golden rice has not caused any increases
=========
It hasn’t caused a decrease either. Any solution that raises costs is not a solution. It is a new problem.
Evidence.
Not that any of you people know what that is!
It was effectively banned in many countries, and the resulting difficulty in buying DDT is responsible of a huge number of deaths, exceeding the civil war in Rwanda.
The path the hell is paved with good intentions.
Could you tell us which of Allan MacRae’s assertions are false?
One of my lecturers was involved in ridding Rome of Malaria after WW2.
He and his team was successful using DDT.
One of the points made in lectures was that when DDT was banned it was replaced by ‘alternatives’ that were extremely toxic, such as organophosphates. So the replacements were not ‘alternatives’.
The net is full of articles describing how DDT was restricted for the control of Malaria.
‘Similarly opposing golden rice has not caused any increases in blindness since there are plenty of
alternatives.’
Well, sort of.
Most of the places involved do not have meat based diets,with liver, a rich source of Vit A an available commodity.
Some cultures will not eat any meat anyway.
Were the rice bowls of the near east and south east asia allowed this product, distribution would be immediate without any new infrastructure.
This then saves lives, a worthwhile endeavour.
If babies are dying and going blind it is due to problems distributing the glut of food in rich countries where is it wasted in unbelievable quantities. To pretend that accepting genetically modified forms of life is the only solution is a disingenuous rant which is just as much a partisan opinion as the green zealots he is complaining about.
However, none of this undermines the accomplishments the award was given for and there is no grounds for “removing” it.
Why do poor nations have rely on rich countries to solve their problems? Golden rice puts the problem solving power into the hands of those that have the problem. makes perfect sense.
Nobody says it is the only solution. Nobody said it was the only solution. Nobody (reasonable) is going to say it will be the only solution.
Growing the modified rice in the countries that need it would allow significant improvement in the ability to access needed nutrients.
Fighting against that improvement, based on some sort of cost/benefit justification, would be rational; insinuating that rich countries, which have a glut of food that is thrown away, is the problem which causes nutritional maladies is not rational.
I think the real argument falls between the classic give a man a fish or teach a man to fish scenarios. I have no opinion on the nutritional value of anything, but if you believe shipping food to starving people forever is better than giving them the means, and teaching them to be self sustaining, there’s nothing to discuss with you. If the land can’t feed the local population, the population shouldn’t be there. It is by definition an unsustainable scenario.
@ur momisugly Izaak Walton april 14, 2019
DDT was effectively banned, through US AID.
Leaders of 3rd world countries were told: “Order DDT & you get no more foreign aid” They were bribed to let their people die.
And they let their people die, in the millions.
I’ve read 50 million. I’ve read 100 million. I’ve read 150 million.
A true holocaust. A true crime against humanity.
Mankind has also been denied safe & clean nuclear power,
& the planet is not over populated.
Book by nuclear PhD engineer Robert Zubrin, who has 9 patents to his name, or pending:
Merchants Of Despair, Radical Environmentalists, Criminal Pseudo-Scientists, and the Fatal Cult of Antihumanism.
“especially compared to the nearly 1 trillion dollars
that the US spends on the military every year.”
We wish! I think last year’s military budget was $615 billion.
It really is fascinating how the left is so convinced that if only the US spent less on defense, then the world could be perfected.
I wonder what Steve Milloy would say about your comments. I trust his knowledge over yours. For example where is your evidence supporting your claims.
have to agree, Allans work is good but..the billions spent on the first g rice and then corn now 2nd g rice would have provided supplements or local options for VitA nothing but poverty is the cause ..if you cant BUY food then solve that problem.
re DDT it WAS abused heavily and does target other than intended mozzies limited controlled use in homes and limited external use in malaria areas was allowed.
im curious as to what people used in those infested areas ages ago because if it as bad as supposed to be then thered be no one left over centuries of living in toxic areas?
indians used neem I gather, plentiful cheap and not so toxic to environment
The US government has a mandate to spend money on the military. The US government has no requirement to spend a dime on other countries, although it spends many millions on humanitarian causes.
And this is how the left lies:
“opposing golden rice has not caused any increases in blindness”
Of course, opposing a cure doesn’t cause an increase in the disease. What it does is cause the deaths of those who could have been saved.
DDT was never banned formally.
However countries were informed that unless they stopped using it completely, they would lose all aid.
Exactly. The greenies in the US, Europe, etc put heavy pressure on any DDT manufacturers to stop/extremely curtail producing it. It worked quite well.
Izaak Walton – your statement is false.
DDT was effectively banned for malaria control from 1972 to 2002 and deaths from malaria ~doubled. More than half these millions of preventable deaths were children under five.
The usual expletives are inadequate to describe the perpetrators of this horrific crime, or their supporters today.
The BBC and the Synod of the Church of England have blood on their hands
A ridiculous and stupid remark.
You would know all about that as you make enough.
As usual, the truth offends the great and powerful griff.
DDT is of course not banned for combatting DDT and is still used for that purpose. So you have to claim ‘it was effectively banned’… well yes, its use is restricted because of its environmental impact (for example, it nearly wiped out the birds of prey in the UK which people now wrongly claim are being killed by wind turbines)
Any serious look at the world wide campaign against malaria will show it was already faltering and showing diminishing returns before DDT use dropped off.
So this article does not even get its facts right, before going on to make ridiculous allegations of murder.
“Any serious look at the world wide campaign against malaria will show it was already faltering and showing diminishing returns before DDT use dropped off.”
Certainly doesn’t look like it to me. What I see from the graph is a huge increase AFTER the ban, not that the extra deaths will bother you.
It was never banned, however those who received US aid were informed that unless they stopped using it, US aid would stop.
A very good description of the “Climate scare” project. It is not a scientific project. It is a power political project with two main components. Global power and malthuism.
Anthony, I know you live in Chico. I attend CSU Chico. This week, the entire campus will be voting on a measure which will cause EVERY course to include climate change in its curriculum. It does not matter what the course is, it MUST include climate change as part of its course. I believe the vote is taking place on Wednesday. Just a head’s up.
In high schools and middle schools they are requiring some type of “cross over” education in different types of classes. For example, in history, include math in some way; in math, include history in some way; in social studies, include a section that ties into environmental/climate.
This ensures that the climate message can get passed along, even though the only zealots in the school are teaching history & social studies.
Looks like Chico doesn’t think they need the subtlety.
One could equally argue that heroin is not banned because if can also be obtained legally.
Malaria has killed more people than all other diseases combined. Way more. Malaria is that devastating a disease.
The reality is that DDT was banned only after it was used to eradicate malaria in the developed world. It would never have been banned otherwise. This ban made it near impossible to get DDT for human disease protection.
In an interesting sideline, the Canadian Indigenous Music Awards committee
was asked to revoke a name because a Canadian Cree has some Inuit throat
singing on her album nominated for best folk album.
The chairman of the board of the festival careful explained why they would
not do as requested.
The Cree singer’s name is Connie LeGrande, performing as Cikwes.
David Dandeneau gets credit for explaining why “everybody loses” if Cikwes is excluded.
Hope that is enough info for you to find and read of this. I saw this in the WSJ, that is by subscription.
Very interesting, but as my son now 62 says “By the time that the average man and women comes home from work, they are tired. So all they want to do is to make some food to eat and to then watch what is on offer on the “Free to air TV””
Sadly we will have to wait until the economy starts to collapse as the result of ever higher costs of energy, then just like in Par we will see some people out in the street s.
Then as usual the politicians will finally decide that CO2 s good after all,and will offer to repair the damage, just as long as we vote for the of course.
MJE VK5ELL
The radical green are even killing themselves:
Trudeau is a liar,” Suzuki says. “For me, that’s the charge. He’s an out-and-out liar.
https://ipolitics.ca/2017/02/23/hes-a-liar-why-the-left-coast-may-be-writing-off-justin-trudeau/
Suzuki 1972 ( Warns of the Dangers of Anointing Scientists as new High Priests of Society )
David Suzuki on science, elitism and the apocalypse (1972)
Suzuki talks about the politics of science and the science of politics
“This is the kind of Priesthood that is evolving. The kind of Priesthood that has an impact on general society that I think is very profound”
http://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1828006140
Suzuki, himself became one of the High Priests. He has no excuse because he warned of the dangers quite cogently back in 1972.
Allan.
Enraged.
The green blob strikes again.
HotScot,
Are you asked in another comment: Evidence? Do you have any evidence
about the political views of the executive and council of the APEGA?
Well Izaak,
It is very obvious that they are hard core right wing, conservative, pro-business, anti-science deniers.
And they pulled the award, only in a covert attempt to try to keep their nasty biases undercover.
Izzak,
Their action speaks volumes.
Radical Greens are the Great Killers of Our Age
And how they wish for a disaster or three or four…
“If we want a good environmental policy in the future, we’ll have to have a disaster.” — Sir John Houghton, former co-chairman of the IPCC, Sunday Telegraph, Oct. 9, 1995
“I sometimes wish we could have, over the next five or ten years, a lot of horrid things happening—you know, like tornadoes in the Midwest and so forth—that would get people very concerned about climate change.” —Thomas Schelling, Economist, Atlantic Wire, July 13, 2009
And Phil the Greek ( consort of Elisabeth Windsor – queen)
“If I return to this life I want to come back as a (destructive) virus”
Interestingly the NSW, Australia, state election was preceded by Jeremy Buckingham, a once influential Green party member leaving, because of alleged Marxist and ‘hard left’ influence.
‘The NSW Greens is a party that has abandoned the important principles of justice and democracy, is dominated by an extreme left faction and has lost its focus on the environment.’
‘…….. he labelled “quasi-communist”, he said the party had been consumed by “divisive identity politics” and “an anti-capitalism agenda”.’
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/ripping-up-my-membership-jeremy-buckingham-quits-toxic-greens-to-run-as-an-independent-20181220-p50nec.html
It looks as if there is pattern recognition here with the above article.
Allan MacRae has spoken for the most poor and disposessed, earning the ire of this organisation.
as is written,
’36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?’
Perhaps the APEGA could reflect and reconsider.
Its own integrity is now in question.
You are solid ground with your assertions. Environmentalism is yet another expression of the same core values that justify the imposition of Utopia on every person it can. But notice that Utopia is always a socialist one. It is never anything other than socialism. The reason the yearning for Utopia never dies is that the desire springs from innate spiritual qualities of humanity, the yearning for Utopia. But as we have seen, every instance of national-scale socialist-Utopia only brings suffering, misery, scarcity, environmental degradation, oppression and death despite the express desire to build a society that is exactly the opposite. Truth, reason and logic are always the first values to be sacrificed for this sacred cause. Thus truth itself becomes malleable and plastic for this great cause.
The horrible and bloody history of attempts to impose Utopia has no effect on the advocates of socialism because they have immunized themselves from facts. In their ideology, the ends are so beneficial to humanity and are so compelling in their minds that they do not hesitate to impose any cost or any burden on others to make it possible. In essence they are willing to consume and liquidate any and all human resources and redistribute them to those who might survive. These yearnings spring from very very deep in the human soul.
“The more we come to know about the gnosis of antiquity, the more it becomes certain that modern movements of thought, such as progressivism, positivism, Hegelianism, and Marxism, are variants of gnosticism.”
— Eric Voegelin, Science Politics and Gnosticism, Two Essays, 1968.
“Marx took from Hegel two basic themes of Gnosticism, which Hegel had secularized, and re-interpreted them in his own way: viz. the cosmic drama of a fall into alienation from nature and one’s fellow men, and the saving knowledge, Marxism, which explains this and the way out of alienation back to an unalienated existence. But in one central respect Marx did not fully learn the lesson that Hegel had to teach him about modifying ancient Gnosticism.
“The Gnostic texts state that we are sparks of Light or fragments of Spirit (pneuma), and imply that we are distinct from each other and from the Light or Spirit only because of our fall or seduction into the circles of the world. As we fell through each circle, we were clothed with an outer covering. The return to the Light will be a reversal of that process, so that, as we pass back through each circle we shall strip off each coating. Consequently, but this is never stated, as far as I know, at the end of that process each spark or fragment will cease to be distinct and will merge back into the One Light or Spirit. Hence the End will be the same as the Beginning.”
From Flew, Marx and Gnosticism, by R.T. Allen,
Philosophy Vol 68, No 263, (Jan, 1993),
pp. 94-98
Bertrand Russell on Lenin
http://skepticva.org/excerpt-Lenin.html
“…When I suggested that whatever is possible in England can be achieved without bloodshed, he waved aside the suggestion as fantastic. I got little impression of knowledge or psychological imagination as regards Great Britain. Indeed the whole tendency of Marxianism is against psychological imagination, since it attributes everything in politics to purely material causes…”
“…Perhaps love of liberty is incompatible with whole-hearted belief in a panacea for all human ills. If so, I cannot but rejoice in the sceptical temper of the Western world.
I went to Russia a Communist; but contact with those who have no doubts has intensified a thousandfold my own doubts, not as to Communism in itself, but as to the wisdom of holding a creed so firmly that for its sake men are willing to inflict widespread misery.”
“Even if all the observed global warming is ascribed to increasing atmospheric CO2, the calculated maximum climate sensitivity to a hypothetical doubling of atmospheric CO2 is only about 1 degree C, which is not enough to produce dangerous global warming.”
So why do the Alarmists ascribe all or most of the current warming to CO2? Because they believe we are living in the hottest period in human history because they have been fooled into thinking the bogus Hockey Stick charts are real depictions of the climate trend.
Here’s one of those bogus Hockey Stick charts:
And here is a chart for CO2:
As you can see, the Climategate data manipulators managed to change the global surface temperature chart so it looks very similar to the CO2 chart. If you look at those two charts you would think that the temperatures are climbing in concert with CO2 levels climbing. And, of course, that was the purpose of this fraud, to make the temperatures look like they corrolate with the rise in CO2. It’s perfectly natural to assume that if you think you are looking at legitimate data.
But you are not looking at legitimate data. You are looking at temperature data that has been tampered with to push a political agenda: CAGW, which requires totalitarian government to fix.
Here is the real global surface temperature profile, Hansen 1999:
As you can see, the temperatures cool and then the temperatures warm and then the temperatures cool again, down to about the same level as the previous cooling, then the temperatures warm again, back up to the level of the previous warming with a period of about 30-35 years.
The IPCC says CO2 was not a factor in the ETCW (Early Twentieth Century Warming) from 1910 to 1940.
Here’s a chart of the levels of CO2 over this time period:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Simple-CO2-model-Boden-CO2-input.jpg
So, the warming from 1910 to 1940 was mostly caused by Mother Nature, even according to the IPCC, but the IPCC says the warming from the 1970’s to 1998, was caused mostly by CO2.
But why does CO2 have to be the cause? We see that Mother Nature caused the temperatures to reach the peak in the 1930’s and the peak in 1998 is no higher than the 1930’s, so why should we assume that one is caused by Mother Nature but not the other one?
The real global surface temperature charts do not show that we are experiencing unprecedented warming today, they show we are experiencing the same level of warming as we had during the 1930’s. Btw, 2016 was only one-tenth of a degree warmer than 1998, so 2016 was no warmer than the 1930’s, either. We are not experiencing unprecedented warmth today.
Which goes to Allan’s point above. That 1.?C estimate of ECS is based on CO2 causing all the increased warmth we see today, but if even half of it is caused by Mother Nature, then there is no problem to fix, and my guess is that most of today’s warming is caused by Mother Nature, not just half of it because we have seen it all before in the recent past. There is no need to push CO2 as causing unprecedented warming because there is no unprecendented warming.
And for those who will say the Hansen 1999 chart only represents the U.S., here’s an unmodified chart from Finland, halfway around the world from the U.S., that shows the same temperature profile: the 1930’s were as warm as today:
And I have other unmodified charts from around the world and in both hemispheres that show this same temperature profile.
NO unmodified temperature charts resemble the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart. It’s the creation of fraudsters trying to sell an idea.
I hope this post doesn’t get put in the spam bin with all these links! 🙂
It would be real handy if these links would show up as graphics in the post like they used to do before the crash and downgrade of the comment software.
But who allows radical greens to influence policy?
There will always be some village idiot telling us to stop tilling the fields and, instead, spend our time dancing around the May Pole, dusk to dawn. But most of the time the Lord of the Manor will, at best, tolerate such a person.
Today, our leaders elevate such people to sit at their right hand and write policy and law.
Obama’s senior advisor on science and technology was John Holdren; Malthusian in chief, and co-author with Paul R. Ehrlich.
UK Tory Business Minister Claire Perry held meetings with the Extinction Rebellion (XR) group at a climate change conference in Poland in November. XR are an anarchist direct action group, using climate change as a pretext to promote anarchy.
Just over 10 years ago, UK Labour Party outsourced authorship of their Climate Change Act to Friends of the Earth activists. Out of 650 UK MPs only 5 voted against it. Less than 1%.
The EU regularly lavishes millions of euros on hard green groups to lobby for bans on reasonable policies such as using cell phones, and investing in nano-technology. MEP proposes €1bn for NGOs supporting ‘EU values’
The hard core of the Green movement consists of people who do not like their fellow humans very much, who are offended at the success of our species at this moment in history, and who would gladly bring civilization crashing down if they could.
How do you cut humans down to size? Simple: You take away their energy source. Soon their civilizations collapse and before you know it, they’s just another life form struggling to survive. Sure billions would die miserable, lingering deaths, but the planet would be saved so it’s a good deal.
S Snell
…”How do you cut humans down to size? Simple: You take away their energy source.”
Exactly! Everytime I am crammed into the sardine section of an Airbus I remind myself that it would take 70,000 horses or 350,000 galley slaves at max exertion to get us off the ground…. it makes the cabin seem less crowded! Thank God for ATK.
Cheers
Mike
Seventy thousand winged horses would be quite a sight!
In seriousness, the energy density and portability of fossil fuels make modern life possible.
Which is why we must KILL THEM NOW!
Meaning of ATK?
Today’s environmental terrorists are exactly what Ayn Rand described as the Death Cult of Zero Worship in Atlas Shrugged.
Dear Allan,
Disregard the accolades – Too many of the institutions who issue them have sold out.
Keep up the good work. At the end of the day, it will yield the ultimate reward: Truth. The corrupt will then be left where they belong.
“Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”
-Einstein, in response to the book produced under
the 3rd Reich: “Hundred Authors Against Einstein”
Thank you Philip for your thoughtful words.
Awards are nice and all, but my only regret is the time my sponsors spent preparing the nomination documents. My true reward is the 300,000 people who are still alive today, possibly because of my high-risk efforts in 2016 to shut down the Mazeppa sour gas project, and the 500,000 people who got good jobs, definitely because of my/our work in earlier decades.
The Mazeppa project included 12 sour gas wells producing 40% H2S within ~one mile of heavily populated SE Calgary suburbs. H2S is instantly fatal at 0.1% concentration and is heavier-than-air. The kill-radius of Mazeppa wells was ~15km and by 2016 included ~300,000 people.
For two years, I was angry because I had to put my family and myself at risk because staff at the Mazeppa project were afraid to report the extreme H2S danger. Then last summer, I was relaxing with friends at Mackenzie Lake in SE Calgary, with all the beautiful families enjoying the sunshine, and it all started to feel pretty good.
Best, Allan
Two things: corrections and offer of support
“Excess Winter Deaths (more deaths in winter than non-winter months) total about two million souls per year, which demonstrates that Earth is colder-than-optimum for humanity”
I think this number (related to chronic underheating is low. Please see Gasparrini 2015 on deaths related to heat waves and cold snaps.
The reference to “deaths from cooking fire smoke” is out of date and incorrectly represented. The claim is an attribution, not an analysis of causes of death, and it is stated as “contributing to the premature deaths of [xxx people] from smoke from indoor air pollution cause by cooking fires” not “deaths caused by”. I hope that difference is not too subtle.
No one claims there were 4.3 m people who died as a result of breathing smoke from cooking. The claim is that cooking smoke contributes to everyone’s premature death. Cooking fire smoke is a source of indoor air pollution (IAP) which is part of Household Air Pollution (HAP). Cooking fires can be a source of IAP which is a component of HAP – got it?
The WHO has been steadily ramping up the number and if you dig into it, all of these are attributed during several processes. It is death by attribution. Some people “attribute” global warming to AG CO2. It’s a free world.
For completeness, I would add that “life expectancy” is set at 86 years and anyone who died before that is claimed to have died “prematurely” and that gap in lived years is “attributed” to some 75 contributing causes. One is IAP from cooking fires. That attribution doesn’t mean that any one person actually died from breathing smoke, which would be a “cause of death”. Obviously it is in the interests of alarmists to pretend they did from that, if they are promoting a cleaner burning product or fuel. The World LP Gas association is big on promoting their fossil fuel as a replacement for renewable biomass on the basis of “avoiding deaths”. Go figure.
Thank you Javier for your comments.
1. In 2015, Joe d’Aleo and I were about to publish our paper on Excess Winter deaths when Gasparrini et al published their landmark study in The Lancet. We pulled our article and rewrote it to include Gasparrini – our paper is cited above. The 2 million Excess Winter Deaths per year globally is my rough estimate – I agree it is probably low.
2. If I were rewriting this treatise, I would state that “Indoor air pollution from cooking fires contributes to illness and premature death in the developing world, especially among women and children;”
It was challenging to limit this treatise to seven pages – every one of these very serious topics would be well-served with more detailed discussion.
Best, Allan
Climate alarmism, the propagandistic marketing of the meme of CAGW, is most simply understood as a war on the poor.
It is very shameful behaviour. The plants already understand it, wait’ll hoi polloi notes no joy. The poor will always be with us and no body knows the trouble they’ve seen.
===============================
Allan,
How about starting a Go Fund Me and take APEGGA Board to court. Their behaviour is unethical and this board should all be reported to the APEGGA ethics committee. The ethics committee can remove the P. ENG title from the board members for their unethical behaviour.
APEGGA has a sad track record when it comes to ethics. When flooding occurred in Calgary APEGGA threatened Meloche-Monnex to remove them from their vendors unless they paid out full insurance coverage to affected owners DESPITE the fact that the insurance contract they held with home owners stipulated no insurance for overland flooding. This bullying behaviour contrary to contractual law is highly unethical. Professional Engineers are required to behave ethically and uphold the law.
Allan,
I would like to see you place here a scan of the letter you received from the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) in December 2018 stating that you would be the 2019 recipient of their Centennial Leadership Award. It is important that this evidence be included as well as a copy of the notification that the reward was being rescinded.
There is currently nothing to be found in the public portion of the APEGA website regarding their Summit awards since the announcement of all 2018 Summit Award winners: https://www.apega.ca/news/environmental-champion-receives-summit
It appears that the Annual Meeting and Conference is being held April 25-26 2019 and the awards will be presented then.
Without such public evidence, this incident of award and then withdrawal could be denied by APEGA and disappear down the history memory rabbit-hole. Don’t let this happen.
Funny that Michael Mann’s award for integrity was not revoked.
Today is a hard day for our friends in France. Notre-Dame is down, but she will rise again.
If Americans want to contribute to the rebuild, this site appears legitimate and donations are tax-deductible in the USA and France.
Thanks and regards to all, Allan
https://frenchheritagesociety.org/event/notre-dame-fire-restoration-fund/
Notre-Dame Fire Restoration Fund
Monday, April 15, 8:00 am – 5:00 pm
Event Navigation
The hearts of all of us at French Heritage Society go out to the city of Paris and all of France in the wake of the terrible fire at the Notre-Dame Cathedral.
French Heritage Society, Inc., a 501(c)(3) organization, has established a fund to accept donations for the restoration work that will be necessary as a result of the devastating fire at the Cathedral of Notre-Dame in Paris.
Donations are tax-deductible under US Tax laws and eligible for tax credit under French tax laws.
When sending donations please indicate that the amount is for the Notre-Dame Fire Restoration Fund.
You can make donations online using the link below.
Notre-Dame Fire Restoration Fund
To donate by phone, please contact Benjamin Wells, FHS Programs and Membership Officer, at 212-759-6846, ext. 201. To donate by mail, please send checks to:
French Heritage Society, Inc.
Notre-Dame Fire Restoration Fund
14 East 60th Street, Suite 605
New York, NY 10022
FHS is dedicated to protecting the French architectural legacy both in France and the United States with particular emphasis on preservation and education. It fosters long-established French-American relationships through cultural exchanges as it strives to ensure that the treasures of our shared heritage will survive to inspire future generations.
Its eleven chapters in the U.S. and one in Paris have supported the restoration of nearly 600 buildings and gardens since 1982.
Here is the proper link for donations:
https://www.paypal.com/donate/?token=eEVK81I8GY0uRJTsIBDhAJV9nol4OuXqzakcB212nhfIp1qBysnFnhnadGlSkuTiYlKWH0&country.x=US&locale.x=US