Ottawa, Canada, April 22, 2013: “Earth Day participants must distance themselves from the climate scare or risk the event degenerating into irrelevance,” said Tom Harris, executive director of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). Noting the intense climate focus in this year’s Earth Day Network advertising, Harris warned, “As the hypothesis that humanity’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are causing dangerous global warming falls into disrepute, all those associated with the climate alarm will also lose credibility.”
Tom Harris
Overconfidence: the Achilles heel of global warming alarmists
What Canada 2020 panelists and organizers seem to not understand is that all planning for the future involves sensible risk assessment. This includes considering, not just the possible impacts of climate change, but also the likelihood of them actually coming about. And that means dealing with uncertainties. Lecturing Canadians about fictional global warming certainty when future climate states are anything but certain, does us all a disservice and, in the long run will sway no one not already committed to the scare.
Canadian government joins Alberta premier in climate change/pipeline fantasy lobbying
Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said. “One can’t believe impossible things." “I dare say you haven’t had much practice,” said the queen. “When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible...
Smart Messaging Needed to Avoid Pipeline Lobbying Failure: Alberta premier must not support the climate scare when promoting her province’s hydrocarbon fuel resources in Washington DC this week
History is replete with tragic examples of those who collaborated with the enemy or sought to appease political correctness and wishful thinking for their own short term benefit. Nowhere is this more evident than in today’s climate change debate. Politicians from across the political spectrum, fossil fuel companies and academics who should know better, not only bow to the climate scare, but actively support it. They even use the unscientific, misnomer-riddled language of their opponents.
Featured News
How to Turn Free Citizens Into Compliant Serfs
Free citizens have minds of their own and want to pursue their lives as they see fit. This is inconvenient for the elites, who wish to be in charge of everyone’s lives so that they can show their superiority and gain benefit for themselves and their friends. So the...
Demographia International Housing Affordability – 2023 Edition Released
Demographia International Housing Affordability rates middle-income housing affordability in 94 major housing markets in eight nations: Australia, Canada, China, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States. This edition covers the third...
UN chief errs again on climate change
Developed nations are not guilty of causing the climate change that developing nations claim they are suffering.
Yet more problems with Anderegg et al “denier black list” paper
In “Climate scientists’ “consensus” based on a myth” I described how one of the sources of the idea that 97% of climate experts agree there is a human-induced climate crisis—“Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” by Doran and Zimmerman—was not a...
Behind the scenes – preparing the open letter to the U.N. Secretary General on his climate science mistakes
Answering the public's questions about the preparation of the letter from 125+ climate experts Since the publication in Canada’s National Post of the November 29, 2012 open letter from climate experts to the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, the Web has...
New York Times’ Krugman off-base on GOP’s climate stance
Paul Krugman tells us in his Nov 22 OpEd “Gand Old Planet” that the Republican Party denies science, or, in Krugman’s words, they use the approach:
“If evidence seems to contradict faith, suppress the evidence.”
But one of the primary examples he uses to bolster his stance is so childish as to be laughable. Indeed, it demonstrates that Krugman, a professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University, is totally out of his depth commenting about the state of modern climate science.
Globe and Mail columnist misguided on climate and energy
Globe and Mail columnist Jeffery Simpson should not so easily accept official dogma on climate change and energy. He also needs to seriously investigate the popular though misguided belief that fossil fuel companies receive government subsidies.
Mistakes galore in first 1/2 hour of Gore’s climate change marathon
The first segment of former Vice-President Al Gore’s “24 Hours of Reality: The Dirty Weather Report” has just completed. Gore and his guests connected Hurricane Sandy and other tropical cyclones with global warming caused by human-induced greenhouse gas emissions (“carbon pollution”, they wrongly called carbon dioxide). Besides the fact that such a connection is impossible since there has been no overall global warming in 16 years, the concept is also wrong in principle.
Mr. Gore: Vested interests permeate the climate debate, on both sides
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore tells us that “misinformation” about climate change (in other words, science that counters what he says) is fueled by those with vested interests. While there are obviously many people and companies who would benefit from an end to the climate scare, here is a list of some of the influential parties who have strong vested interests in maintaining the global warming alarm.
Canadian and U.S. negotiators must highlight developing swindle at this month’s U.N. Climate Change Conference
…if a Cancun-based treaty became international law, GHG reduction would proceed in developing nations only to the extent that it does not interfere with their “first and overriding priorities” of “social and economic development and poverty eradication.” Developed countries would be held to their emission reduction obligations regardless of the impact on their societies.
The growing storm – Obama re-election a threat to Canadian climate and energy policy
In Obama’s second four years, we are likely to get more of what we saw the first time around. Only this time, it will almost certainly be more severe since the President will not have to face the electorate again.