Rational Thinking Leaking Into the Main Stream Press

On the weekend, Claire Hoy had an editorial that was sure to be a hit in these parts. It had, Al Gore making millions from his fearmongering, David Suzuki as his sycophant, DoLittle Dion's hypocrisy on getting it done for climate change and slamming the Tories for their very un-conservative, mercury laced policy on light bulb regulation. Here's a taste:

I don't like Baird's green plan either. But only because it's playing into the hands of the green activists who would have you believe that the same people who can't accurately predict tomorrow's weather can -- by using the same computer models -- tell us what the weather will be doing 25 and 50 years from now. Think about that.

Three decades ago, these same people were warning us about "global cooling." Then it was acid rain which was going to end life as we knew it. And don't forget that deadly hole in the ozone layer. And so on.

Skeptics Turning Tide on Global Warming Debate

Check out Tom DeWeese's commentary on how global warming skepticism is gaining momentum in academia and the general public:

The mantra of the religion of Global Warming is getting a little boring. It's quite possible, however, that Gore's appearance on the Hill actually represents the beginning of the end of his influence on climate policy rather than the start of a legislative tsunami.

Why? Because even after the Global Warming storm troopers, armed with billions of dollars, the backing of the Hollywood elite, the news media and most of academia have done everything possible to threaten, bully and force their one-sided propaganda on us, the so-called global warming skeptics seem to be coming out of their hiding places in ever greater numbers. The debate is now taking a dramatic change.

As the skeptic side is heard, more Americans are beginning to understand that there are legitimate reasons for skepticism. Here are just a few of the latest developments.

Make sure you read the rest, it is worth the extra two minutes.

Global Warming is Over - Part II

Apparently, the earth's oceans have a large effect on global temperature.

Don't want to take my work for it? Ask the scientists:

Ocean currents to blame for warming: expert

THE United States' leading hurricane forecaster says global ocean currents, not human-produced carbon dioxide, are responsible for global warming.

William Gray, a Colorado State University researcher, also said the Earth may begin to cool on its own in five to 10 years.

Speaking to a group of Republican MPs, Dr Gray had harsh words for researchers and politicians who said man-made greenhouse gases were responsible for global warming.

"They are blaming it all on humans, which is crazy," he said.

"We're not the cause of it."
[...]

Yesterday, Dr Gray said that politics and research into global warming had created "almost an industry" that had frightened the public and overwhelmed dissenting voices.

He said research arguing that humans were causing global warming was "mush" based on unreliable computer models that could not possibly take into account the hundreds of factors that influenced the weather.

Earth's Climate Is Seesawing, According To Climate Researchers

Science Daily — During the last 10,000 years climate has been seesawing between the North and South Atlantic Oceans. As revealed by findings presented by Quaternary scientists at Lund University, Sweden, cold periods in the north have corresponded to warmth in the south and vice verse. These results imply that Europe may face a slightly cooler future than predicted by IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
[...]
We don’t know with certainty what will happen. Some attempts at measuring ocean currents suggest a recent weakening of the Gulf Stream, and the transport of heat to the North Atlantic region may well decrease in the future as a result of increased precipitation. Such a scenario might lead to less warming in Europe than predicted by the IPCC, but we will probably not face an arctic climate, summarizes Svante Björck.

Al Gore is a big fat hypocrite

When is everyone going to notice the two elephants in the room standing next to the Goracle?

First, Al Gore does not practice what he preaches when it comes to his mansion and he refuses to simply pledge to reduce his energy usage.

Second, there is a huge conflict of interest for the biggest climate change alarmist on the planet who happens to own a carbon credit trading company that is worth close to $250 million.

One News Now brings these facts together nicely:

Last month, U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) challenged Gore to sign a pledge to reduce his home energy use to that of the average American household; but Gore, whose Tennessee home consumes 20 times as much energy as the average American's home, has refused to take the pledge.

Inhofe is convinced he and other skeptics are winning the fight over global warming. He says, "There is a level of desperation [on Gore's part]; his entire life, his career, everything in his life is wrapped up in this assumption that man-made gases are causing climate change, and most of his supporters, the scientists of 10 years ago, who believed that he was right have come over to the other side now because the science just isn't there."

MIT meteorology professor Richard Lindzen recently said Al Gore's goal is not to battle global warming but to become a billionaire. Inhofe also points out a possible financial motivation for Gore, observing, "When you stop and think about the fact that he gets $200,000 a speech, he has to be concerned that that's going to come to an end."

And the Oklahoma Republican says Gore cannot refute several specific points posed by him and other global warming skeptics. "Number one," the lawmaker contends, is the fact that "if we did everything that he wants to do, in 50 years it would only reduce the temperature by .07 of one degree Celsius." And there is more, says Inhofe. "Secondly, that there's no relationship between the severity of hurricanes and global warming; three, the sea level rise that he tries to scare little kids with is bogus; four, money is driving this whole thing."

Emphasis mine.

Global Warming is Over

When you pull back the vail, all becomes clear.

Increase your knowledge with facts and figures from Johnathan Lowe at his blog.

The year 1990 was selected as the reference year for the Kyoto Accord.

In 1990 human emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels was 21,230 megatonnes.

In 1990 atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 354.16ppmv (year average from Mauna Loa observatory). In 1990 the global temperature was 14.075 degrees C (year average from MSU satellite data for the lower troposphere referenced to 14 degrees C for a relative absolute temperature)

In 2003 the global temperature from this satellite data dropped from 14.317 degrees C of the previous year to 14.272 degrees C. The temperature dropped again in 2004, went up in 2005, and dropped again in 2006 representing a net cooling of 0.044 degrees C over the last four years indicating that global warming is likely over.

Dumb Politians Helping Al Gore Make Millions

Kate at SDA has posted a Financial Times piece that blows the lid off the carbon trading scam Al Gore and mega corporations are cashing in on:

A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.

The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a “green gold rush”, which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go “carbon neutral”, offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.

The burgeoning regulated market for carbon credits is expected to more than double in size to about $68.2bn by 2010, with the unregulated voluntary sector rising to $4bn in the same period.

The FT investigation found:

News Flash: Dwight Duncan is the stupidest politician, ever. Lorrie Goldstein of the Toronto Sun has a few things to say about the dumbest thing he (and I) have ever heard a polititian saying:

[...]

But our winner is Dwight Duncan, Ontario's energy minister, who says Ontario's Liberal government won't install scrubbers on the smokestacks of its coal-fired electricity generating stations -- among Canada's, and North America's, worst emitters of air pollution and greenhouse gases.

As Duncan put it: "We're not going to spend $1.6 billion on technology that doesn't help climate change. That's just dumb."

WHAAAA? So, according to the brain trust running the Ontario government, spending money on the supposed "man-made global warming problem" is THE only environmental issue worth pursuing. In other words, all the money that they were going to spend in the MOE has all been appropriated for addressing what they consider the biggest environmental problem facing Ontario today - CO2 emissions. Water pollution? Who cares. Particulates and smog? No longer an issue. I am starting to believe that the global warming cultists are lunitics. These people are willing to sacrifice the economy of the country and all of the other environmental issues to fix a problem that DOES NOT EXIST!!!

Catching Up

Yesterday was a down day, but here are a few items in case you missed them:

As Al Gore takes his resource hogging, CO2 spewing crusade through the Canadian West, the Alberta Premier tells the Goracal (a paraphrase): "...if you don't like the oilsands, get your country to stop buying oil from it":

But Stelmach, who hasn't seen the documentary, said Monday in Calgary the province is merely feeding Americans' insatiable demand for energy, so perhaps ore should look closer to home.

Over at the Toronto 'Red' Star, they want to know if you are a "Invested Materialists" or a "Ambivalent Materialists" or part of the "Suzuki Nation". The insidious part about this is they tie the man-made global warming issue into the general pollution issue. Who in their right ind wants polluted air and water? I am against those and believe energy conservation is a good thing. I am against spending billions of dollars on a problem that has been created by unreliable computer models and simply is not true. Anyway, they are mostly talking about a marketing scheme:

Environment Canada was also advised to push those "most responsible for influencing or making the types of decisions that can have a positive environmental impact" into considering the environment in their shopping habits.

The report by [American] market researcher Phoenix Strategies suggests individuals can be pushed into environmental action with targeted communications.
(emphasis and addition mine).

And finally, Lorrie Goldstein of the Toronto Sun likes what Baird and the Conservatives have said about Kyoto:

Environment Minister John Baird deserves credit for finally getting a serious discussion going about the real costs of implementing the Kyoto accord. Up to now, we've been sleep walking toward disaster.
[...]
Yesterday, the National Post said the Liberals had studies in 2000 estimating that complying with Kyoto would result in a loss of $4,400 of disposable income for a typical family, close to Baird's numbers. Is that true?
[...]
Last week, Baird called his [Dion's] bluff. About time.

Google Supports Al Gore's Agenda

Imperceptibly, millimetre by millimetre the global warming mantra invades the psyche of anyone who is simply living life. Bombarded by the message “man made global warming is killing the planet” through the MSM, advertising, celebrities and now, Google. Check out their melting iceberg logo used to mark earth day yesterday.

Google’s message is subtle, but clear. Melting icebergs are a result of global warming, the number one threat to the earth. It has been known for a while that Google is liberal organization. This just adds to the evidence of their political agenda.

Suzuki is Clueless

David Suzuki, arch-bishop (Canada) of the global warming religion, has no idea what Canadians are willing to pay for to pray at his climate change altar.

On Sunday, Suzuki opined that Canadians would be willing to pay a carbon tax. CTV decided to run a little web poll. Apparently, Suzuki, the partisan global warming mouthpiece is WRONG!

Suzuki has jumped the shark. Time to go back to fruit flies and sucking on the public teat at the CBC where it is nice and comfortable.

Who is Scarier: Conservatives or Environmentalists?

The fallout from the Conservatives’ report on the economic cost of implementing bill C-288 has been interesting. As expected, the opposition and enviro-cultists like Suzuki have ripped into Baird and the Conservatives. Friday’s question period started off with a Liberal-Bloq pile on of Baird, lead by David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.) accusing the Conservatives of trying to:

…scare Canadians with a report based on bogus assumptions and extreme views of the Kyoto accord.

This assertion is ironic because the environmental religion led by Al Gore has been trying to scare the world with predictions of cataclysmic disasters "based on bogus assumptions and extreme views". I guess they would know a scare tactic when they see one.

The enviro-kool-aid-brigade was made up of McGuinty, Rodriguez (Lib), Guay (BQ) and Bigras (BQ). They accused the Conservatives of everything from twisting the arms of the economists that supported the economic report to inflating the tax cost to corporations, with a healthy dose of damaging Quebec thrown in.

Baird shot back with Liberal inaction on Kyoto since 1997, the opposition not costing out C-288 before passing it and the

The cost of inaction is that we are forced to do the work of 15 years in just 8 months. That is the real problem.

Baird referred a number of times to the impending Conservative plan to tackle

harmful greenhouse gas emissions

It is worrying that the Conservative government has adopted the opinion that CO2 emissions are harmful. There is no evidence of this. CO2 is a naturally occurring molecule emitted by plants and animals alike. If you don’t like CO2 emissions, stop breathing. That is also impossible, just like Canada meeting its Kyoto targets in 8 months.

Even more worrying is Baird’s assertion that the Conservative’s will

regulate industry

for greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, Canada is riding high economically, regulating CO2 emissions will be a huge cost to industry, however they choose to meet the regulations. China and other developing countries are not part of Kyoto and do not have to regulate CO2 emissions. In fact, these countries have little to no environment regulations at all. Canada has to compete with these countries in the current global economy. We are shooting ourselves in the foot over a problem that does not exist.

Others have weighed in on the issue also:

Chantal Hébert of the Toronto Star agrees that the Conservatives and the opposition seem to be on a collision course over the environment. It should be interesting with bill C-30, the new, improved Clean Air Act looming on the horizon.

From the sounds of it, the differences between the Harper government and the opposition on climate change are irreconcilable.

Andrew Coyne of the National Post thinks that Baird may have a point. It is a good read. He even puts together some numbers to support Baird’s Argument.

The key assumption is that the bulk of the required reductions -- 75% -- would have to be achieved domestically, rather than by buying emissions credits abroad. We'll get to that assumption in a second, but the implications if you accept it are stark. At 770 megatonnes per year, we are now about 36% above the target set out in the Kyoto protocol: 6% below 1990 levels, or 563 Mt.

The deadline for meeting this target is not, as commonly reported, 2012. Rather, it is 2008 to 2012: the target is defined as the average annual emissions over that period. Yet emissions are currently projected to grow another 10% over the next five years, to roughly 850 Mt. So it isn't just a matter of somehow cutting 200 Mt out of emissions by next year, but of cutting nearly 300 Mt by 2012 --an average reduction of 33% from the baseline forecast. If we fall short of that target in the first year, we have to exceed it in subsequent years.

Finally, Jeff Watson (MP, Essex – CPC) , believes that implementing C-288 will kill Canada’s auto industry.

Jeff Watson, today panned the Liberals' job killing Kyoto bill, C-288, "as the death knell for Essex county's auto industry and called on the Liberal Opposition - and its nominated candidates - to explain why they want to kill auto jobs in Essex and across Canada".

Keeping Up With the Schwarzeneggers

Just after MPs started the Easter break, I heard about the changes that were made to the Conservative's 'Clean Air' Act (Bill C-30). The NDP and Liberals make up the majority of the committee responsible for re-crafting the legislation. As a result, the bill has essentially been gutted and looks nothing like the original. Obviously, the Conservatives were none too happy about the changes and strongly voiced their concern over the changes that would hurt key industries and ultimately, the country.

One interesting addition to the Clean Air Act requires Canada to have the highest fuel consumption standards for vehicles in the entire world. If some other jurisdiction moves the bar higher, by law, Canada will have to do better:

New Clause 46.1

That Bill C-30 be amended by adding before line 1 on page 33 the following new clause:

"46.1 The Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act is amended by adding, after the long title, the following:

WHEREAS the Government of Canada is committed to a clean environment, healthy Canadians, and the reduction of domestic greenhouse gas emissions;

AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada is committed to having fuel consumption standards that meet or exceed international best practices;

NOW, THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:"

What if the technology to meet or exceed these best practices is very expensive? Car companies surely are not going to eat the costs. Car and truck buyers are going to have to pick up the extra costs. How is the government going to sell this to the SUV loving, mini-van driving middle class voter? What the heck does 'best practices' mean anyway? That is such a loose term, it could mean just about anything. So, if biking to work is the best practices of some third world country, does that mean that, by law, Canadians will have to be biking to work in February. I wonder what Buzz and the CAW thinks about this?

This is getting ridiculous, and everybody knows it. Many people have been speculating that there will be a federal election this spring. This new Clean Air Act may be bone of contention that may bring a confidence vote that triggers an election. Have a look at an exchange between the Minister of the Environment and the Liberals:

Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment has now seen the amended version of Bill C-30, which passed in legislative committee just yesterday.

Bill C-30 will be reported to the House later today. My question is simple and straightforward. Will the minister abide by the will of the committee, the will of this House, and move to adopt the clean air and climate change act as soon as possible?

Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, the bill that will be reported back later today is certainly one that we are prepared to read, to have our lawyers look at and to have discussions on with my colleagues.

I am concerned with respect to certain language that has been written into the bill. One of the member's own caucus colleagues said, "We're so far behind now" in meeting our Kyoto commitments "that catch-up is impossible, without shutting the country down". This is not a quote from 10 years ago. This is a quote from about eight weeks ago from the Liberal member for Halton. Maybe the member can tell us whether he agrees with it.

Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the retrofitted clean air act includes a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. It has targets. It has timelines. It has a clear framework for action. It brings Canada to the forefront of international trading, it ensures investments in clean technologies right here at home, and it outlaws hot air.

Will the minister get the job done and pass the clean air act in the House before the end of April?

Hon. John Baird (Minister of the Environment, CPC):
Mr. Speaker, this government has a comprehensive plan to fight climate change, and we are actually doing action, not just talking. The member's own deputy leader said his leader just did not get the job done, and this is a member who this week voted against a budget containing substantial funding to help fight climate change.

Let us look at what one of my good friends said about the budget and some of the announcements contained in it. He said that the environmental announcements contained in the budget were "a great day for hard-working Ontario families".

Does the hon. member know which friend of mine said that? Dalton McGuinty.

Read the rest here.

The Conservatives are not buying in right away. They have reservations. I just hope that they do not blindly believe that appearing green will get them the majority they are seeking. If they asked me, I would tell them to start telling Canadians just how much this Clean Air Act is going to cost everyone at the gas pump, on the car lot and on their heating bill. The majority of people are want to save the planet if it doesn't cost them anything.

The proposed amendments to the Act are reminiscent of communism. Fear has been stoked by Al Gore and the environmentalist zealots, now governments are using the opportunity to grab more control.