Canadian Climate Tyranny

Canada has gone off the rails, moving beyond the threat of prosecuting Jordan Peterson for refusing to use speech the government of Canada deems ‘correct’ (with regard to pronouns), to actual prosecutions of people and organizations, for saying what those organizations and people purport to be true.  I’m not making this up: Justin Trudeau is a tyrant, and free speech in Canada is dead.  Here is an article from the Toronto Sun outlining this:

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/09/13/canada-now-investigates-climate-denial

What egregious lie did this group make public?  What was so erroneous as to make speech a crime?  They published a graph using data from NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA), and the Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology.  I’ll show you the graph, and then I’ll give you links to the raw data the graph contained.

NASA:  https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch/spot_num.txt

The NOAA (Note that this is an FTP site so you’ll need to FTP to it): ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology: http://www.sws.bom.gov.au/Solar/1/6

This graph shows the global temperature data, from the NOAA, superimposed against sunspot activity from NASA and the Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology.  It shows that sunspots, or rather the same things that cause sunspots to appear on the surface of the sun, also drive global temperature.  Apparently, gathering the data is OK, given that NASA, the NOAA, and the Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology are not being prosecuted, but showing the data is a crime in Canada.

Note that nobody is questioning the fact that the climate is changing, or that mankind has had an impact on that change.  The question is the degree mankind has impacted the climate, and this is a question on which there is no consensus.  When you dig deeper than, “Is man contributing to climate change,” and begin asking questions like, “Is our impact significant,” the case for alarmism quickly falls apart, and it is the alarmism that is under attack – not the science.  The following article shows just how far politicians, like Justin Trudeau, push the scientific consensus beyond its breaking point.  Spoiler: Most climate scientists think that mankind’s impact on the climate is insignificant, and of the minority who think our impact is significant, the majority think that in the long run it is positive (mankind historically having done better on a warmer than on a colder planet).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/

Part of me doesn’t blame the Canadian government for wanting to arrest those who question climate alarmism.  Justin Trudeau has gone all-in on green energy, to the degree that for much of Canada, heat and electric now cost more than do houses, and people are having to choose, in harsh Ontario winters, whether to heat their homes, or buy food.

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/01/13/justin-trudeau-grilled-about-hydro-prices-carbon-taxes-aga-khan-vacation-at-town-hall

Put yourself in Justin Trudeau’s shoes.  Imagine that you are the Prime Minister of Canada, and you bought into climate alarmism so fiercely that you now have people choosing whether to starve to death, or freeze to death, because of your policies.  Suddenly someone publishes scientific research that calls your alarmism into serious question.  Can you imagine the backlash from a public that is going bankrupt trying to heat their homes when they find out that you screwed up?  Of COURSE you want to suppress it!

At the risk of angering my neighbors to the North and East (I’m in Michigan), allow me to present another graph.

If you look closely at this graph, you’ll notice that the temperature goes up first, and then co2 levels follow.  Scientists know this to be true.  It’s caused by our oceans, which release co2 as they get warmer, and absorb co2 as they cool.  Now, aside from the fact that it is difficult to say that co2 causes warming when the data clearly shows that warming causes co2, one also has to wonder how, if co2 will cause runaway effects, those runaway effects did not occur the first time the Earth warmed and caused the oceans to double the co2 levels, some 325 thousand years ago.

This brings us back to the first graph.  Mankind’s impact on the global temperature is not shown by the red line in the first graph (above).  That’s sunspot activity, and anyone can clearly see that average global temperatures track it perfectly.  Mankind’s impact is in the level of variation the blue line shows around the red line.  It does not appear to vary much more than it did in earlier periods, but certainly co2 has at least a localized effect, and nobody questions that.  What people rightfully question is why, in Canada, these graphs are now illegal, and why heating one’s home costs more than paying for one’s home.

The fact is that the Earth is not as vulnerable as some people think, but rather it has negative feedback loops that help to mute the effect of increased co2.  Plant life, for example loves co2, so as co2 levels increase, so too does plant life.

Here is another inconvenient graph.  This one shows the data from the GISP Greenland Ice Cores.  Al Gore used this in his movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”.  Conveniently, he only showed the part of the graph from the Little Ice Age forward.  This is the data going all the way back.

Now, I’m not questioning whether or not mankind has had some impact on global temperatures, but I do have to wonder how many cars the Romans and Minoans were driving, 2,000 and 2,500 years ago.  Yes – if you look ONLY at the data from the Little Ice Age on, you get a nasty bit of warming at the end, but what Al Gore did not tell you is that much of the warming showed global temperatures returning to normal.

Perhaps the greatest irony of all is that Justin Trudeau, by pushing alarmism, is ignoring a lot of science, and completely blowing off the majority of climate scientists who say that mankind’s impact, while real, is not significant.

What IS significant are the negative impact Justin Trudeau’s energy policies are having on the lives of the Canadian people, such as in the case of that poor single mother, from the article above, who cannot afford to provide her children with both a warm home, and food.  If you watch the video in the article, you’ll see her crying hysterically.  You can see the pain on her face.  Even more shocking is Justin Trudeau’s reply, which is something along the lines of, “I know it sucks, but such is life now so suck it up.”

Perhaps the most damning thing of all is that when one asks the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) what their goal is, they openly admit that it has nothing to do with climate change.  Ottmar Edenhofer, of the IPCC, openly stated that “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.

IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth”

The question Americans need to ask is whether we are going to follow the lead of other nations, where heat and electricity are becoming prohibitively expensive due to the astronomical costs of ‘green energy’, or whether we will instead choose to continue to use the abundant fossil fuels we are blessed to have.  Are we going to let our leadership turn our country into a socialist hell hole based on the bullet point that ‘97% agree’, or are we going to dig deeper into the science, and ask, “What, specifically, do they agree on,” before destroying the last 100 years of economic progress?  Are we going to leave our children a world of relative wealth and abundance, or are we going to tell them to ‘party like it’s 1799?’

If we follow Canada’s lead, we’ll tell them to shut up, or we’ll throw them in jail.

If the IPCC openly admitting that their goal is to end free market capitalism on a global scale is not enough to get people to question the IPCC, perhaps a look at the models climate alarmism is based on, against the actual temperature data, will do the trick.  Here is that graph.

I don’t know about you, but beyond the science being against alarmism, even if the world really were warming enough to cause stronger storms and flooding in coastal areas, above what we would see anyway (the oceans having been slowly rising since the end of the last ice age), I would rather live in that world than the communist dystopia the UN envisions.  Thank God we have Nikki Haley to tell the UN to go to hell.

Leave a Reply