Categories
Climate Conservatarians Environmentalism Oilsands Politics Science Uncategorized

Michael Moore Bombs His Buddies

dwr.jpgAs you would expect, radical environmentalist, Michael Moore’s latest documentary, The Planet of the Humans is all over the news lately.

Actually, not so much, and here’s why.

Moore and his associate Jeff Gibbs are lifelong, left-wing environmental extremists of the ‘Human burning of fossil fuels is causing atmospheric CO2 levels to increase, and that’s causing the climate to warm up rapidly, and that’s leading to catastrophic climate change, and the only thing that will save us to abandon fossil fuels and switch to renewable energy’ variety.

Moore and GibbsAlmost everything about that statement is provably wrong. But, environmental icons, Moore and Gibbs have now released a jaw-dropping documentary which actually takes on those renewables, and proves that they’re a scam.  The people being scammed of course, are us; the taxpayers who’ve been subsidizing this racket from the start.

For decades, headlines in the mainstream media have been dominated by the promise of solar and wind, but in fact, they still make up a tiny fraction of so-called renewable energy production. Overwhelmingly, renewables mean biomass, which originally was supposed to come from wood waste, and certain grasses.

But there’s not even close to enough of those, and so massive tracts of forest are being run through chippers, and artificially being turned into wood waste, and then burned in furnaces that produce massive amounts of CO2. (That’s the only upside to all this because more atmospheric CO2 is good for plant growth.) In the tropics, forests are being bulldozed and turned into palm oil plantations, which permanently destroys biodiversity. The destruction is sickening, but by comparison, reforestation of mined-out oilsands sites at Fort McMurray actually increases biodiversity.

So why are billionaires investing in “renewables”? Well let’s just say that people like Al Gore, and Tom Stier, and the Rockefeller foundation and the other staggeringly wealthy, phony environmentalists, don’t come off looking too good in this documentary. Their motivation for being in the renewables racket is revealed as being pure, unadulterated, greed.

Look carefully at this graph of energy sources until 2015. Coal, natural gas, and oil currently supply about 80% of our energy needs, and the demand is rising. The almost invisible sliver at the bottom is wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass combined. Anyone that says that the top three, fossil fuels which make up over 80% of energy sources, are a dying industry, is quite literally, delusional. And for that delusion they destroyed Alberta’s economy.Energy sources

So, expect the mainstream media to ignore Moore’s documentary, or else come out with blaring headlines like this one from the reliably left wing, Manchester Guardian. “Climate experts call for ‘dangerous’ Michael Moore film to be taken down.” You know, like they’d do in China.

When it comes to climate, or green ideology, the Guardian has exactly the same level of credibility as the New York Times, Toronto Star, the CBC, or any other mainstream media, which is exactly zero.

I strongly urge you to watch the documentary, and Share it with everybody on your mailing list, and on social media. Just click on the link above.

DSC5610_2-removebgAs you know, we’re backing Leslyn Lewis for CPOC leader. She happens to have a Masters in environmental studies, and I believe she will take the Michael Moore/Jeff Gibbs documentary seriously. It’s the perfect opportunity for Conservatives to promote the position that we must rethink this mad rush to green energy before we spend any more money on it. At least, that’s what I’m hoping will happen.

I’m Dave Reesor

Categories
Climate Environmentalism Oilsands Science Uncategorized

Oilsands Reclamation Reality

dwr.jpgBetter than before. That’s often the result of reclamation projects in Alberta’s oilsands. This link takes you to a series of photos, including some before and after shots, of what is happening.

I also included a letter I wrote to The Economist magazine regarding their abysmally unbalanced coverage of Canada’s oil industry, and particularly the oilsands.

Dear Editors

As a long-time subscriber to The Economist, I’ve been well aware of your unrelenting campaign against the Canadian oilsands. In your latest article on Saudi Arabia’s petroleum industry you rank the oilsands as one of the most polluting energy sources in the world.

I suspect you’re referring to CO2, or what you erroneously call Carbon, but you failed to mention that CO2 emissions from oilsands production have come down precipitously in the last 30 years. What you also have never mentioned, as far as I know, is the fact that as the oilsands mining is completed, the terrain is restored to the same, or an even higher level of biodiversity than existed before mining began. And an increasing area of the oilsands is now being exploited using an in-situ process which disturbs very little terrain.

I’ve included the link to an article with some beforesyncrude_mildred's_lake_reclamation and after oilsands mining photos. Would it be possible for you to send your North American correspondent to Fort McMurray to take an objective look at the mining operation, and to also explore the fact that the oilsands provide excellent employment to tens of thousands of people from around the world, and most importantly, to Canada’s natives that live in the area.Mildred_Lake_oil_sands_mine__Syncrude_Canada_Ltd.

Unlike in Saudi Arabia, Canada’s native employees get paid exactly the same as any other Albertan or Canadian or individual from overseas. Saudi Arabia treats its immigrant employees appallingly. Nigerian oil is produced in environmental squalor and corruption, as is much of the other oil from OPEC.

Canadian oil is, quite arguably, the most ethically produced oil in the world. In the interests of balance, could you do an article about that?

Yours sincerely

Dave W Reesor

Calgary, Alberta, Canada

If you agree, LIKE and SHARE this blog.  And write a note to The Economist. letters@economist.com

 

Categories
Alberta Politics Climate Environmentalism Hypocrisy Politics Science Uncategorized

Attacked on all sides!

dwr.jpgHere’s an excellent article by Licia Corbella on why we need a public inquiry into the US billionaire funded attacks on Alberta. She starts off:

“Lies and smears have been spread around the world about how damaging Alberta’s oilsands are to the existence of our planet. The response over all of those years by the Alberta government and, worse yet, the energy industry? Silence. Crickets.”

Sadly, that’s the truth.

Corbella goes on: “Many major oil players in Alberta actually helped fund the smears against them by sending tens of thousands of dollars annually to the likes of the David Suzuki Foundation, the Pembina Institute and even Greenpeace, which has actually argued in court documents that using lies to further its agenda while damaging legitimate businesses should be allowed under its right to freedom of expression.”

So, Greenpeace lies, and they admit it, or at least they admit to not telling the truth. Follow the link and decide whether they’re lying or not.

Suzuki(The photo is of multimillionaire, multiple home owner, self-righteous environmental hypocrite David Suzuki signalling his opinion about anyone who questions him or his sainthood.)

Please do your research and think before you give a dime to any organization like Greenpeace, or the David Suzuki Foundation, or any other organization that portrays itself as fighting for the environment. In reality, nine out of 10 are nothing more than stunt companies looking for your help with the payroll.

CorbellaLicia Corbella does an excellent job in outlining why it is imperative that we officially look into, and stop, these enemies of Alberta and its families.

I’m Dave Reesor

Categories
Alberta Politics Climate Environmentalism Politics Science The left

It’s All About World Government

dwr.jpg

I subscribe to an online discussion forum called Quora, and recently a question was asked: “Do we really have 12 years to stop global warming?” To answer, David Leithauser who describes himself as a technical consultant, writer, and inventor, lays out the standard IPCC line that allowing global warming to go above 1.5 C would be very bad and above 2 C would be much worse. He goes on that we humans must decrease our greenhouse gas emissions to 20% below 2010 levels by 2030, and you know, yada yada yada.

Leithauser concludes his answer by saying: “Reversing this and reducing omission levels by even 20% below 2010 levels would require a complete international cooperation and an immediate commitment to a massive restructuring of our power, transportation, and industrial systems.”

In other words, we’ll need a world government. Considering the appalling cockup most governments at all levels make of governing, you have to be a sado-masochist or a Marxist – redundant I know – to wish for that.

The problem is that not one significant prophecy made by the Church of Global Warming Alarmism over the past 40 years has come true. We’ve passed so many “tipping points” that we’ll soon have to begin numbering them. Climategate exposed the manipulation of data, and plots to silence scientists that do not subscribe to alarmism. Warming has stalled at about 1998 levels.

Polar BearsPolar bear numbers have increased to nuisance levels. And just out; Greenland’s major glacier has increased in mass for the past 2 years.

Except for the peninsula, Antarctica is adding billions of tons of ice mass each year.

(I think the bears are saying: “I hope she walks this way.”)

But there is reason for alarm. Many scientists are predicting a decades long return to colder temperatures like those experienced during the Little Ice Age which ended about 1850. In the 1700s, crops froze in July and winter shipping ended on the Thames River in London because it froze over repeatedly. As late as 1814 it froze thick enough to support a winter fair, including an elephant. If, as many credible scientists are predicting, we return to a Little Ice Age, food supplies will be severely impacted, because in addition to CO2, plants like warmth. That’s why greenhouse operators warm the air and increase CO2 levels to triple current atmospheric levels.

michael-mannThe Alarmism industry has had a good run. Many “scientists” such as Michael Mann (pictured), the manufacturer of an infamous hockey stick graph which somehow completely missed the Little Ice Age, have built their careers on dodgy computer modelling based on ignoring or manipulating data. Al Gore got rich enough to build another house and travel by private jet. And as you could predict, politicians have found many new and exciting ways to extract money from the citizenry.

But reality eventually bites, and in the next few decades it may present itself as frostbite. Let’s smarten up and prepare for whatever nature sends our way. Because when it comes to climate, there is little we can do about it.

Prior to the last Alberta election in 2015 I wrote a blog called: Socialism Remembered. It was about the 1945 to 2005 economic and demographic trajectories of Socialist Saskatchewan, and Market Economy Alberta. It struck a nerve and was viewed on the iwuz.me blogsite and Facebook nearly 250,000 times. Social media works, but only if you LIKE, and SHARE.

We’ve now had 4 years to observe, and live with, an NDP government’s approach to social/cultural issues, and, to economic issues. Before the election, we need to think carefully about what it has meant for parents, and their children. Next blog…. Leftwing/Socialist Culture Observed.

Dave Reesor

 

Categories
Alberta Politics Big Government Canadian Politics Climate Environmentalism Freedom Gay Rights HEALTH Media Politics Science Social Issues Transgender rights Uncategorized US Politics

It’s Barack Obama, or Reality

dwr.jpgFor those who like to be informed, there are a couple of really big events coming up in the next few weeks in Calgary. The first event is the Things that Matter Conference, February 8 and 9 at the Best Western, Port O’ Call. Sponsored by the Essentials of Freedom organization, it has an incredible lineup of speakers. Here are a few.

Dr. John Robson is probably Canada’s leading expert on the freedoms that have been won in the 800 years since Magna Carta, and how quickly we are losing them in Canada.

Dr. Jack Mintz of the University of Calgary is one of the world’s most respected economists, who recognizes that, financially at least, Alberta would be better off as an independent country.

Dr. Ted Morton is Canada’s leading expert on the chaotic, and grossly unfair equalization formula, and how it must be fixed.

John Carpay LL.B. is founder of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedom, JCCF, and Canada’s strongest fighter against the erosion of our fundamental freedoms, by governments at the provincial and federal level.

Dr. Patrick Moore was a co-founder of Greenpeace. In 1971 Moore’s co-founder, Bob Hunter wrote, “Moore was quickly accepted into the inner circle (of Greenpeace) on the basis of his scientific background, his reputation [as an environmental activist], and his ability to inject practical, no-nonsense insights into the discussions.”

I’m a big believer in no-nonsense. But now, Dr. Moore repudiates Greenpeace for its utter abandonment of science in favour of political advocacy. Sadly, Greenpeace has degenerated into an organization mostly known for its stunts.

I took the trouble to look up their Board of Directors, and I couldn’t find one scientist among them. Almost every board member of this bloated, $300 million a year, emotion peddling business, has a social activist background.

We’ve been to The Essentials of Freedom Conference since its inception and it’s gotten better every year. This year will be the best yet, and there will be guests from the US and all areas of Canada, from Québec to Vancouver Island.

The other upcoming big event is Barack Obama on March 5. Obama was a community organizer who became President of the United States from January 2009 to January 2017.

During his time as President, Barack Obama doubled the US national debt; ignored the rise of ISIS in the Middle East leading to one of the biggest humanitarian crises so far in the 21st century; foolishly declared that the Cold War was over and stood by while Vladimir Putin rolled his tanks over his neighbours; and, by constantly and prematurely injecting himself into domestic racial incidents, set back American race relations by two generations.

Meritha and I are already registered for one of these events, and you can guess which one it is. Hope to see you there!

Dave

FT (2).png

 

Categories
Climate Environmentalism Science Uncategorized

It will Survive!

Dave 07Australia’s great barrier reef will survive! This astonishingly good news was in a recent article in Bloomberg headlined: Great Barrier Reef “Showing Signs of Recovery.” This just one year after it was declared doomed!

To be honest with you, I always thought it would recover and I’ll tell you why. I’ve read enough history related to climate to know that over the centuries and millennia, mother nature has delivered, and taken, some tremendous hits, and has usually recovered.

The only time nature hasn’t is after truly cataclysmic events, like the meteor strike near the Yucatán Peninsula that wiped out the dinosaurs, or a volcanic explosions that blow entire islands into dust, or humans hunting passenger pigeons to extinction. But generally speaking, nature is pretty resilient.

More recently, I watched a documentary series on the Great Barrier Reef. In it they related how a sunken ship had, within a few years, developed a mini coral reef, and then when a major storm came through and severely damaged the coral, it only took about five years for it to recover. It appears that even coral is remarkably resilient.

Holocene_Sea_Level.pngAnd by the way, did you know that the Great Barrier Reef only began forming about 10,000 years ago? Before that it was a coastal plain inhabited by an aboriginal Australian tribe, that still, in their traditional songs and dance, remember the rapid sea level rise experienced by their ancestors. The rising sea levels sometimes pushed them back half a kilometre in one year.

Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.pngThe fact is, sea levels have risen over 300 feet during the last 15,000 years, or about 2 feet per century. The current rate of sea level rise is 10 to 12 inches per century. From the graphs I think you’d have to conclude that current sea level rise rates are relatively normal, nevertheless, if you build on a beach you’re eventually going to get flooded.

In a later episode of the documentary on the Great Barrier Reef, they took us to a research facility where Australian scientists are measuring the possible impact on coral, of the warmer water temperatures projected by computer models for 100 years from now. But here’s the crazy thing. Since they didn’t want to take 100 years to test this hypothetical warming, they compressed the time frame to one year! As you might expect, the coral experienced some damage, and now, this bogus experiment informs Australian government policy.

So I thought of an analogous, but hypothetical experiment, to test what happens when you brake a car from 100 kilometres an hour to zero in 300 feet, or 100 meters. downloadExcept there is a brick wall in the way on the test track and you don’t have 100 meters, so you shorten the available braking distance to 1 meter before the wall. Then, using those 1-meter test results, you confidently tell the world what will happen when a car brakes from 100 to zero in 100 meters.

And you wonder why a lot of people don’t trust a lot of 21st century science?

Why would they.

I’m Dave Reesor.

Categories
Climate Environmentalism Science Uncategorized

Ice Age Coming!?

Dave 07Last weekend’s Sunday Sun papers had a two-page article saying that heat, drought, and a longer fire season are going to be the new normal for Canada. Maybe for now, but I have research data going back into the early 1800s, and found out that the biggest fire in US history was actually in 1910.

Here’s a quote: “Believed to be the largest fire in U.S. history, the Great Fire of 1910 burned over two days from August 21 to August 22, 1910, in the states of Washington, Idaho and Montana. An estimated three million acres of land were burned by the blaze and 87 people were killed.” That’s one fire and just two days to burn 12,000 km² and kill 87 people. We’re a long way from that!

A number of years ago I read excerpts from the journal of one of the men who was with the Lewis and Clark expedition in the early 1800s. He described traveling for weeks on end through smoke and ash from forest and grass fires; most set off by lightning, but others set deliberately by the natives to rejuvenate the land. Remember this was in 1806, a cooler period before the Little Ice Age ended around 1850.

This is supposed to be one of the biggest fire seasons in Canada in 40 years. But remember the context from last week? 1980 was the end of a 30 year cold period during which scientists were writing about the new Ice Age to come. It’s warmer, so more fires, but most temperature records were still set nearly 100 years ago.

And an Ice Age may be still coming. I subscribe to an online discussion site called Quora, and the postings are almost unrelentingly from the climate alarmism crowd, so I was astonished and pleased to read this article this morning. There actually are many dissenting voices, not on the reality of climate change itself,  but whether we are experiencing Abnormal, Catastrophic, Anthropogenic, (human caused) Climate Change. How about ACACC for an acronym? Or maybe more appropriately, CACA? The words don’t work but the sentiment does.

Many Russian scientists have been saying for decades that a new Ice Age is a bigger threat to humanity than global warming. That article from an American scientist supports that thesis.

Our new catSome of you have seen this on my Facebook page, but the local Bobcat was on our deck this morning, and when we went out to take pictures he casually sauntered to the fence; jumped up on it and sat there for five minutes surveying the street up and down. Apparently seeing no edibles like rabbits, squirrels, cats or small dogs, he jumped down and strolled down the sidewalk. What a beautiful animal!

We live in Douglasdale Estates, a couple of blocks from the Bow River, but with the city all around. Have a great week!

Dave

Categories
Climate Conservatarians Environmentalism Politics Science

HOT! HOT! HOT!

20180810_152044Friday, August 10 was HOT in Calgary. In fact it was 36.4 Celsius hot. For the unconverted, that’s 97.5 Fahrenheit hot. It broke the previous all-time record of 36.1 Celsius set in 1919, and again in 1933.

By a whopping 3/10 of a degree. Take that you deniers!

Now I have a phrase that I repeat, almost like a mantra, whenever I read or hear something alarming. The phrase? “Without context, it’s crap”.

So, here’s some context. For 15,000 years, since the end of the last major Ice Age, temperatures have been trending upwards, (perhaps that’s why the Ice Age ended?) although with a lot of ups and downs along the way. The most recent major down is commonly referred to as The Little Ice Age lasting from about 1300 to 1850 AD.

Since 1850, the temperature has gone up about 1°C, but with most of that happening in the first 100 years, or until 1950. The 1920s, 30s, and 40s, were really hot; hot enough that many temperature records set during that period still hold.

For 70 years after World War II ended in 1945, CO2 levels in the atmosphere climbed rapidly, and yet, new high temperature records were not set until recently, and then by only fractions of a degree.

It took 70 years to set new records, by fractions of a degree? Did CO2 lose its Mojo?

And within that 70 years, the 1950s, 60s, and 70s were actually cooler. So cool in fact, that while CO2 levels were rising rapidly, scientists were prognosticating a new Ice Age! I read the articles.

And here’s more context. Several agencies which rely on climate change research for a significant or major portion of their funding, have several times been caught “adjusting” downward temperature records from the 1920s, 30s, and 40s. This was purportedly done to make them more accurate, but lowering temperatures for the 20s, 30s, and 40s, obviously makes it easier to set record highs now. And then that makes it easier to justify more funding for research on human caused global warming.

Climate change is real, but it always has been. Records of droughts and floods are common in ancient literature. What is now the Sahara Desert was a food producer for the Roman Empire only 2000 years ago. And when I say only 2000 years ago, I mean it. Earth’s major climate cycles are measured in 100 thousand or million year increments.

Here’s what we need to do.

  1. We must continue to clean up real pollutants in our air and water and soil.
  2. We need to stop worrying about CO2 because its increase has empirically been a minor contributor to global warming. But it’s increase has also been a major contributor to increased plant growth around the world, which, together with capitalism, has brought about a massive decrease in hunger and poverty in the past 30 years. Why would we want to end that?
  3. We need to think ahead. At our current normal rates, sea levels are going to rise about 250-300 mm or 10-12 inches during the next century, and those who build on beaches are taking a risk. Our primitive and uneducated ancestors, during times of far faster sea level rise, adapted by moving to higher ground. Now that’s thinking!!
  4. Finally, we need to stop listening to the alarmists because they’re in it for the money. Your money.

Let me know what you think. And please SHARE!

I’m Dave Reesor

 

Categories
Climate Environmentalism Public Education Science Uncategorized

Kids Are Questioning Climate Science. Why?

This week, Meritha and I attended the annual Friends of Science gala at the Red and White Club. There were two excellent speakers. One was Marijn Poels, an award-winning, documentary filmmaker, currently living in Berlin. The other was Dr. Madhav Khandekar, a world renowned, and widely published climatologist with a particular expertise in  climate cycles.

PoelsPoels came from a left leaning background, but as he began his research for his latest film, which he eventually entitled: The Uncertainty has Settled, he was chagrined to find that nearly all his assumptions about climate change were wrong. For instance, in spite of what the alarmists claim – ad nauseum; over the past 100 years climate related deaths are down by over 98%!

Note the graph.climate deaths

Deaths were high in the 20s 30s and 40s, because that was the hottest 30 year cycle since the Little Ice Age ended about 1850. It was hotter than now!

Since then there has been a massive reduction in climate related deaths. Safe and efficient home heating, fans and air conditioning – mostly courtesy of cheap energy from fossil fuels – have insulated us against climate change.

KhandekarThe other speaker, Dr. Khandekar proved conclusively, that far from being a net negative, increased CO2 is a large net positive for the planet. The increase from about 200 ppm of atmospheric CO2 around 1850, to about 400 ppm today, has produced a significant increase in plant growth around the world. According to plant scientists, the ideal would be around 1200 ppm, so we need to keep releasing CO2, not burying it.

Encouragingly, our children are starting to question the propaganda that they have been force-fed in school. Tens of millions of children have been forced to watch Al Gore’s absurdly alarmist docudrama: An Inconvenient Truth, which would have been more accurately titled: The Truth is Inconvenient.

FRIENDS OF SCIENCE SOCIETY - Author and Economist Ross McKitrickBut late last year, Dr. Ross McKittrick of the University of Guelph was sent a letter from some European high school students, asking five questions. (Dr. McKittrick became famous for debunking Michael Mann’s famous Hockey Stick graph; a misleading graph which spanned the last 1000 years, but in which Mann conveniently forgot about the Little Ice Age which lasted from the 1300s until the mid-1800s. Logically, when you exit an Ice Age, you do so because it’s warming up, and that’s a Really Inconvenient Truth.)

Dr. McKittrick has given me permission to include his response to the students, in this blog. It’s well worth the read because it’s the questions your children and grandchildren are starting to ask, and that should give us hope. Our kids aren’t stupid, just understandably confused. Let’s help them learn to recognize propaganda, and think for themselves! Like, and Share!

Have a great long weekend!

Dave

Five questions from students about climate change

Ross McKitrick January 2018

In late 2017 I was contacted by a group of students at a high school in Europe asking if I would answer some questions on climate change for a project they were working on.

Here are the questions they asked, and the answers I gave them.

1.  What is behind global warming?

Over the last 150 years there have been influences due to strengthening solar output, land-use changes, increased greenhouse gases and natural variability, among other things. The dominant school of thought in climatology is that rising greenhouse gas levels explain most of the overall warming trend since the 1950s. There are good reasons to support this, although the climate system is too complex to assume the matter is settled. The mechanisms by which the sun affects the climate are not well understood, nor are the mechanisms behind clouds, ocean- atmosphere interactions and other basic processes. The relative lack of warming in the tropical troposphere and over the South Pole are not easily explained under the theory that greenhouse gas levels dominate the climate system.

 

2.  What can we do to prevent global warming?

If it is a natural process, nothing. If it is mainly due to rising greenhouse gas levels we need to ask instead whether we would want to prevent it. It would require complete cessation of fossil fuel use, which would cause intolerable economic and social costs and would only yield small changes in the time path of global warming for the next century or more. Even large-scale emission reductions (such as under the Paris and Kyoto treaties) would only cause a small slowdown in the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100, so any benefits from such policies are likewise tiny, yet the costs would be enormous. The small warming that took place since the early 20th century was largely beneficial, and the astonishing social and economic benefits associated with cheap fossil energy far outweighed any problems it might have created. It is likely that this will be true over the next century as well.

 

3.  If we don’t do anything about it, how does it affect us and our descendants?

Humans flourish in every climate on earth from the tropics to the polar regions. We are very adaptable. The only issue is whether changes take place so quickly that we cannot adapt, but history shows this to be a rare situation. Climate processes are slow, and if the climate models are correct, the changes are gradual and predictable. People can adapt to warming conditions more easily than to cooling conditions. The IPCC predicted that over the next hundred years, changes in economies and technology will have a much larger effect on peoples’ lives than changes in climate.

 

4.  What will happen in the future, and what are the alternatives for us, if the Earth becomes unlivable?

There is no chance that greenhouse gases will make the Earth unlivable. If an asteroid hits, or another ice age begins, or something like that, then we face catastrophe. But the question essentially asks, what happens if we all die? The answer is, we all die.

 

5.  How can we save Earth if it isn’t too late?

To ask the question is to reveal that you greatly overestimate your size in relation to the Earth. We could not ruin the Earth even if we tried, nor could we save it if it faced ruin. Our planet is a remarkably adaptable and robust home. We don’t live in a giant china shop where everything is fragile and breakable, it’s more like a playground where everything is made to withstand considerable wear and tear. Over the Earth’s history the amount of CO2 in the air has typically been 2-10 times higher than at present yet the plants, animals and oceans flourished.

Much of the past half million years have been ice age conditions which wiped out life on the northern continents, yet it always came back as soon as the ice retreated. If you take the view that the ordinary human pursuit of prosperity and happiness will somehow destroy the planet you will end up adopting an anti-human outlook. This is both a scientific and an ethical error. Set your sights on a more modest scale, by trying to be a good citizen and be helpful to the people around you, and you will make much better decisions than if you are thinking in terms of faraway abstract categories like saving the Earth.

Good luck with your studies.

Dr. Ross McKitrick

Categories
Climate Environmentalism Public Education Science Self reliance The left Uncategorized

Talking or Doing. That Essential Difference between Left and Right.

Dave 07I have long maintained – because the evidence has been overwhelming for a long time – that the Left is focused on talking about Progress; implementing “Progressive” legislation, and then not worrying much about the unintended consequences. For instance, the magical $15 an hour minimum wage is a huge barrier to getting that first-time job, for teenagers and immigrants, but still not enough for a single mom with a couple of kids. A carbon tax has no effect whatever on the lives of the wealthy but is a significant hit to the poor.

Which is apparently not a problem for the Left. As Robespierre said: “”Omelettes are not made without breaking eggs.” Robespierre was the mastermind behind the French Reign of Terror which killed thousands of innocent people who happened to be on the wrong side of history. All in the name of Progress.

Now we have a study by researchers from Cornell University and the University of Michigan that found, to their astonishment, that climate alarmism skeptics are in fact, more environmentally friendly than global warming alarmists. Watching the lives of people like David Suzuki and Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert Redford and Neil Young, I think we’ve known that all along, haven’t we?

The fact is that conservatives are, well, conservative. We like to maintain and improve the environment for our children and grandchildren; we like to help our neighbors when they need help, and we like to provide for ourselves and our family to the best of our ability. But we think it’s unseemly to strut and preen when we do these things.

We don’t believe that we need to run to the government for “help” every time a difficulty arises, and by the way, we feel no need to buy carbon credits so we can sleep at night.

My experience is that most people are, by nature, conservative, but the radicals have propagandized the issue to such an extent that they’re afraid to “come out”. Well, if you believe in the things I listed above, and you believe in free speech, here’s permission to come out.

Don’t forget the annual Friends of Science event next week at Calgary’s Red and White Club at McMahon Stadium. There will be a buffet dinner and two excellent speakers who, unlike David Suzuki, Al Gore et al., actually care about the environment.

I just checked (Tuesday 8th) and there are a few tickets left. Call Julie right away at 1-888-789-9597, Ext 2. And if you have to miss it this year, don’t make the same mistake next year. Second Tuesday in May.

Have a great week!

Dave

Please Like, if you do, and if you do, please Share!