Jump to content

Climate Change?


Recommended Posts


Sounds great .... wind and solar power ...but no calculation of carbon footprint of high tech yacht ..... sails, mast, hull construction etc. As one commentator pointed out...to reduce the carbon footprint she would sail instead of one ticket on an airplane but, to get to NYC for Greta .....it required 6 one way airfares for the crew to return to Europe.

As the picture above illustrates, what are these kids willing to give up to reduce their carbon footprint?? Their cellphones??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, st27 said:

what are these kids willing to give up to reduce their carbon footprint??

That is a question you will never get an answer to. If you find someone who will, please ask them where they think our Paris Accord deficit should come from.

When asked who pays and how, they will always say the 1%. I'm thinking of getting an African Grey Parrot and teaching it Liberal talking points. It might be more bearable if something with feathers is screaming at me....

Right this very second, CBC Radio is talking about something called "headline stress disorder." 111 cubic inches of heavy metal and wind therapy is the only cure for this.

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great video, sums it up rather well imho.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/09/exposing-junk-climate-science.phpEXPOSING JUNK CLIMATE SCIENCE

This twelve-minute video by Tony Heller of Real Climate Science, released just yesterday, does a great job of exposing the deceptive use of data on which climate alarmism depends. Heller begins with the National Climate Assessment that recently went out to journalists and policymakers. It included a set of charts and graphs that superficially seemed to support the claim that we are experiencing alarming changes in the Earth’s climate, as summed up in this graphic. Click to enlarge:


One funny thing, though: One of these graphs begins in 1960, another in 1979, another in 1983, and so on. If you are trying to show the effects of “climate change” in a scientific way, shouldn’t you use the same starting point for all of the phenomena (arctic sea ice, wildfires, heat waves, etc.) you are attributing to “climate change”? Well, sure. Unless you are committing fraud. One of the things I learned in my many years of evaluating data for professional purposes was that what a line graph “proves” depends largely on where you choose to begin it.

Here is the video. You will find it eye-opening:


Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anything, it’s quite the opposite of blinders. Unlike some who accept climate alarmism without question, there are some who actually have their eyes and brains wide open. 

I don’t think anyone here actually denies the Climate is changing, but are instead **bleep** there was never a discussion on how to tackle the problem. And also **bleep** by the “top down” solution which make no logical sense. No amount of taxation on Canadians will solve the Worlds Climate problem especially when CANADA IS NOT THE  PROBLEM.

Mckenna and Trudeau can go stuff their tax as far as this voter is concerned. ( 28 more days and counting until the country can ditch these country killers !)


Edited by Jaydee
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First it was Brazil and now Indonesia......

It’s haze season again – with the toxic smog blanketing Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia clocking in at unhealthy and even hazardous PSI levels for over a week.

Apart from some areas of Malaysia, which recorded forest fires during the haze period, burning peatlands in Indonesia’s provinces of Sumatra and Kalimantan are 90 per cent responsible for the haze, according to the World Bank.

Peatlands – which are found on 3 per cent of the Earth’s surface, including places like Indonesia, Malaysia and even the Arctic – are swamps that form when a forest floor is continuously saturated with water.


Sponge-like peat sucks up water quickly. It contains slowly decaying plant material like dead leaves and wood, which can accumulate up to 20 metres thick.

Unlike other types of terrain, peatland can permanently lock away carbon – which was previously absorbed by dead leaves during photosynthesis -from the atmosphere, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature.

These toxic particles include sulphur dioxide, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide – which enter a person’s lungs and bloodstream when the haze is breathed in.

This can cause eye, heart, skin and respiratory problems, according to Singapore’s health ministry.

Apart from toxic gas that makes you sick, burning peatland (essentially concentrated coal) also releases insane amounts of greenhouse gases into the environment.

So far, this year’s Indonesia haze has caused nearly 110 million tons of carbon dioxide to enter the atmosphere, according to environmental site Mongabay.

That’s the equivalent of using 22 million cars for a period of one year.”



So yeah, I’m more than a little skeptical about the carbon tax plan changing our CO2 emissions by .2 or .3 % (and it’s not because I won’t be getting my tax rebated).




Link to comment
Share on other sites


A survey suggests that the trust Canadians place in science may be eroding.

The survey, by the polling firm Ipsos for the multinational 3M company, also found that nearly half of those surveyed thought scientists are elitist and that a significant number of respondents discounted findings that don't accord with their personal beliefs.

"While science skeptics represent the minority of Canadians, their number is increasing," said Richard Chartrand of 3M Canada. "This trend is concerning because it shows that distrust is growing."

The Canadian figures are from a global survey of more than 14,000 people between July and September 2018. It's the second year 3M has done the research.

At a time when accelerating climate change and wildlife loss are placing science at the top of the public agenda, the survey found 32 per cent of respondents were skeptical about it. That was up from 25 per cent the previous year.

"It moved from one person out of four to one person out of three," Chartrand said. "It's difficult for us to understand why."

'Canadians' trust in science falling, poll suggests'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look.  You cannot deny that climate is changing.  It has since the dawn of the planet when it was a very hot volcanic ball of rock.  It has cooled to the point of freezing at the equator.  It has heated to the point northern Canada was tropical.  Granted its position on the globe may have been different but thats all due to change as well.

All of the above is absolutely and categorically PROVABLE.  The Science has proven it.


Today's "Science" seems both politically and financially motivated.  As the mob accountant was asked whats 2+2.  He answered "what do you want it to be".   

Look at where the funding comes from for the scientific Studies.  There is a political bent to the climate alarmist side.  Wonder why their finding would be different with all the evidence in the world.

As was outlined in the  video above, the Raw data can be manipulated to show whatever you want it to show.  When it comes to climate the only data that matters is the LOOOOOOOONG term data.  20, 30 ,40 years is not enough.  Variations on the short term do not climate change make.  you need to show hundreds of years even a millennia.

Statisticians have been manipulating numbers for a very long time and have become quite good at it.  

If you honestly believe that a carbon tax or cap and trade or any of that will do anything at all to reduce carbon emissions then you must not be paying attention.  When have yor tax dollars been put to good use in the past?

It has been said hundreds of times on this forum alone that Canada is not the problem.  This is true.  Overall we scrub more carbon from the atmosphere than we produce in orders of magnitude.

Having said all of that, there are things that will "Help" but only if the USA, China, India and other large producers of carbon get on board.  

Far be it from me to say this but the Liberals in Ontario were on the right track but with a HORRIBLE implementation plan.  Wind and solar are good clean energy producers.  Trying to convert the largest province to green energy in a short, and very expensive, term was bad idea.  A gradual build up over a longer period would have kept the costs lower and made the transition easier. But the cronies wanted their money NOW.  Nuclear would be the better choice IMHO.  Canada, historically, has built the cleanest, safest and most efficient reactors in the world.  Even the by products are used in the medical field for MRI and other imaging technologies so some good comes out of the "waste".

BUT ...

These things alone will not solve the underlying problem which, again, Canada is not a major contributor.  Simply there are too many breathing humans on Planet earth.

Notice I said breathing.

There is EXACTLY the same volume of carbon on this planet as there was 14,000,000 years ago. It has changed state several times in that time but no mass is ever lost and very little is ever gained on the planet. Matter can only change state not be created.  The only Mass the earth has lost is the relatively little that we have hurled into space.

Think about that.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“‘At a time when the world is safer than any in history, children are being taught that they live on the brink of a variety of existential threats “

From innocents to anxious activists — what are we doing to our kids?

At a time when the world is safer than any in history, children are being taught that they live on the brink of a variety of existential threats

Fifty years ago, American TV personality Art Linkletter hosted Kids Says the Darndest Things segments on his House Party show, a CBS radio and television feature that ran for 25 years between 1945 and 1969. During the segments, Linkletter interviewed precocious children under the age of 12, mostly about their family lives and the foibles of their parents.

There were no child climate experts to interview, no nine-year-old boys in drag to document as they participated in pageants wearing heavy eye makeup and lipstick, no F-word spewing and dildo-waving pre-teens in movies like Good Boys to muse about.

Even as late as 1998, when comedian Bill Cosby briefly revived Kids Say the Darndest Things, the result was another stream of often hilarious malapropisms, neologisms, downright silly childish observations along with cloying and sometimes boring repartee on how the world works in the minds of seemingly articulate children.


Nowadays, in 2019 media, children not yet in their teens are asked much more serious questions and their answers treated as important declarations of deeper understanding. Today’s kids are more likely to be interviewed and polled for their views on equality, diversity, plastics, climate change, composting and transgender issues. Or they are asked whether they intend to go on strike or march for a ban on fossil fuels and whether the voting age should be lowered to 16.

What are we doing to children? Kids of all ages are growing up as anxious political activists, appearing in the media as representatives of causes and ideologies, participating in strikes, walkouts, speaking engagements, lectures and ideological battles over issues they cannot possibly understand.

At a time when the world is safer and more beneficial to children than any in history, they are being taught that they live on the brink of a variety of existential threats.

Last March, CBC Radio’s The Current dedicated a segment to the views of a pre-teen girl on the hottest issue of the century. The program’s host, Laura Lynch, asked Sophia Mathur of Sudbury, Ont., what she thinks of — as an 11-year-old— when she thinks about climate change:

”  Whether children from six to 16 have the neurological and psychological capacity to deal with the radicalization of their education is, at minimum, a debatable subject. In her book The Teenage Brain, University of Pennsylvania neurologist Frances Jensen notes that while the brain of a 16-year-old is learning at peak efficiency, “much else is inefficient, including attention, self-discipline, task completion, and emotions.”

That adolescent brains are not quite up to a full grasp of the information they are exposed to is perhaps indicated in the picket sign held by a climate-striking Vancouver student: “BURN INCENSE NOT COAL.” That’s cute, but impractical if you’re cooking a meal or heating and lighting your home.

As the now 25-year-old authority on teen brains, Justin Bieber, put it recently: “There is an insane pressure and responsibility put on a child whose brain, emotions, frontal lobes (decision making) aren’t developed yet.”

Read the Entire Article below...



Link to comment
Share on other sites


Why is Greta Thunberg so triggering for certain men?

How can a 16-year-old girl in plaits, dedicated to trying to save the planet, inspire such incandescent rage?


Why is Greta Thunberg so triggering? How can a 16-year-old girl in plaits, who has dedicated herself to the not-exactly sinister, authoritarian plot of trying to save the planet from extinction, inspire such incandescent rage?

Last week, she tweeted that she had arrived into New York after her two week transatlantic voyage: “Finally here. Thank you everyone who came to see me off in Plymouth, and everyone who welcomed me in New York! Now I’m going to rest for a few days, and on Friday I’m going to participate in the strike outside the UN”, before promptly giving a press conference in English. Yes, her second language.

Her remarks were immediately greeted with a barrage of jibes about virtue signalling, and snide remarks about the three crew members who will have to fly out to take the yacht home.

This shouldn’t need to be spelled out, but as some people don’t seem to have grasped it yet, we’ll give it a lash: Thunberg’s trip was an act of protest, not a sacred commandment or an instruction manual for the rest of us. Like all acts of protest, it was designed to be symbolic and provocative. For those who missed the point – and oh, how they missed the point – she retweeted someone else’s “friendly reminder” that: “You don’t need to spend two weeks on a boat to do your part to avert our climate emergency. You just need to do everything you can, with everyone you can, to change everything you can.”

It is the most vicious and the most fatuous kind of playground bullying

Part of the reason she inspires such rage, of course, is blindingly obvious. Climate change is terrifying. The Amazon is burning. So too is the Savannah. Parts of the Arctic are on fire. Sea levels are rising. There are more vicious storms and wildfires and droughts and floods. Denial is easier than confronting the terrifying truth.


Then there’s the fact that we don’t like being made to feel bad about our life choices. That’s human nature. It’s why we sneer at vegans. It’s why we’re suspicious of sober people at parties. And if anything is likely to make you feel bad about your life choices -- as you jet back home after your third Ryanair European minibreak this season – it’ll be the sight of small-boned child subjecting herself to a fortnight being tossed about on the Atlantic, with only a bucket bearing a “Poo Only Please” sign by way of luxury, in order to make a point about climate change.


But that’s not virtue signalling, which anyone can indulge in. As Meghan Markle, Prince Harry, and their-four-private-jets-in-11-days found recently, virtue practising is a lot harder.

Even for someone who spends a lot of time on Twitter, some of the criticism levelled at Thunberg is astonishing. It is, simultaneously, the most vicious and the most fatuous kind of playground bullying. The Australian conservative climate change denier Andrew Bolt called her “deeply disturbed” and “freakishly influential” (the use of “freakish”, we can assume, was not incidental.) The former UKIP funder, Arron Banks, tweeted “Freaking yacht accidents do happen in August” (as above.) Brendan O’Neill of Spiked called her a “millenarian weirdo” (nope, still not incidental) in a piece that referred nastily to her “monotone voice” and “the look of apocalyptic dread in her eyes”.

But who’s the real freak – the activist whose determination has single-handedly started a powerful global movement for change, or the middle-aged man taunting a child with Asperger syndrome from behind the safety of their computer screens?

And that, of course, is the real reason why Greta Thunberg is so triggering. They can’t admit it even to themselves, so they ridicule her instead. But the truth is that they’re afraid of her. The poor dears are terrified of her as an individual, and of what she stands for – youth, determination, change.

Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg and a crew consisting of German skipper Boris Herrmann, filmmaker Nathan Grossman, founder of Team Malizia Pierre Casiraghi, and her father Svante Thunberg sailed to the US for the UN Climate Action Summit on the racing boat Malizia II. Photograph: Greta Thunberg/ EPA Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg and a crew consisting of German skipper Boris Herrmann, filmmaker Nathan Grossman, founder of Team Malizia Pierre Casiraghi, and her father Svante Thunberg sailed to the US for the UN Climate Action Summit on the racing boat Malizia II. Photograph: Greta Thunberg/ EPA

She is part of a generation who won’t be cowed. She isn’t about to be shamed into submission by trolls. That’s not actually a look of apocalyptic dread in her eyes. It’s a look that says “you’re not relevant”.

The reason they taunt her with childish insults is because that’s all they’ve got. They’re out of ideas. They can’t dismantle her arguments, because she has science – and David Attenborough – on her side. They can’t win the debate with the persuasive force of their arguments, because these bargain bin cranks trade in jaded cynicism, not youthful passion. They can harangue her with snide tweets and hot take blogposts, but they won’t get a reaction because, frankly, she has bigger worries on her mind.

In an age when democracy is under assault, she hints at the emergency of new kind of power

That’s not to say that we should accept everything Thunberg says without question. She is an idealist who is young enough to see the world in black and white. We need voices like hers. We should listen to what she has to say, without tuning the more moderate voices of dissent out.

Why is Greta Thunberg so triggering? Because of what she represents. In an age when democracy is under assault, she hints at the emergency of new kind of power, a convergence of youth, popular protest and irrefutable science. And for her loudest detractors, she also represents something else: the sight of their impending obsolescence hurtling towards them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you take a young child and tell them the world is on fire from the day they enter school, eventually they will think the world is actually on fire. 

In some areas of expertise this is known as a UI. Aka useful idiot .

Politicians and Climate activists play on the pity factor by using a young girl. Pitiful, absolutely pitiful !

Edited by Jaydee
Link to comment
Share on other sites


‘Flying is not the enemy’: Airline emissions to take centre stage in Montreal before protest led by Greta Thunberg

Aviation leaders under pressure to do more after overall carbon emissions hit record highs last year

Tue Sep 24, 2019 - Financial Post


'She seems like a very happy young girl'

MONTREAL — A global deal to curb carbon emissions from flying will take centre stage when the U.N. aviation agency’s triennial assembly opens on Tuesday in Montreal under the shadow of protests led by Swedish activist Greta Thunberg later in the week.

The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which holds an assembly every three years, set out a major climate initiative at its last full gathering in 2016, but aviation leaders are under pressure to do more after overall carbon emissions hit record highs last year.

The plan, known as the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) and the first of its kind for a single industry, is a medium-term scheme to help airlines avoid adding to their net emissions from 2020.

Airlines, which are facing public protests over the issue, have urged ICAO to commit now to setting longer-term goals to reduce emissions at its 2022 assembly.

“It is possible at the same time to fly and to reduce our carbon footprint,” said International Air Transport Association (IATA) director general Alexandre de Juniac, on a conference call with reporters. “Flying is not the enemy.”

Thunberg, the teenage climate activist who admonished world leaders at the U.N. General Assembly in New York for failing to protect the environment, will lead a street protest in Montreal on Friday.

Commercial flying accounts for 2.5 per cent of carbon emissions. With passenger numbers forecast to double to 8.2 billion by 2037, experts say emissions will rise if no action is taken.

The United States, which quit the Paris accord in 2017, backs the U.N.-negotiated CORSIA, which is supported by most airlines and would cap rising aviation emissions at 2020 levels through the purchase of carbon offsets.

However, U.S. support is tied to other major aviation countries also backing the plan and a guarantee that CORSIA would prevent airlines from being subjected to separate and more costly carbon tax schemes by individual countries, a U.S. State Department official said.

Europe, meanwhile, wants to keep its right to run separate emissions schemes.

“We support CORSIA being a first step, a minimum at this stage,” said Pascal Canfin, chair of the environment committee of the European Parliament.

“But we believe our sovereignty allows us to be more ambitious if we wish to be so, and this is something that all ICAO members should respect,” Canfin said.

Allowing other offsetting programs would put a “double charge” on airlines and could weaken other countries’ resolve to participate in CORSIA, de Juniac said.

He added that he did not believe Europe’s actions would put U.S. resolve for the deal at risk.

ICAO cannot impose regulations but sets standards that are approved by its 193 member countries. The assembly runs from Sept. 24 through Oct. 4.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, deicer said:

If a town in Alberta can be the first in Canada, and likely North America, it shows what can happen if you are progressive and proactive.  



Have you driven through Ontario???? We have acres of solar panels in several locations.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, boestar said:

 Have you driven through Ontario???? We have acres of solar panels in several locations.  

Yes, I have seen the ones north of Barrie and east of Belleville.  

I think that it would be advantageous to have solar roofs built on housed as part of construction to feed into the grid, and to save daytime production for the night, have central battery banks.  That way you wouldn't be using 'virgin land' to set up solar farms.  There are several manufacturers already.


That doesn't include the Tesla roof.

In Hamilton, Mohawk College is leading in the research and design of integrated solar systems.



That's just the one I have experience with.  I'm sure other educational institutes are doing the same.

So what we need is to get rid of the antiquated thinking and move forward with the new technology into the future.

Edited by deicer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the 55% of Canadians who (despite photographic evidence to the contrary) don't think JT is a hypocrite, I wonder how many believe this is a target that will be met. Agriculture alone consumes 60 megatons of the 79 we need to shed to hit the accord targets. What if we just put a moratorium on agricultural exports and limited it to domestic consumption. Then, consider the fact that it would only be one (very small) piece of the total puzzle. Now consider the backlash and economic cost of implementing it. Then...... tell me were the rest of it comes from and please don't say lightbulbs or suggest it will be paid for by taxing the 1%. I'm not saying don't do it, just tell me the plan. And never mind zero emissions either, I'll settle for the missing 79 megatons.

Any carbon tax that is less than $300 a ton won't get the job done, it seems many people now don't like it at $20 a ton. If you want to do this, you have to be willing to take the pain and pay the price. So are you? That stands as my only question. When I put this to liberal acquaintances they usually say something like "don't be so negative" and suggest that light bulbs and mass transit incentives will do the do and not one of them has taken the bus once in the last 30 years nor would they even if it was free. So no, only a major shakeup in entire sectors of our economy will get it done and if you really want this, start taking the pain now, and I mean right now. My point here is that there is little appetite for anything other than talk.... if we hit these targets, we will have reduced global emissions by .7%. Do you really want what you seem to be asking for? 

Not mine; an excerpt from an article in the Sun. 

"McKenna and Trudeau promised that having already blown past their 2020 target to reduce Canada’s emissions to 17% below 2005 levels, and having spectacularly failed to put Canada on track to achieve Trudeau’s target of 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, they now claim they will achieve net zero emissions by 2050".

PS: Notice they said NET ZERO emissions.... since our land mass scrubs 20% more carbon than we actually produce, maybe that's the plan. If so, congratulations, we already made it, and with 30 years to spare

Edited by Wolfhunter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Wolfhunter said:

PS: Notice they said NET ZERO emissions.... since our land mass scrubs 20% more carbon than we actually produce, maybe that's the plan. If so, congratulations, we already made it, and with 30 years to spare

Not a journalist anywhere has twigged to that fact.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Also known as fudging the narrative to deliver an expected result. :018:

“ Canadians already suspicious of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s carbon tax are likely be even more suspicious given a report by Ottawa-based Blacklock’s Reporter that Environment Canada omitted a century’s worth of observed weather data in developing its computer models on the impacts of climate change.

The scrapping of all observed weather data from 1850 to 1949 was necessary, a spokesman for Environment Canada told Blacklock’s Reporter, after researchers concluded that historically, there weren’t enough weather stations to create a reliable data set for that 100-year period.

“The historical data is not observed historical data,” the spokesman said. “It is modelled historical data … 24 models from historical simulations spanning 1950 to 2005 were used.”

These computer simulations are part of the federal government’s ClimateData.ca website launched by Environment Minister Catherine McKenna on Aug. 15.

She described it as “an important next step in giving our decision-makers even greater access to important climate data for long-term planning. The more each of us uses this type of information, the more it will help.”

Blacklock’s Reporter, which describes itself as “the only reporter-owned and operated newsroom in Ottawa” focusing on intensive reporting of government documents, notes that in many cases the observed temperatures scrapped by Environment Canada in creating its computer models, were higher in the past than today.

For example, Vancouver had a higher record temperature in 1910 (30.6C) than in 2017 (29.5C)


Edited by Jaydee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...