When Will the Conventional Wisdom Accept Realities?

Climate Models Have Been Predicting Too Much Warming Leading scientist warns that computer simulations are unreliable

London, 23 May: A leading climatologist has said that the computer simulations that are used to predict global warming are failing on a key measure of the climate today, and cannot be trusted. Speaking to a meeting in the Palace of Westminster in London, Professor John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville told MPs and peers that almost all climate models have predicted rapid warming at high altitudes in the tropics: “They all have rapid warming above 30,000 feet in the tropics – it’s effectively a diagnostic signal of greenhouse warming. But in reality it’s just not happening. It’s warming up there, but at only about one third of the rate predicted by the models.” A similar discrepancy between empirical measurements and computer predictions has been confirmed at the global level: “The global warming trend for the last 40 years, starting in 1979 when satellite measurements began, is +0.13C per decade or about half of what climate models predicted.” And Dr Christy says that lessons are not being learned: “An early look at some of the latest generation of climate models reveals they are predicting even faster warming. This is simply not credible.”

Cop This!

Climate hysterics skyrocket by Paul Driessen Posted: 20 Jan 2019 11:01 PM PST Increasingly absurd disaster rhetoric is consistently contradicted by climate and weather reality  Call it climate one-upmanship. It seems everyone has to outdo previous climate chaos rhetoric. The “climate crisis” is the “existential threat of our time,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi told her House colleagues. We must “end the inaction and denial of science that threaten the planet and the future.” Former California Governor Jerry Brown solemnly intoned that America has “an enemy, though different, but perhaps very much devastating in a similar way” as the Nazis in World War II. Not to be outdone, two PhDs writing in Psychology Today declared that “the human race faces extinction” if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels. And yet “even people who experience extreme weather events often still refuse to report the experiences as a manifestation of climate change.” Psychologists, they lament, “have never had to face denial on this scale before.” Then there’s Oxford University doctoral candidate Samuel Miller-McDonald. He’s convinced the only thing that could save people and planet from cataclysmic climate change is cataclysmic nuclear war that “shuts down the global economy but stops short of human extinction.” All this headline-grabbing gloom and doom, however, is backed up by little more than computer models, obstinate assertions that the science is settled, and a steady litany of claims that temperatures, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts et cetera are unprecedented, worse than ever before, and due to fossil fuels. And on the basis of these hysterics, we are supposed to give up the carbon-based fuels that provide over 80% of US and global energy, gladly reduce our living standards – and put our jobs and economy at the mercy of expensive, unreliable, weather dependent, pseudo-renewable wind, solar and biofuel energy. As in any civil or criminal trial, the burden of proof is on the accusers and prosecutors who want to sentence fossil fuels to oblivion. They need to provide more than blood-curdling charges, opening statements and summations. They need to provide convincing real-world evidence to prove their case. They have refused to do so. They ignore the way rising atmospheric carbon-dioxide is spurring plant growth and greening the planet. They blame every extreme weather event on fossil fuel emissions, but cannot explain the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age or extreme weather events decades or centuries ago – or why we have had fewer extreme weather events in recent decades. They simply resort to trial in media and other forums where they can exclude exculpatory evidence, bar any case for the fossil fuel defense, and prevent any cross-examination of their witnesses, assertions and make-believe evidence. Climate models are not evidence. At best, they offer scenarios of what might happen if the assumptions on which they are based turn out to be correct. However, the average prediction by 102 models is now a full degree F (0.55 C) above what satellites are actually measuring. Models that cannot be confirmed by actual observations are of little value and certainly should not be a basis for vital energy policy making. The alarmist mantra seems to be: If models and reality don’t agree, reality must be wrong. In fact, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels climbed to 405 parts per million (0.0405% of Earth’s atmosphere), except for short-term temperature spikes during El Niño ocean warming events, there has been very little planetary warming since 1998; nothing to suggest chaos or runaway temperatures. Claims that tornadoes have gotten more frequent and intense are obliterated by actual evidence. NOAA records show that from 1954 to 1985 an average of 56 F3 to F5 tornadoes struck the USA each year – but from 1985 to 2017 there were only 34 per year on average. And in 2018, for the first time in modern history, not a single “violent” twister touched down in the United States.  Harvey was the first major (category 3-5) hurricane to make US landfall in a record twelve years. The previous record was nine years, set in the 1860s. (If rising CO2 levels are to blame for Harvey, Irma and other extreme weather events, shouldn’t they also be credited for this hurricane drought?) Droughts differ little from historic trends and cycles – and the Dust Bowl, Anasazi and Mayan droughts, and other ancient dry spells were long and destructive. Moreover, modern agricultural and drip irrigation technologies enable farmers to deal with droughts far better than they ever could in the past. Forest fires are fewer than in the recent past – and largely due to failure to remove hundreds of millions of dead and diseased trees that provide ready tinder for massive conflagrations. Arctic and Antarctic ice are largely within “normal” or “cyclical” levels for the past several centuries – and snow surface temperatures in the East Antarctic Plateau regularly reach  -90 °C (-130 F) or lower. Average Antarctic temperatures would have to rise some 20-85 degrees F year-round for all its land ice to melt and cause oceans to rise at faster than their current 7-12 inches per century pace. In fact, the world’s oceans have risen over 400 feet since the last Pleistocene glaciers melted. (That’s how much water those mile-high Ice Age glaciers took out of the oceans!) Sea level rise paused during the Little Ice Age but kicked in again the past century or so. Meanwhile, retreating glaciers reveal long-lost forests, coins, corpses and other artifacts – proving those glaciers have come and gone many times. Pacific islands will not be covered by rising seas anytime soon, at 7-12 inches per century, and because corals and atolls grow as seas rise. Land subsidence also plays a big role in perceived sea level rise – and US naval bases are safe from sea level rise, though maybe not from local land subsidence. The Washington Post did report that “the Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot.” But that was in 1922.  Moreover, explorers wrote about the cyclical absence of Arctic ice long before that. “We were astonished by the total absence of ice in Barrow Strait,” Sir Francis McClintock wrote in 1860. “I was here at this time in [mid] 1854 – still frozen up – and doubts were entertained as to the possibility of escape.” Coral bleaching? That too has many causes – few having anything to do with manmade global warming – and the reefs generally return quickly to their former glory as corals adopt new zooxanthellae.  On and on it goes – with more scare stories daily, more attempts to blame humans and fossil fuels for nearly every interesting or as-yet-unexplained natural phenomenon, weather event or climate fluctuation. And yet countering the manmade climate apocalypse narrative is increasingly difficult – in large part because the $2-trillion-per-year climate “science” and “renewable” energy industry works vigorously to suppress such evidence and discussion … and is aided and abetted by its media and political allies. Thus we have Chuck Todd, who brought an entire panel of alarmist climate “experts” to a recent episode of Meet the Press. He helped them expound ad nauseam on the alleged “existential threat of our time” – but made it clear that he was not going to give even one minute to experts on the other side. “We’re not going to debate climate change, the existence of it,” Todd proclaimed. “The Earth is getting hotter. And human activity is a major cause, period. We’re not going to give time to climate deniers. The science is settled, even if political opinion is not.” The only thing left to discuss, from their perspective was “solutions” – most of which would hugely benefit them and their cohorts, politically and financially. Regular folks in developed and developing countries alike see this politicized, money-driven kangaroo court process for what it is. They also know that unproven, exaggerated and fabricated climate scares must be balanced against their having to give up (or never having) reliable, affordable fossil fuel energy. That is why we have “dangerous manmade climate change” denial on this scale. That is why we must get the facts out by other means. It is why we must confront Congress, media people and the Trump Administration, and demand that they address these realities, hold debates, revisit the CO2 Endangerment Finding – and stop calling for an end to fossil fuels and modern living standards before we actually have an honest, robust assessment of supposedly “settled” climate science. Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and author of articles and books on energy, environmental and human rights issues.

Mathematical modelling illusions

Mathematical modelling illusions

By Jay Lehr and Tom Harris – posted Onlineopinion  Friday, 11 January 2019

For the past three decades, human-caused global warming alarmists have tried to frighten the public with stories of doom and gloom. They tell us that the end of the world as we know it is nigh as a result of carbon dioxide emitted into the air by the burning of fossil fuels.

They are exercising precisely what journalist H. L. Mencken, the sage of Baltimore, described early in the past century: "the whole point of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be lead to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

The human-caused climate change scare may well be the best hobgoblin ever conceived. It has half the world clamoring to be led to safety from a threat for which there is not a shred of meaningful physical evidence. Many of the statements issued to support these fear-mongering claims are presented in the U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment, a 1,656-page report released in late November. But none of their claims have any basis in real world observations.

What they do have are mathematical equations considered to be models of the Earth's climate. It is important to properly understand these models since they are the only basis for the climate scare.

Before we construct buildings or airplanes, we make physical, small-scale models and test them against the stress and performances that will be required of them when they are actually built. When dealing with systems that are largely, or entirely, beyond our control, such as climate, we try to describe them with mathematical equations. By altering the values of the variables in these equations, we then see how the outcomes are affected. This is called sensitivity testing, the very best use of mathematical models.

Today's climate models account for only a handful of the hundreds of variables that are known to impact climate, and the values inserted for the variables they do use are little more than guesses. Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysics laboratory lists the five most important variables in any climate model as follows:

(1) Sun-Earth orbital dynamics and relative positions and motions with respect to other planets in the solar system

(2) Distribution of sunlight intercepted in the atmosphere and near-surface

(3) The way in which the oceans and land store and distribute incoming solar energy

(4) How clouds influence climate

(5) How the biosphere reacts to the various climate drivers

Soon concludes that, even if the equations to describe these interactive systems were known (they are not) and properly included in computer models, it would still not be possible to meaningfully compute future climate states. This is because it would take longer for even the world's most advanced super-computers to calculate future climate than it would take for the climate to unfold in the real world. So, we could compute climate for, say, 40 years from now, but it would take more than 40 years for the models to make that computation.

Although governments have funded more than one hundred efforts to model the climate for the better part of three decades, with the exception of one Russian model which was fully 'tuned' and accidentally matched observational data, none have accurately predicted the known past.

In his February 2, 2016 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space & Technology, Dr. John Christy of The University of Alabama in Huntsville compared the results of atmospheric temperatures as depicted by the average of 102 climate models with observations from satellites and balloon measurements. He concluded, "These models failed at the simple test of telling us 'what' has already happened, and thus would not be in a position to give us a confident answer to 'what' may happen in the future and 'why.'" As such, they would be of highly questionable value in determining policy that should depend on a very confident understanding of how the climate system works."

Although one of the most active areas for mathematical modeling is the economy and the stock market, no one has ever succeeded in getting it right. Consequently, until recently, we were never foolish enough to make economic decisions based on predictions derived from equations that we think describe how nature works.

Yet today's modelers tell us they can model the climate, which involves far more variables than the economy and stock market, decades or even a century into the future. They then expect governments to make multi-billion-dollar policy decisions based on the outputs of their models. Incredibly, the United Nations and governments around the world are complying. We are crazy to let them get away with it.

More Good Stuff!

The Wentworth Report

Questions in response to climate hysterics

by David Archibald

17 December 2018

The Carnarvon Petroleum AGM this year was marred by a greenie woman repeatedly asking questions about climate, as it was last year. In response, the company’s chairman waffled on about this and that, as he is paid to do. The gathering was getting exasperated by this greenie hijacking the occasion for leftie indoctrination.

The MD in his presentation mentioned that the company had planted trees to offset its carbon emissions. That got my goat up, so when the opportunity came I asked him this question:

I am extremely disappointed that the board has chosen to squander shareholders’ funds by planting trees in order to fight a make-believe problem. Can you tell us how many trees are involved, the cost, the tree species, and can shareholders visit their trees?

The room erupted in laughter and the greenie woman remained silent after that.

Last week Westpac held its AGM in Perth, in order to have less interaction with disgruntled shareholders and customers. There were plenty of greenies in attendance and they rotated up to the microphone to make statements on the Paris climate agreement and lending to coal mines, which they don’t like. They became very tedious indeed. The chairman of Westpac waffled back in response, and like St Augustine, said they would do some lending to coal mines, especially the metallurgical ones, but would definitely stop such nefarious activity by 2030 or some such other moveable date.

The greenies got me agitated so I asked this question:

Mr Chairman, given that the dire predictions of the climate hysterics have not come to pass and do not look like they are going to happen, is the board considering the possibility that the bank’s adherence to the Paris agreement could be wrong in fact and that the bank is damaging the Australian economy for no good reason, and beyond that denying shareholders exposure to a profitable line of business?

I was only part way through before the room erupted in applause. In his reply, the chairman changed his tune and talked about how fossil fuels had lifted so many people out of poverty and done so many other good things. The greenies asked no more fake questions and the meeting proceeded with its business.

Next week ANZ is holding its AGM in Perth on the Wednesday — also no doubt to have less interaction with their disgruntled.  NAB’s AGM is on the same day in Melbourne. It is easy enough to predict that greenies will be out in force at both meetings. And they will be very tedious indeed.

To be forewarned is to be fore-armed.  If you want to have a shorter meeting, a less tedious meeting, then each time a greenie gets up to make a statement about the bank’s sins on climate respond by asking a question that will work towards getting them to see the error of their ways -– both the banks and the greenies. Following are five questions to that end:

Mr Chairman, given that the dire predictions of the climate hysterics have not come to pass and are not on track to come to pass, has the board considered the possibility that supporting Paris etc is harming Australia unnecessarily, and, beyond that, denying the bank’s shareholders exposure to a profitable line of business in lending to coal mines?

Mr Chairman, given that the new Brazilian foreign minister has called global warming a Marxist hoax designed to stifle western economies and promote the growth of China, do you think that the board should give further consideration to the consequences of following the Paris dogma and its impact on the Australian economy?

Mr Chairman, given that a former head of the UN’s climate body, Christina Figueres, has been quoted as saying that the purpose of the Paris climate agreement is to transform the world economy away from capitalism to some sort of centralised socialism, can the board be certain that it is not following an ideological agenda rather than something that is based on pure and unsullied science?

Mr Chairman, given that the bank has decided to support the leftist side of politics in Australia by undertaking not to lend to coal mines, can you inform shareholders just how much profit the bank is denying its shareholders by taking that ideological stance?

Mr Chairman, given that China, one of the signatories to the Paris climate agreement, is burning half the coal consumed each year in the world and continues to build new thermal coal power stations, please take us through the leaps of logic required to justify not lending to coal mines in Australia, thereby damaging the Australian economy and the interests of ANZ shareholders?

Like the poor, the greenies — and other parasitic, non-productive elements of society — will be with us to the end of time. So attempts to hijack AGMs of listed companies for ideological ends will be with us to the end of time. If you want a shorter AGM and don’t want your time wasted, be prepared!

David Archibald is the author of American Gripe: The Solution to the F-35 Nightmare

Climate Change/Global Warming

Good news about Climate Change

My name is Dr John McLean.  Some of you might know me from a landmark study into the main temperature data used by the IPCC.  The report, which was published in October, revealed more than 70 problem areas in that data. 

Since then I’ve been looking at other climate data and I have some good tidings and great joy for your Christmas or Holiday Season …

Climate change is nowhere near as bad as some people have predicted or claimed.

The amount of warming is tiny, regardless of what caused it, sea level isn’t rising fast, Arctic ice still exists all year and food production is increasing rather than decreasing.  Details can be found at http://mclean.ch/climate/Xmas2018/ but here’s a short summary:

1.      According to the most accurate temperature data, since 1979 (that’s almost 40 years ago) average global temperatures have risen about 0.4 Celsius (0.72 Fahrenheit).  Most people wouldn’t notice this temperature change if it occurred over 30 seconds, so over 40 years it’s nothing.

2.      The same temperature data shows that since 1998 there’s been very little warming, this despite more than 1/3^rd of the CO2 emitted by man since 1958 occurring in the last 20 years.  If we ignore the temperature spike in 2016, caused by a strong El Nino, the rate of warming is a tiny 0.4°C/100 years.

3.      Temperature predictions from climate models far exceed the temperatures reported by observations. This means the models are not accurate and we should ignore their predictions and their estimates of the amount of man-made warming. 

4.      Sea level is NOT rising faster than it did 30 or more years ago.  According to tidal gauges the average rise is just under 2mm/year. Unless you have very small hands, it will take almost 100 years to rise the distance from the tips of your fingers to the other end of your hand.  In the 1990s we were told that Kiribati, Tuvalu and Maldive islands would all soon shrink and disappear.  Not only are they all still with us but many islands in the Pacific are increasing in size.

5.      Several years ago, we were told that Arctic would be free of sea ice during summers very soon.  Arctic ice conditions have been fairly stable for the last seven years and there’s still ice there in summer. 

6.      We've often been told that higher temperatures will mean less food.  The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FOA) shows instead that annual production of four major food types - wheat, rice, coarse grains (all other cereals except wheat and rice, i.e. maize, barley, sorghum etc.) and meat – have all increased since 2001, and that’s through some supposedly warm years.

Data shows that the dire predictions about man-made warming are not happening.  If there is any man-made warming at all then it’s very small, and its impacts are tiny too

A New Report From the IPCC-Here We Go Again!

Letter in The Australian, 4 October,2018

Climate mayhem ahead

Every year there is a meeting of the conference of the parties to the UN climate change convention. Every year, leading up to the COP meeting, we are softened up by media releases from so-called experts warning us of the ever-increasing danger from uncontrolled burning of fossil fuels as we supposedly are turning our planet into a living hell.

This year is no exception. Self-styled climate scientists and politicians are meeting in South Korea to finalise a report, to be released on Saturday that talks of “climate mayhem” and “a swift and complete transformation not just of the global economy, but of society, too” (“Less meat, coal key to cooler planet”, 2/10). And the solution proffered to avert this claimed human-caused catastrophe: the global economy must become “carbon neutral” by 2050.

Real climatologists become aware early in their careers that the oceans are the thermal and inertial flywheels of the climate system. The heat of the atmosphere is equivalent to that in the top 4m of the oceans and the mass of the atmosphere is equivalent to that of the top 10m. It is changes in ocean circulation, a factor not represented in climate models, that lead to changes in our climate.

Why am I reminded of the fabled King Canute, who is reputed to have taken his chair down to the shore and proclaimed, “Even I cannot stop the tide coming in”? Why can’t the UN and its acolytes take a leaf from Canute’s book and accept that no matter the extent of social engineering the climate will continue to change, as it has done in the past and will continue to do into the future?

William Kininmonth, Docklands, Vic

Global Warming and the NEG

With the Federal Government about to launch its latest energy policy,  anthropogenic climate change is again in the news.The key issue is whether human caused climate change, driven by carbon dioxide emissions and the like, is of such magnitude that strong action, such as that called for in the Paris agreement, is necessary.

What is clear is that electricity prices have exploded in recent years and will continue to increase, partly due to Government policies promoting the use of renewables (solar and wind) at the expense of coal fired power stations. At the present state of technology, the conflicts within policy that requires compromises between supplying electricity continually, at low cost and with low emissions, creates a real dilemma. The question needs to be addressed as to whether emissions are really a problem. If they are not, then generating low cost, reliable energy is a much less difficult challenge and has real economic benefits, particularly for the developing world.

The global warming hypothesis, based on extensive modelling, suggests that temperature increases, sea level rises and more extreme climatic events will be at alarming levels. There is considerable consistency between the models.

If we study the literature, seek the truth and adopt a rational scientific method approach, it would seem that there is substantial room for debate.

Whilst the models may be relatively consistent  between themselves, key elements (temperatures, sea levels and climatic events) are widely over stated when tested against observations, the central measure in applying the scientific method. Hypotheses that cannot be supported by real world observations are  invalid.

It could now be argued that those pushing the climate change hypothesis and ignoring observations, have replaced the "sceptics" as the true "deniers".

Extract from Professor Richard Lindzen Open Letter to President Trump

We note that:

• The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) no longer claims a greater likelihood of significant as opposed to negligible future warming,
• It has long been acknowledged by the IPCC that climate change prior to the 1960’s could not have been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.   Yet, pre-1960 instrumentally observed temperatures show many warming episodes, similar to the one since 1960, for example, from 1915 to 1950, and from 1850 to 1890. None of these could have been caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2,
• Model projections of warming during recent decades have greatly exceeded what has been observed,
• The modelling community has openly acknowledged that the ability of existing models to simulate past climates is due to numerous arbitrary tuning adjustments,
• Observations show no statistically valid trends in flooding or drought, and no meaningful acceleration whatsoever of pre-existing long term sea level rise (about 6 inches per century) worldwide,
• Current carbon dioxide levels, around 400 parts per million are still very small compared to the averages over geological history, when thousands of parts per million prevailed, and when life flourished on land and in the oceans.

Dr. Tim Ball: The Disastrous Economic Impact of CO2 Reduction Policies

Written By: Dr. Tim Ball December 19, 2017

Ontario, a Province in Canada, a country with almost unlimited energy resources and the same population as California, has exorbitantly high electricity bills. So high, that people march in protest. How did this happen? It is hard to believe, but it is primarily the result of deliberate energy policies recommended by the UN to world leaders.

A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. It is true of socialism. It fails every time, but socialists never stop trying. Global warming uses pseudoscience to achieve a socialist political agenda. It was chosen because it was a global threat that required global governance.  It was created through the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), sponsored and organized by Maurice Strong. It is the originator of what is broadly called the Green Agenda, an economy based on eliminating CO2 and shifting to alternate energies through Agenda 21. It failed everywhere it was tried, with Germany being the largest and latest to scramble for their energy and economic lives.

The sad part is we need environmentalism; it is foolish to soil your own nest. What we don’t need are people using environmental issues for political agendas.

Many countries and regions have experimented with green agendas, especially energy policies, but there is one that is more instructive than all the others. In the Province of Ontario, the energy policy was put in place and controlled by Maurice Strong who created the deception that human CO2 was causing global warming. He practiced what he preached, and it is an unmitigated disaster from which all should learn. He found welcome political ground in Ontario exemplified by Former Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart who said, “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral benefits…Climate change (provides) the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” 

As a member of the Club of Rome (COR) Strong took their neo-Malthusian view set out in their report Limits to Growth that Wikipedia defines as, “a 1972 report on the computer simulation of exponential economic and population growth with a finite supply of resources,” and translated it into organization and bureaucracy. Elaine Dewar, a former investigative reporter for the Hamilton Spectator, wrote in Cloak of Green that Maurice Strong’s objective, based on Limits to Growth, was to get rid of the industrialized nations because they were using resources at an unsustainable rate. He told her he would achieve his goal through the UN where, “He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda.”After five days with him, Dewar concluded, “Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.”

How do you cause industries to collapse? Simple, fossil fuels drive the industrial economies, and CO2 is a byproduct. Show that it’s causing irreparable life-threatening global warming and you can demand alternative energy replacements that don’t provide adequate replacement and close industries producing excessive amounts of CO2. Strong did it through the IPCC using the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

The IPCC produced the science by deliberately restricting the definition of climate change in Article 1 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to only human causes. Of course, it is impossible to know that, if you don’t know how much it changes naturally. Strong controlled who participated in the IPCC through the bureaucracy of the WMO. As MIT atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen explained, “IPCC’s emphasis, however, isn’t on getting qualified scientists, but on getting representatives from over 100 countries”. Using national Weather Departments gave bureaucrats ascendancy over politicians. Witness the activities of the US Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) under Obama that fulfills Mary McCarthy’s warning that “Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism.”

Strong formalized all these actions, agencies, and agendas at the UNEP 1992 Rio Conference. In the keynote speech at the Conference he organized, he said: “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.” There is no evidence that any of these are causing any problem and there is no empirical evidence that human CO2 is causing any temperature change. In fact, atmospheric CO2 levels at 400 ppm are approximately one-third the optimum required for plant growth as commercial greenhouses demonstrate by raising levels to 1200 ppm for increased yields.

In the same year, 1992, that he chaired the Rio Conference, Strong was appointed Chairman of Ontario Hydro. This is what Canadians call a Crown Corporation to pretend it is not government controlled, but regardless, it acts like a socialist government because it controls all power in the Province.

Strong began Ontario Hydro’s problems when appointed Chairman by NDP Premier Bob Rae’s socialist government. A 1997 article titled “Maurice Strong: The new guy in your future” says, “Maurice Strong has demonstrated an uncanny ability to manipulate people, institutions, governments, and events to achieve the outcome he desires.” It concludes, “The fox has been given the assignment, and all the tools necessary, to repair the henhouse to his liking.” This applied to his UN role, but also applied to his Ontario Hydro job.

One report says, with biased optimism, that “Within no time of his arrival, he firmly redirected and re-structured Ontario Hydro. At the time, Ontario Hydro was hell-bent on building many more nuclear reactors, despite dropping demand and rising prices. Maurice Strong grabbed the Corporation by the scruff of the neck, reduced the workforce by one third, stopped the nuclear expansion plans, cut capital expenditures, froze the price of electricity, pushed for sustainable development, made business units more accountable.” Sounded good, but it was a path to inadequate supply, soaring costs and economic disaster.

Strong created the mechanisms and false science to eliminate fossil fuels and bring about reduction and destruction of western economies, at the UN. Now he applied them in total to the Province of Ontario. Thomas Jefferson said,

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

CO2 is not causing warming or climate change. There is no scientific need to replace fossil fuels. Replacing them with alternative energies compounds the problems. A major problem is no proper comprehensive cost/benefit analysis of alternate power. It is undoubtedly avoided because they would not do very well. For example,  A US Senate report notes,

“Comparisons of wind, solar, nuclear, natural gas and coal sources of power coming on line by 2015 show that solar power will be 173% more expensive per unit of energy delivered than traditional coal power, 140% more than nuclear power and natural gas and 92% more expensive than wind power. Wind power is 42% more expensive than nuclear and natural gas power… Wind and solar’s’“capacity factor’ or availability to supply power is around 33%, which means 67% of the time wind and solar cannot supply power and must be supplemented by a traditional energy source such as nuclear, natural gas or coal.”

In Ontario, Strong canceled nuclear projects and installed wind power. Wind turbulence restricts the number of turbines to 5 to 8 turbines per 2.6 square kilometers. With average wind speeds of 24 kph, it needs 8,500 turbines covering 2,590 square kilometers to produce the power of a 1000 MW conventional station. To put this in perspective Ontario closed two 1000MW plants in 2011 – the Lambton and the Nanticoke coal-fired plants. Besides the land, you still need coal-fired plants running at almost 100 percent for what is called “spinning generation,” in case the wind stops blowing.

The full impact of what Strong did in Ontario is currently being masked by another Canadian socialist strategy. Canada has a federal process called “equalization payments.” Formalized in 1957, it initially planned to give residents of each province the same per capita revenue as those in the two wealthiest provinces, British Columbia and Ontario, using personal, corporate, and inheritance taxes. Provinces are designated, ”have” or “have not,” based on their ability to generate tax revenue.

It changed significantly in 2009-2010 because Ontario, the only “have” province, from the start, became a “have not” province as Strong’s policies took hold. In contrast, Newfoundland and Labrador, a “have not” province from the start, became a “have” province because of the oil discoveries on the Grand Banks (Hibernia). The Federal government takes money from the “haves” and gives it to the “have nots.” Some claim that Canada now has the most expansive and generous, redistribution of wealth system, in the world. It does what all such equalizations schemes do; it masks the real problem thus precluding any demand to fix it.

This occurs despite people in Ontario are paying unnecessarily high prices for energy. And they will be paying for the bad policies for decades. Policies that took one of the most dynamic, powerful, and wealthy economies in Canada to one of the weakest. The Province is providing one benefit to the world, namely, what happens if you adopt the energy and environment policies based on the ‘science’ of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Promoting energy policies based on falsified science and alternative energies fail. No better example is  Ontario, Canada that saw the architect of the entire global warming deception. It is incredible anyone would continue to promote them.

If you think the green agenda policies evolved from the UN Climate program will work just look at Ontario where the architect of the plan has already proved they don’t.

The New Deniers

There is now wide spread acceptance that the climate change models are way ahead of observations in the measurement of the rate of global temperature increases. In fact it is impossible to refute such a statement. Yet the alarmist, mostly Government funded, climate bodies are remarkably reluctant to acknowledge this fact. Who are the deniers now?

Energy and Climate Change/Global Warming

As the former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre, William Kininmonth states:

‘The real challenge for society is to manage within a naturally varying climate. A total of 70 per cent of natural disasters involve weather and climate extremes. Regulating carbon dioxide concentration (indeed, if this is even possible) will not ameliorate these.’

‘Less than 20,000 years ago Earth was in the grip of the last glacial maximum. Deep ice sheets then covered much of North America and northwestern Europe; sea level was 130 metres lower than today. Our present relative warmth is a blessing.

‘It is unfortunate that the Chief Scientist did not conduct an independent review of the science underpinning the contentious hypothesis of dangerous anthropogenic climate change before embarking on a blueprint for the national electricity market. A misplaced objective of emissions reduction at the expense of affordable and reliable electricity services will unnecessarily impoverish Australians.’