The CBC has been publishing articles on climate change that has been so seriously flawed, that does not follow science and plays with numbers in relative terms to further a highly flawed theory. Let me explain.

This CBC article gives a platform to a flawed study that anyone linked to it should be handing in their credentials. Not only does it not follow science, it also speaks in relative terms that are so clearly wrong and misleading, the same sort of number fudgery we saw during the COVID situation, they use relative terms to further an agenda. When we talk about climate, we must speak in absolute terms and to even try to convey that Canada contributes more to greenhouse gases, which in itself is not a poison pill, the fact of the matter is, even if Canada stopped producing all greenhouse gases. would not equate to a .24% reduction in carbon emission by the top carbon-contributing countries like China and the US.

Why do greenhouse growers buy CO2 generators to double plant growth if carbon dioxide is so bad for the planet?

Across the United States and Canada. “Farmers seek 1,500 ppm of carbon dioxide to provide the carbon dioxide needed to meet maximum growing potential for only pennies a day,” the ad says. Why is this? Simple, plants need carbon dioxide to survive and grow. So, why does this work to radically improve plant growth, health and yields? Because CO2 is a plant nutrient.

So contrary to what we have had hammered into our heads for decades, carbon is not a pollutant that threatens human civilization. What the climate doomsayers fail to explain is that CO2 increases plant yields, accelerates “re-greening” and improves re-forestation of the planet. And while today’s atmosphere contains only 400 ppm of carbon dioxide, CO2 generators can help raise that level to 1500 ppm inside greenhouses, thereby accelerating plant growth and food production.

Another major issue is, it’s not completely clear on what is being reporting and what is being comparing. There is what we call Carbon Emissions, Carbon Emissions Equivalents – CO2 e = GWP*GHG emission (tons), Green House Gases, and let’s not forget, the carbon footprint. I have seen these used interchangeably. Carbon emissions are just that, but carbon emissions equivalent is carbon plus other greenhouse gases that can change over time, finally we have greenhouse gases which is an aggregate of loose list of gases said to cause global warming. The issue is, global warming has been debunked, yet we still talk about the greenhouse effect. Noting, more carbon results in more plant life, this is settled science, and this is part of the change mother earth wishes to have happen and is why we have seen such a prolific rebound in forests and greenery.

It sems We are hearing climate change all over again as we did before COVID. Remember, we have had global warming, acid rain, hole in the ozone, ice age, and shrinking polar caps. All have been proven to be either false or were never a reality. But now it seems Climate Change as it seems to have been given a fresh coat of paint, now with Biden, Trudeau, and now the WEF pushing the narrative.

When I first heard about climate change or global warming, like most people, I first thought this was something we may want to look into more because it sounded serious, and many people were in a lather. So, me being me, I did just that. I researched and read paper after paper and report after report, and soon, the pattern started to develop. The political agendas and some pretty unscientific facts seemed to be the most vocal or concerned opinions expressed while I did my research. It seemed the more substantive information was usually found buried in boring hard-to-read studies written by perhaps boring but intelligent people with lots of letters after their name.

But you see, when there is a crisis, there is a significant political opportunity; we have seen this with COVID to push global political agendas along, you know, the Big Reset. It seemed to become whoever was the loudest was heard and seemed to create the established and followed narrative or risk being called a climate hater. Case in point, in the early 2000s, Al Gore predicted the ice caps would melt in 5 years based on what he saw while visiting the Antarctic. His message, although seriously flawed, still seemed to stick and become the kickstart to the paranoia we now call climate change. But when it was found out while he was visiting Antarctica, it was summer and what he observed were typical rates of melting during this time. Once the scientific community pointed out this fact, the much-called-for correction to his un-factual statement never happened. It was left out to perpetuate the climate change agenda.

When you look for the science, usually absent in the media unless, of course, from those very few who support its narrative, a NASA study found that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers. The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is losing land ice. According to official government data from the National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC), Arctic Sea Ice is again GROWING, with current 2020 levels exceeding 8 out of the previous ten years.

NASA later revealed that polar ice caps have not melted due to global warming. The latest revelation heavily contradicts what climate change alarmists consider definitive proof of the worldwide environmental crisis, whereby the current state of the polar ice caps has not receded since NASA started collecting satellite images of them in 1979. Although, much like we see in other climate observations where seasons would be called outliers to the patterned norm, there are years when the ice caps lost a bit of their size, they were able to bounce back in the following years quickly. 

The polar ice caps came from a 30-year cooling trend, which ended during the late 1970s, making the polar ice regions significantly more significant than their past states in the previous decades. Again, this is why we cannot use even a hundred years of data as a guide since we are dealing with a dataset spanning billions of years. Although they were abnormally large, the state of the polar ice caps in 1979 became the standard baseline in NASA’s study, which became the problem.

By 2005, a slightly constant decrease in the size of the polar ice caps was recorded. The analyst maintained that 10 percent wasn’t a significant loss despite the decline, especially since NASA’s observation baseline showed a considerable size for the polar ice caps. In addition, by 2012, the ice caps grew larger again and could surpass their original size average in 1979.

Taylor noted that the recorded decrease from 2005 to 2012 is not enough to be considered definitive proof of the effect of global warming on the Polar Regions. Instead, the reduction is only an indicator of the fluctuating environmental conditions that Earth is experiencing. Aside from only suffering an insignificant loss, the polar ice caps were still able to recover substantially. So, nothing is catastrophic, alarming, or even a little worrisome about this from what I can determine based on what science tells us. It puts to bed the “prophecies of doom” perpetuated daily across mainstream media. There seem to be many grandstanding stories on how science plus consensuses have magically combined for what would be the first time in history to deliver an unquestionable truth. However, the Arctic Sea Ice levels’ selective exclusion from mainstream climate articles should make you skeptical. The predictive models used that are speculating all this so-called global warming. Obama’s Administration Department of Energy chief scientist Steven Koonin showed that the models relied upon by the Left to predict future global warming are so poor that they cannot even reproduce the temperature changes. The models used to create all this panic cannot even predict or produce past temperatures already known. So how can they predict temperatures decades into the future?

Another ignored observation is that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s analysis indicates that any negative economic impact that global warming eventually may have will be so modest that it warrants no action. Another interesting tidbit that does not seem to see the light of day is that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the UN IPPC do not claim a link between global warming and natural disasters. In 2020, the NOAA stated that it is premature to conclude with high confidence that increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations from human activities have had a detectable impact on Atlantic basin hurricane activity,” and “changes in tropical cyclone activity … are not yet detectable.”

The science seems to be saying there v.” The study further states that small changes in the temperature matter since moderately hot and cold temperatures caused 88.85 percent of the temperature-related deaths, while extreme temperatures caused only 11.15 percent. So, like COVID, we find ourselves in a topic that has become a political platform, forming a plan to support the “Reset.” Once again, I ask people to read, research, and trust yet verify. We cannot blindly trust those who seek power and control using anything at their disposal to create fear and place them as our saviours. We must not let politics bully us into draconian rule through unfounded claims of a looming climate catastrophe. Know the facts. Global warming is not a problem.

An article someone sent me that I can assume was written in the mid to late 80s. Quite the doomsday read. As I continue to figure out what is behind all this craziness, whatever the reason, whether it be a callous money grab or leverage for a global reset, it still involves cherry-picking data, dishonesty, fraud or, at the very least, some pretty bias outcome-based research.  Another topic worth discussing is the so-called carbon footprint. When I started digging into this, it seemed facts and figures were all over the map. One “authority” would report specific carbon stats, while another would report vastly different numbers. Just try and find a consistent number for something as germane to the discussion as what the average person contributes to the carbon footprint. Another would be the impact a tree has on reducing carbon from the atmosphere. Hell, the spread on reported numbers ranged from 6 tons per tree to .3 tons per year.

This is what I was able to determine, and from there, in my calculations, I used very conservative ranges just so that we have what I would call a somewhat tempered analysis.

“The average carbon footprint for a person in the United States is 16 tons [per year]. Young small trees can absorb 6 tons per year on average. NOTE: .5 tons of carbon is the same as driving about 1000 miles in a standard car.

Based on this, it seems we are going after the wrong target. Sound familiar? It seems we humans are not the low hanging fruit they make us out to be because according to these numbers, even if we use a very low percentage of the numbers, I was able to find, we are in no way exceeding what the trees are able to very easily absorb and convert back to oxygen. In fact, we determined they leave a net surplus of 15,984 tons of CO2 per year, of those 422 trees per person.

Therefore, the question is, where are these things that are contributing to the so-called carbon footprint?

Based on a study performed just a few years ago, only 100 companies were responsible for 71% of global emissions, the study says. But where is the smoking gun, who is the largest contributor to carbon?

  • Aviation accounts for 2.5% of global CO2 emissions.

My question is, then, based on these findings, where do us as individuals line up as contributors to the carbon footprint? Based on the math and the estimated global annual carbon impact of about 35 billion tons, we humans contribute a mere 0.00000005%. Now keep in mind that this is a carbon footprint that includes the gases we burn, the electricity we use, and the food that we eat; this is an all-encompassing figure.

So why are all the efforts being made to track us by invading in privacy? I’ll tell you why it’s control and nothing more.

If we reduce China’s emissions by even 1% would have an impact of around 350,000,000 tons per year, 1000s of times more than if we cut every human’s emission in half. We know China’s issue is its sheer numbers, in fact, per capita, the US and other countries are far worse custodians of the planet when it comes to carbon emissions per person.

Some of the lies and disinformation, yes, I said it, “disinformation” our government and so-called environmentalists have been guilty of.

The term “Carbon Footprint” thing was developed by BP Oil in their damage control during their Oil Spill which was the world’s largest oil spill. They spent millions of dollars for a firm to save their shareholders billions of dollars and get them out of hot water. It seems to have worked. Read this article and see for yourself. Who Invented the ‘Carbon Footprint’? The Shocking Origins | by EcoWorlder | Greener Together | Medium

The reality is that there has been no global warming for twelve years, heavy snows in the Northern Hemisphere and heavy rains in Australia.

Also, all fossil fuels are required energy sources for a “zero-carbon” economy. You cannot have a zero-carbon economy in reality; the lie is to hide this fact. Nor can you have a “decarbonization” or “net-zero” carbon economy when you’re still burning fossil fuels to power the same. It is a factual impossibility. But that doesn’t stop the propaganda brokers from perpetuating the lies, they claim that the zero-carbon economy is going to power itself and is at present, “just out of reach” as they scheme and plan on how to extract the most profits from gullible governments and investors. So far, they’ve had great success.

The global economy cannot exist without fossil fuels being extracted, refined and burned. It will never happen. Fossil fuel is what mines the minerals, smelts the ores, ships the raw material, produces the parts, assembles the assemblies, transports the shipments, repairs what breaks and even produces the energy for all of this. From raw materials to finished products, and at every step in between, including the food and water we grow and need to eat while working in these factories, fossil fuel burning is what makes it all possible. Anyone that tells you differently is either deliberately lying or grossly uninformed.

Regardless of what is being drilled into people’s brains, carbon is not a pollutant, it’s a colourless, non-toxic, natural atmospheric gas that is the essential source of food for all life on earth.

Another lie was to claim a “consensus” and “the science is settled”. The reality is that there is no evidence that convicts’ carbon of controlling the climate – only theories and models. There is also widespread evidence that temperature records have been subject to urban bias and deliberate doctoring to show more warming than has occurred. Moreover, over 30,000 scientists have been prepared to sign skeptical petitions, and their number is growing. There is no consensus, and the science is not settled at all, far from it and we have to stop all this nonsense.

They are coming at this from every angle, from the unsustainable carbon-friendly farmer to the increase in lime disease due to climate change. The first carbon farmer probably grew barley in Mesopotamia long before extreme weather prompted Noah to build the Ark. His crops took solar energy from the sun, water from the Euphrates, minerals from the soil and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to produce carbon food, all without carbon credit subsidies.

Every farmer today harvests carbon in the same way to produce carbon food, fibre and fuel. But these new fake farmers take the same useful ingredients from the sun, water, soil and air to produce sterile monuments like sacred trees that must not be logged for timber, burnt as fuel, or used in any other way. For growing this useless product, they are paid a government-created carbon credit subsidy.

This unsustainable farming practice locks up vital resources whilst the subsidies consume community savings. Yet climate will keep fluctuating, as it always has.  And recently you may have heard about how global warming is contributing to the increase in lime disease.  Moreover, even if global warming expanded the Lyme Disease range, one must look at the totality of global warming’s impact on the range of viruses and diseases. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports Lyme Disease “is rare as a cause of death in the United States.” According to the CDC, Lyme Disease is a contributing factor to less than 25 deaths per year in the United States. Indeed, during a recent five-year span examined by the CDC, “only 1 [death] record was consistent with clinical manifestations of Lyme Disease.” Any attempts to claim global warming will cause a few more Lyme Disease deaths must be weighed against the 36,000 Americans killed by the flu each year.

And now, making every climate changer scream disinformation, is that NASA satellite instruments have documented a spectacular greening of the Earth, with foliage gains most prevalent in previously arid, semi-desert regions. For people experiencing an increase in vegetation in previously barren regions, this greening of the Earth is welcome and wonderful news. For global warming alarmists, this is terrible news and something to be opposed. Global warming alarmists claim a greener biosphere with richer and more abundant plant life is horrible and justifies massive, economy-destroying energy restrictions.

These are just a few observations, facts and real-life examples of how some are seriously misreading things.

The Ice Records

If global warming were occurring, In Ontario, Canada, we would see less ice forming than we have seen in previous years. In 2014, there were several temperature records set. One of those was the amount of ice recorded in Antarctica. Furthermore, Lake Superior was frozen solid for most of the year. There were only three months out of the 12 where there was no ice on the lake. These are just some examples of record ice that you should consider when thinking about global warming and whether or not it is something you should worry about.

Global Warming?

So much for the predictions of the hottest temperatures, we would ever experience. There were many cold temperature records broken in 2014. And don’t forget the “Polar Vortex” also occurred that year. There was snow seen in many areas of the world. And in many of these places, record amounts of snowfall were recorded. How could we increase global warming when it is still snowing in so many different areas, with even records being set?

Unless someone has proof beyond biased carbon science, I will side with the thousands of scientists who believe climate change is nothing more than totalitarianism from groups like the WEC and people like Bill Gates, who are bored old rich men. Many animals would suffer if global warming were occurring as they say it is. I am sure you remember the plight of the polar bear. We heard of how they were on the brink of extinction, but recent studies show polar bears do not appear to be in immediate danger and are still doing well in their natural habitats. It seems a few misguided reports on overall bear health from a flawed view that was more of an emotional, Disney-inspired response to something they truly did not fully understand continues to circulate out there.

What about the oceans?

Over the years, we have heard of the disasters and floods that await us. But that has been proven to be flawed, messed up science. The oceans are not rising as Al Gore predicted to us. He told us that in 2010 there would be a rise in the sea by about 20 feet. So far, so good. However, the sea levels are still pretty average and staying where they should be.

There seems to be no level too low they won’t venture to find another thing they can claim as a climate victim. I even missed this one, but several years back, a decrease in the number of moose in Minnesota dropped significantly. Of course, they tagged that a climate change victim. However, a study was later conducted, and it was then determined that it has nothing to do with global warming but wolves making meals of the giant mammals.

Honestly, if there is a problem with global warming, you are sure to hear about it from scientists around the world. There would be far greater talk than what we have listened to thus far. But the fact remains that scientists are not all worried about global warming or these claims. According to many reports, only about 1% of all scientists believe that there is a problem with the temperature on the earth. The other 99% say that the opposite of global warming is true.

Scientists Say Climate Crisis is Real

When our climate crisis friends report that all scientists agree there is a climate crisis, we need to remember that when they surveyed over 10,000 scientists, only about 3000 responded. They only used 75 of the respondent’s surveys, which discredited the study. But they continued to purport their results as the gold standard regarding climate change and the crisis it presented. Today, there are thousands of scientists coming forward; as many as 500 have brought forward a signed petition that is calling for a change in how are to respond to what they feel is not a crisis whereby there is indeed climate change, as there always has been, there is no climate crisis to speak of and most certainly no science backing any cause for concern.

If you look at another thing that they use to use as a barometer of the climate, that being the coral reefs, they too are doing famously well; it seems that every argument they have brought forward is proven to be nothing more than a transitory and expected change, is proven false, they drop it off their topics of discussion and find anything else they can circumstantially use as their reasons for alarm.

Carbon Sinks – Utter Craziness

Carbon sinks are like the trees that help remove carbon dioxide from the air; even though humans may produce a great deal of CO2 every year, these carbon sinks are still taking care of the problem very well. NASA measured the CO2 levels worldwide and learned that most of the issues come from China, South America, and African rainforests. They switched from Global Warming to Climate Change – A Long History of no Global Warming.

The records are out there for you to look at. A quick internet search will provide you with helpful information and outstanding insight. When you do your research, you will learn that there have been plenty of years warmer than what was experienced in 2014. You will also know that there have not been any reports of global warming in over 18 years. That is a long time!

Sure, Al Gore is an intelligent man, as are the others who stand behind him in his claims about global warming. But NASA is what can be considered a body of knowledge. You can be sure of its accuracy and what many views as the trusted source of research and information. And according to NASA, there is nothing for us to worry about as far as global warming is concerned. There are still many ice sheets being produced. Thus, there is no major cause for concern. NASA has conducted several studies since the claims of global warming began. They always have well-substantiated reasons why it is not occurring and nothing for us to worry about.

In September 2015, there was a brilliant lunar eclipse that many were lucky enough to witness. When they looked at the eclipse, they saw it was darker than usual. This sign that global cooling, not global warming, is occurring.

It’s all about money and control. Please think of the people this climate change employs and how important it is for them to keep the narrative alive. There are politicians whose political careers have been built on Climate Change. Honestly, there is nothing wrong with being a good custodian of mother earth, but she is doing well and will continue to change and do well for billions of years after we are all fossils.

Trudeau’s plan to move us to net zero carbon emissions seems to be happening without much discussion or debate. Let’s look at the hard, cold numbers while I illustrate why his plan spells economic disaster and is based on horribly flawed models.

Carbon Recovery and Capture Technology – Trudeau is hinging on using carbon capture technology effectively. Still, this technology is not panning out as they had hoped. The costs involved also require government grants you and I will pay for. The costs for implementing such technology are estimated at tens of billions of dollars. As history tells us, we can bet it will be three times their estimates.

Then there is the elephant in the room; you must first believe there is a carbon issue. So, let’s look at the facts; if you look at the point that the world’s atmosphere is made up of .04% carbon, the world population contributes 3% of that .04%. So, in the case of Canada, we would contribute about 2.1% of that 3% of the .04% of carbon in the atmosphere. So, Canada’s piece to all this would be like owing 12.5 cents to a million-dollar debt. So, for this 12.5 cents, Trudeau wants to change our lives, destroy the economy and all, so we can reduce the deficit by about a dime which is pretty much pointless as it would not have any substantive impact on the debt.

Trillions of Dollars

The costs over the next three decades will be two trillion dollars. Correct me if I am wrong, but Canada does not have two trillion dollars to spend since we already have overextended ourselves through Trudeau’s COVID recovery plan of printing money in hopes of a strong economy.

We must remember, in 2019, they were already predicting tough financial times, then came COVID, and now faced with inflation rates not seen in decades and everything from food to gas rising, plus a shrinking population, spending an additional 60 billion a year for something that is fundamentally bad spells financial ruin.

Plus, as I have said, we already have carbon capture with the 422 living trees per person on earth capable of converting about 65 billion tons of carbon per year, efficiently handling the estimated 32 billion tons of carbon we humans contribute. You do the math; I see no carbon issue to be concerned with, and this is nothing more than political stupidity and green initiative profits.

“Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of the truth” — Albert Einstein.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s