Click on photo to enlarge. 
(Above: Globe and Mail, Jan 12, 1987. Remember when global cooling was in vogue?!)
"Just in time for Earth Day, students at Laura Secord Friday were given shocking display of what can happen unless action is taken to address climate change.
As part of former U.S. vice president Al Gore's Climate Project, based on his book and blockbuster documentary film An Inconvenient Truth, former Green Party of Canada leader Jim Harris delivered for students a presentation filled with the most up-to-date facts and figures in the climate science field.
Harris also gave his presentation, for which he was trained by Gore himself at Climate Project's Nashville, Tenn., headquarters, to students at Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School, Notre Dame in Welland, as well as a general audience at Brock University.
Harris told students some alarming facts about climate change, particularly the amount and size of the ice shelves which have disappeared from Antarctica. There was an audible sense of surprise in the audience when Harris told them the ice walls were 700 feet tall.
Harris's presentation also looked into the future, a world devastated by business as usual practices. With animation, he showed how rising sea levels would wipe out vast coastal areas, destroying $2-trillion worth of property in Florida and creating 60 million refugees in India.
Like Gore in the Academy Award-winning film, Harris said there are three indisputable facts regarding climate change: it's happening, it's caused by greenhouse gases and it is the result of human activity.
"The world's scientists are pretty much unanimous on these three points," he said.
However, he said, there is much doubt among the general population, and thus a lack of political action, the result of a major public relations campaign by large-scale polluters. He compared their efforts to cloud the issue to the actions of tobacco companies in the 1950s, when evidence was found of the connection between smoking and lung cancer.
Similarly, he said, there is a second, perhaps even more sinister, campaign designed to convince people that even if climate change is real, the problem is so vast that meaningful action is beyond the ability of the economy to handle.
But we've already shown we're able to act, he said, noting how much more efficient refrigerators are now, compared to how they were in the 1970s, despite being bigger and less expensive. As well, countries such as Japan which responded to the oil crisis of the '70s by becoming more energy efficient, have a stronger economy as a result.
He demonstrated this with a graph comparing the performance of Japanese auto makers, compared to North American. There was a slight chuckle of recognition in the room, as the bars representing GM and Ford were in the red, while Toyota's and Honda's were in the black.
"In fact, when you're bad to the environment, it's bad for business," he said.
Harris stressed that students can do something, saying marketers at McDonald's know the persuasive power of children and youth and market directly to them.
"You don't realize how powerful you are," he said.
He urged students to pester their parents until they agree to buy a hybrid, energy-efficient vehicle and switch to their electricity company to Ontario's Bullfrog Power, which is more expensive but uses the premiums to finance clean electricity generation projects.
Afterwards, Harris said he doesn't expect every student will follow up on his advice but imagines many will. Some will bug their parents and be successful right away, others will fail at first and continue to nag, and others won't bother, he said.
"My bet is 100 will change the way their parents work and that's 16 per cent of this room," he said. "And that makes a difference. And next year, I'll come back and it'll be another 16 per cent."
People care about the environment, he said, as evidenced by polls suggesting the issue is top of mind for Canadians, as well as the success of the film itself, the third-highest grossing documentary of all time which beat out Hollywood action movies on its opening weekend.
"When a Power Point presentation beats Hollywood, you know something's changed," he said.
Alex Gaboury, a Grade 11 student, said the presentation motivated her more than frightened her.
She said she plans to talk to her parents, but will not necessarily try to convince them to buy a new car. Perhaps change the light bulbs to fluorescent, she said.
"If they were looking to buy a new car, I would advise that," she said."
"Appeasers of oil barons"?... that's an old line taken out of St. Catharines MPP Jim Bradley's Liberal monologue, yes, the Jim Bradley who has done nothing about all those deaths that are caused by his Ontario Liberal government's coal plant emissions! Highway-builder Bradley is appeasing the oil barons today! Will Draper get rid of his gas-hog minivan and pedal a bike in the 'global-warmed' Canadian winter? Or is he just peddling the idea that someone else should? Of course, Draper never advocates any nefarious "special interests"!!
The above one-sided enviro-socialist views should be considered alongside other perspectives.
Peter Foster wrote in “Euro-Marxist menagerie”, (National Post, May 23, 2008):
“It was inevitable that the subprime financial crisis would provoke jeremiads from the left. That has been particularly true across the Atlantic, where politicians and eurocrats have used it as an opportunity to pour scorn on "Anglo-Saxon casino capitalism."
As such, the crisis has been particularly useful in distracting attention from the problems of overregulated European economies. Moreover, it has presented an opportunity to climb aboard the old moral high horse and trot out the hoary Marxist menagerie.
Last week, German President and former IMF head Horst Kohler described global financial markets as a "monster" that needed to be put in its place. He compared bankers to medieval alchemists.
French President Nikolas Sarkozy has called for a "re-moralization of capitalism." (Wonder if that would include a re-moralization of marital relations?) In Italy, Silvio Berlusconi has returned to power bemoaning globalization. EU finance ministers have spent a good deal of time lately berating executive pay.
Nobody calls for the outright scrapping of capitalism any more. Instead, what is reportedly needed is more and wiser "governance" of the capitalist beast by diehard proponents of the system that failed.
The latest call for more socialist direction came this week in a rousing epistle to Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, from a bunch of left-leaning politicians and fellow travellers led by former EC president Jacques Delors.
"Financial markets cannot govern us!" it begins, boldly striking down a straw man. The group, which includes former German chancellor Helmut Schmidt and former French prime minister Lionel Jospin, then delivers a lengthy diatribe on the shortcomings of capitalism, suggesting that the recent financial crisis rooted in U. S. subprime lending was entirely predictable, and "shows us, once more, that the financial market is not capable of self-regulation." The letter does admit that markets were "poorly regulated," but rejects without examination the notion that the fundamental problem might be such inevitably "poor" regulation.
The signatories castigate something they call the "shadow banking sector," and in particular the packaging of all that subprime crap. This admitted folly, however, is allegedly "only the symptom of a broader crisis in financial governance and business practices." According to the letter, "One [unnamed] investment bank earned billions of U. S. dollars by speculating downward on subprime securities while selling them to its clients, epitomizing the loss of business ethics!"
In the fevered minds of diehard socialists, there are no exceptional cases of corporate malfeasance. The whole basket of apples always has to be rotten all the way through.
"The problem," they declare, "is a model of economic and business governance based on under-regulation, inadequate supervision and undersupply of public goods."
Regulators and redistributors of the world unite!
However, the vast majority of the financial sector was, and is, regulated. One pregnant question is -- as noted -- how far such regulation leads participants to a false sense of security and neglect of due diligence. Another is exactly what new forms of regulation these letter-writers propose. In fact, what they propose, typically, is a lot more talking.
Inevitably, they insert only slightly updated versions of Marxist theories of immiseration: that wealth leads to poverty. "Rising income inequality," they suggest, "has gone in tandem with an ever-growing financial sector." Financial assets, they point out, now represent 15 times the total GDP of all countries (which, of course, compares apples with origins). The threat allegedly comes from "fictitious capital," whatever that may be, "with very little improvement for humanity and the environment." Which is patently untrue. CEO salaries are dragged out for a ritual necklacing.
Bizarrely, the authors even cite Adam Smith, although they make reference to his "other" book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments. They do not suggest what lessons we are supposed to draw from it, apart, presumably, from its implied contradiction of "laissez-faire."
"Profit-seeking is the essence of the market economy," they acknowledge. "But when everything is for sale, social cohesion melts and the system breaks down."
Is there any more hoary socialist shibboleth than the notion that, under capitalism, "everything is for sale," including babies and body parts? Reference is made to soaring energy and food prices, with no reference to the central role of government regulation in that state of affairs.
Apparently "decent" capitalism requires "effective public policy." (So much better than the much more common ineffective variety.)
The European Union might be better (or at least more) regulated than the United States, but little comfort is to be drawn from that. There are those property markets in the U. K., Spain and Ireland, and there's the rise of nationalism and populism.
What, as Lenin so lethally asked, is to be done?
"We need pragmatism, open-mindedness and co-operation in pursuing common goals!" declare the writers, boldly.
The open-mindedness would presumably involve forgetting the past, and ongoing, failures of European overregulation. Still, the main requirement is apparently the setting up of a "European Crisis Committee," presumably populated by the signatories and other like-minded souls. This group will then settle down on fat per diems to lengthy analysis in luxurious surroundings, preparatory to the convening of a "World Financial Conference."
Oy vey.
Nobody has ever claimed that capitalism, or the markets through which it works, are "perfect." However, they are by their nature self-correcting, and a painful process of correction is what we are now seeing. The hammers of socialism, however, still only ever see the nail of more and closer regulation as the solution. Accompanied, of course, by a great deal of moralizing and expensive talking.”
Lorne Gunter wrote in “So much for ‘settled science’”, (National Post, May 20, 2008):
“You may have heard earlier this month that global warming is now likely to take break for a decade or more. There will be no more warming until 2015, perhaps later.
Climate scientist Noel Keenlyside, leading a team from Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, for the first time entered verifiable data on ocean circulation cycles into one of the U. N.'s climate supercomputers, and the machine spit out a projection that there will be no more warming for the foreseeable future.
Of course, Mr. Keenlyside-- long a defender of the man-made global warming theory -- was quick to add that after 2015 (or perhaps 2020), warming would resume with a vengeance.
Climate alarmists the world over were quick to add that they had known all along there would be periods when the Earth's climate would cool even as the overall trend was toward dangerous climate change.
Sorry, but that is just so much backfill.
There may have been the odd global-warming scientist in the past decade who allowed that warming would pause periodically in its otherwise relentless upward march, but he or she was a rarity.
If anything, the opposite is true: Almost no climate scientist who backed the alarmism ever expected warming would take anything like a 10 or 15-year hiatus.
Last year, in its oft-quoted report on global warming, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted a 0.3-degree C rise in temperature in the coming decade -- not a cooling or even just temperature stability.
In its previous report in 2001, the IPCC prominently displaced the so-called temperature "hockey stick" that purported to show temperature pretty much plateauing for the thousand years before 1900, then taking off in the 20th Century in a smooth upward line. No 10-year dips backwards were foreseen.
It is drummed into us, ad nauseum, that the IPCC represents 2,500 scientists who together embrace a "consensus" that man-made global warming is a "scientific fact;" and as recently as last year, they didn't see this cooling coming. So the alarmists can't weasel out of this by claiming they knew all along such anomalies would occur.
This is not something any alarmist predicted, and it showed up in none of the UN's computer projections until Mr. Keenlyside et al. were finally able to enter detailed data into their climate model on past ocean current behaviour.
Less well-known is that global temperatures have already been falling for a decade. All of which means, that by 2015 or 2020, when warming is expected to resume, we will have had nearly 20 years of fairly steady cooling.
Saints of the new climate religion, such as Al Gore, have stated that eight of the 10 years since 1998 are the warmest on record. Even if that were true, none has been as warm as 1998, which means the trend of the past decade has been downward, not upward.
Last year, for instance, saw a drop in the global average temperature of nearly 0.7 degrees C (the largest single-year movement up or down since global temperature averages have been calculated). Despite advanced predictions that 2007 would be the warmest year on record, made by such UN associates as Britain's Hadley Centre, a government climate research agency, 2007 was the coolest year since at least 1993.
According to the U. S. National Climatic Data Center, the average temperature of the global land surface in January 2008 was below the 20th-Century mean for the first time since 1982.
Also in January, Southern Hemisphere sea ice coverage was at its greatest summer level (January is summer in the Southern Hemisphere) in the past 30 years.
Neither the 3,000 temperature buoys that float throughout the world's oceans nor the eight NASA satellites that float above our atmosphere have recorded appreciable warming in the past six to eight years.
Even Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, reluctantly admitted to Reuters in January that there has been no warming so far in the 21st Century.
Does this prove that global warming isn't happening, that we can all go back to idling our SUVs 24/7? No. But it should introduce doubt into the claim that the science of global warming is "settled."”
Lawrence Solomon wrote in “32,000 deniers”, (National Post, May 17, 2008):
“Question: How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming? The quest to establish that the science is not settled on climate change began before most people had even heard of global warming.
The year was 1992 and the United Nations was about to hold its Earth Summit in Rio. It was billed as -- and was -- the greatest environmental and political assemblage in human history. Delegations came from 178 nations -- virtually every nation in the world -- including 118 heads of state or government and 7,000 diplomatic bureaucrats. The world's environmental groups came too -- they sent some 30,000 representatives from every corner of the world to Rio. To report all this, 7,000 journalists converged on Rio to cover the event, and relay to the publics of the world that global warming and other environmental insults were threatening the planet with catastrophe.
In February of that year, in an attempt to head off the whirlwind that the conference would unleash, 47 scientists signed a "Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming," decrying "the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action."
To a scientist in search of truth, 47 is an impressive number, especially if those 47 dissenters include many of the world's most eminent scientists. To the environmentalists, politicians, press at Rio, their own overwhelming numbers made the 47 seem irrelevant.
Knowing this, a larger petition effort was undertaken, known as the Heidelberg Appeal, and released to the public at the Earth Summit. By the summit's end, 425 scientists and other intellectual leaders had signed the appeal.
These scientists -- mere hundreds -- also mattered for nought in the face of the tens of thousands assembled at Rio. The Heidelberg Appeal was blown away and never obtained prominence, even though the organizers persisted over the years to ultimately obtain some 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners.
The earnest effort to demonstrate the absence of a consensus continued with the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change -- an attempt to counter the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. Its 150-odd signatories also counted for nought. As did the Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship in 2000, signed by more than 1,500 clergy, theologians, religious leaders, scientists, academics and policy experts concerned about the harm that Kyoto could inflict on the world's poor.
Then came the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's Petition Project of 2001, which far surpassed all previous efforts and by all rights should have settled the issue of whether the science was settled on climate change. To establish that the effort was bona fide, and not spawned by kooks on the fringes of science, as global warming advocates often label the skeptics, the effort was spearheaded by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University, and as reputable as they come.
The Oregon petition garnered an astounding 17,800 signatures, a number all the more astounding because of the unequivocal stance that these scientists took: Not only did they dispute that there was convincing evidence of harm from carbon dioxide emissions, they asserted that Kyoto itself would harm the global environment because "increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant
and animal environments of the Earth."
The petition drew media attention, but little of it was for revealing to the world that an extraordinary number of scientists hold views on global warming diametrically opposite to those they are expected to hold. Instead, the press focussed on presumed flaws that critics found in the petition. Some claimed the petition was riddled with duplicate names. They were no duplicates, just different scientists with the same name. Some claimed the petition had phonies. There was only one phony: Spice Girl Geri Halliwell, planted by a Greenpeace organization to discredit the petition and soon removed. Other names that seemed to be phony -- such as Michael Fox, the actor, and Perry Mason, the fictional lawyer in a TV series -- were actually bona fide scientists, properly credentialled.
Like the Heidelberg Appeal, the Oregon petition was blown away. But now it is blowing back. Original signatories to the petition and others, outraged at Kyoto's corruption of science, wrote to the Oregon Institute and its director, Arthur Robinson, asking that the petition be brought back.
"E-mails started coming in every day," he explained. "And they kept coming. " The writers were outraged at the way Al Gore and company were abusing the science to their own ends. "We decided to do the survey again."
Using a subset of the mailing list of American Men and Women of Science, a who's who of Science, Robinson mailed out his solicitations through the postal service, requesting signed petitions of those who agreed that Kyoto was a danger to humanity. The response rate was extraordinary, "much, much higher than anyone expected, much higher than you'd ordinarily expect," he explained. He's processed more than 31,000 at this point, more than 9,000 of them with PhDs, and has another 1,000 or so to go -- most of them are already posted on a Web site at petitionproject.org.
Why go to this immense effort all over again, when the press might well ignore the tens of thousands of scientists who are standing up against global warming alarmism?
"I hope the general public will become aware that there is no consensus on global warming," he says, "and I hope that scientists who have been reluctant to speak up will now do so, knowing that they aren't alone."
At one level, Robinson, a PhD scientist himself, recoils at his petition. Science shouldn't be done by poll, he explains. "The numbers shouldn't matter. But if they want warm bodies, we have them."
Some 32,000 scientists is more than the number of environmentalists that descended on Rio in 1992. Is this enough to establish that the science is not settled on global warming? The press conference releasing these names occurs on Monday at the National Press Center in Washington. You'll know soon enough if anyone shows up.”
Tom Harris wrote in “Even more deniers on climate”, (National Post, May 24, 2008):
“Re: 32,000 deniers, May 17
Important to add Larry Solomon’s list of declarations, petitions and other documents that debunk the notion of “consensus” in the climate science community is the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change. Created at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City by the International Climate Science Coalition, the declaration calls on world leaders to “reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as well as popular, but misguided works such as An Inconvenient Truth.” All taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) should “be abandoned forthwith”, declaration signatories conclude.
Perhaps most significant among the declaration’s assertions:
- “There is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity have in the past, are now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.”
- “Attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering.”
Because of overwhelming public interest in the Manhattan Declaration, and the fact that everyone, not just scientists, will be detrimentally affected if governments continue to yield to climate campaigners, we have opened endorsement up to everyone. In the past three weeks, over 400 people from all walks of life, experts and ordinary citizens alike, have joined the original 500 endorsers (150 of whom are experts in the field) to add fuel to the fire rapidly consuming Gore/Suzuki/UN climate mythology. Anyone can endorse online by simply visiting http://www.climate-scienceinternational.org/.”
-
See more on the future disaster, in 2015, that was Rajendra Pachuari. Good Ole Pachuari was the IPCC Chair since 2002, then resigned in 2015, amidst charges of molestation, stalking and sexual harassment.
We have to remember that this pathetic hack was the main GreenFear mouthpiece globally, as were Liberal GreenFear-pushers Jim Bradley in Ontario and Stephane 'Bumbledore' Dion federally in Canada. Dion's Poop-O-Gram-filled 'Green Shift' campaign literature prominently featured Pachauri as if he were a green deity. What lies.)
-
(Above: Globe and Mail, Jan 12, 1987. Remember when global cooling was in vogue?!)
The Greensheviks - green bolsheviks - are again targeting school kids in Niagara with their enviro-religious political preaching.
Last year, in 2007, Mike Zettel reported in "Garden City given dose of An Inconvenient Truth, Former Green Party leader addresses high schools, audience at Brock", (Niagara This Week, Apr.25, 2007):
"Just in time for Earth Day, students at Laura Secord Friday were given shocking display of what can happen unless action is taken to address climate change.
As part of former U.S. vice president Al Gore's Climate Project, based on his book and blockbuster documentary film An Inconvenient Truth, former Green Party of Canada leader Jim Harris delivered for students a presentation filled with the most up-to-date facts and figures in the climate science field.
Harris also gave his presentation, for which he was trained by Gore himself at Climate Project's Nashville, Tenn., headquarters, to students at Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School, Notre Dame in Welland, as well as a general audience at Brock University.
Harris told students some alarming facts about climate change, particularly the amount and size of the ice shelves which have disappeared from Antarctica. There was an audible sense of surprise in the audience when Harris told them the ice walls were 700 feet tall.
Harris's presentation also looked into the future, a world devastated by business as usual practices. With animation, he showed how rising sea levels would wipe out vast coastal areas, destroying $2-trillion worth of property in Florida and creating 60 million refugees in India.
Like Gore in the Academy Award-winning film, Harris said there are three indisputable facts regarding climate change: it's happening, it's caused by greenhouse gases and it is the result of human activity.
"The world's scientists are pretty much unanimous on these three points," he said.
However, he said, there is much doubt among the general population, and thus a lack of political action, the result of a major public relations campaign by large-scale polluters. He compared their efforts to cloud the issue to the actions of tobacco companies in the 1950s, when evidence was found of the connection between smoking and lung cancer.
Similarly, he said, there is a second, perhaps even more sinister, campaign designed to convince people that even if climate change is real, the problem is so vast that meaningful action is beyond the ability of the economy to handle.
But we've already shown we're able to act, he said, noting how much more efficient refrigerators are now, compared to how they were in the 1970s, despite being bigger and less expensive. As well, countries such as Japan which responded to the oil crisis of the '70s by becoming more energy efficient, have a stronger economy as a result.
He demonstrated this with a graph comparing the performance of Japanese auto makers, compared to North American. There was a slight chuckle of recognition in the room, as the bars representing GM and Ford were in the red, while Toyota's and Honda's were in the black.
"In fact, when you're bad to the environment, it's bad for business," he said.
Harris stressed that students can do something, saying marketers at McDonald's know the persuasive power of children and youth and market directly to them.
"You don't realize how powerful you are," he said.
He urged students to pester their parents until they agree to buy a hybrid, energy-efficient vehicle and switch to their electricity company to Ontario's Bullfrog Power, which is more expensive but uses the premiums to finance clean electricity generation projects.
Afterwards, Harris said he doesn't expect every student will follow up on his advice but imagines many will. Some will bug their parents and be successful right away, others will fail at first and continue to nag, and others won't bother, he said.
"My bet is 100 will change the way their parents work and that's 16 per cent of this room," he said. "And that makes a difference. And next year, I'll come back and it'll be another 16 per cent."
People care about the environment, he said, as evidenced by polls suggesting the issue is top of mind for Canadians, as well as the success of the film itself, the third-highest grossing documentary of all time which beat out Hollywood action movies on its opening weekend.
"When a Power Point presentation beats Hollywood, you know something's changed," he said.
Alex Gaboury, a Grade 11 student, said the presentation motivated her more than frightened her.
She said she plans to talk to her parents, but will not necessarily try to convince them to buy a new car. Perhaps change the light bulbs to fluorescent, she said.
"If they were looking to buy a new car, I would advise that," she said."
What a "shocking display" of political pandering at its worst! "Up-to-date fact and figures" from the greenies?!... oh, yes, indeed!
This year, in 2008, the greenie disciples were at it again, indoctrinating more students. Robert Lapensee wrote in "Falls native speaking the truth about climate change", (Niagara This Week, May 2, 2008):
"Niagara Falls native Bronagh Morgan-Sutherland has been many things in her life so far: daughter, lawyer, boxer, Green Party candidate, fitness instructor, mother. Now she's taken on a new challenge, spreading the word about saving the environment.
Morgan-Sutherland, a Stamford Collegiate graduate who now lives in London, Ont., visited her hometown last week to talk to students at Westlane Secondary School about the Climate Project, the live version of Al Gore's award-winning documentary film and book, An Inconvenient Truth.
It was Morgan-Sutherland's first presentation since receiving training for the Climate Project along with 274 other Canadians from Gore in Montreal last month.
"When I was little, the world was different," said Morgan-Sutherland. She said while growing up she never had to worry about UV rays or mosquito bites. But those problems, as well as the massive storms experienced over the last few years, are problems caused by global warming, she said.
"I know it's getting hotter. I know the air has more smog. Those are no-brainers.
"I don't want to make things worse. I don't want to sit and do nothing when I could have done something to make things better."
Morgan-Sutherland presented to students a slideshow filled with graphs and charts detailing the changing temperature trends and sea levels. Pictures of melting glaciers, damage from major storms like Hurricane Katrina and droughts in Asia helped make her point.
Not everyone believes Gore's message, and Morgan-Sutherland is ready for that. Even at her first presentations, some students left shaking their heads why climate change is always pinned on humans when historically the earth has followed cycles of climate change.
"I believe climate change is happening, but it's not just because of humans," said Jeff Holincky, a Grade 10 student at Westlane.
"I have a strong belief nature will fix itself."
Morgan-Sutherland said there are cycles and people helping the environment get back on track is now part of the cycle.
"We have changed things to such a degree the cycles are out of whack."
Morgan-Sutherland, the sister of Westlane teacher Orla Morgan, will spend the next year making presentations throughout Ontario discussing how residents, businesses and communities can take the actions necessary to reduce their environmental impact and urge others to action.
"There are a lot of people who think the Earth is so big and we are so small there's nothing we can do that will have an impact," she told students, adding she was inspired to act by her infant daughter, Ivy. "That's just not so.
"You have to talk about it, that's what I'd like to see you do. If you believe in this than you have to tell people about it."
Morgan-Sutherland, a Stamford Collegiate graduate who now lives in London, Ont., visited her hometown last week to talk to students at Westlane Secondary School about the Climate Project, the live version of Al Gore's award-winning documentary film and book, An Inconvenient Truth.
It was Morgan-Sutherland's first presentation since receiving training for the Climate Project along with 274 other Canadians from Gore in Montreal last month.
"When I was little, the world was different," said Morgan-Sutherland. She said while growing up she never had to worry about UV rays or mosquito bites. But those problems, as well as the massive storms experienced over the last few years, are problems caused by global warming, she said.
"I know it's getting hotter. I know the air has more smog. Those are no-brainers.
"I don't want to make things worse. I don't want to sit and do nothing when I could have done something to make things better."
Morgan-Sutherland presented to students a slideshow filled with graphs and charts detailing the changing temperature trends and sea levels. Pictures of melting glaciers, damage from major storms like Hurricane Katrina and droughts in Asia helped make her point.
Not everyone believes Gore's message, and Morgan-Sutherland is ready for that. Even at her first presentations, some students left shaking their heads why climate change is always pinned on humans when historically the earth has followed cycles of climate change.
"I believe climate change is happening, but it's not just because of humans," said Jeff Holincky, a Grade 10 student at Westlane.
"I have a strong belief nature will fix itself."
Morgan-Sutherland said there are cycles and people helping the environment get back on track is now part of the cycle.
"We have changed things to such a degree the cycles are out of whack."
Morgan-Sutherland, the sister of Westlane teacher Orla Morgan, will spend the next year making presentations throughout Ontario discussing how residents, businesses and communities can take the actions necessary to reduce their environmental impact and urge others to action.
"There are a lot of people who think the Earth is so big and we are so small there's nothing we can do that will have an impact," she told students, adding she was inspired to act by her infant daughter, Ivy. "That's just not so.
"You have to talk about it, that's what I'd like to see you do. If you believe in this than you have to tell people about it."
Whose "truth" is this greenie peddling?!
What specific "cycles" are "out of whack"?!
"She never had to worry about UV rays or mosquito bites" ... WTF !?!
This greenie is linking Hurricane Katrina to "global warming"??!! ... WTF!?!
"Massive storms experienced over the last few years" are caused by global warming!?!
WTF?!
Where's the FLICKING evidence? Were there no storms before Al Gore invented the internet??
And this kind Gore-Bull crap is being peddled in our schools without question in an attempt to politicize students with greenshevik political paranoia?? Were the kids also given candies and Green Party membership cards too?
Doug Draper wrote in “Fight climate change pedal by pedal”, (Niagara This Week, May 23, 2008):
“Marion Landry doesn't just talk the talk when it comes to advocating bicycles as another alternative to cars for commuting everywhere from home to work or the corner store, or for just taking a relaxing ride through our countryside. Weather permitting, Landry is out there on a bike, almost every day of the week, pumping the pedals.
Earlier this month, she pedalled 18 kilometres each way -- two days in a row -- between her home in Thorold and the annual Smarter Niagara Summit our regional government held this year in Welland.
It took Landry, a public health nurse with the region and one of its most passionate biking advocates, more than half an hour to pedal a stretch of the Greater Niagara Circle Trail, paralleling the Welland Canal, to a banquet hall in the Rose City where the summit was held. Yet she arrived on time (looking more fit and relaxed than a good many of us who regularly drive such distances in cars) to a summit where several of the presentations lent weight to her efforts to encourage fellow Niagara residents to turn to the bicycle as a more environmentally friendly way of getting around.
A good third of the summit was taken up by presentations on moving forward, as rapidly as possible, with reshaping our communities in ways more amenable to getting around the continued unbridled burning of fossils fuels wreaking havoc on the quality of life in our communities with blankets of smog now responsible for more premature deaths in Canada and the U.S. from respiratory and heart-related diseases than from traffic fatalities and violent crimes combined. The emissions from these fuels are also contributing to greenhouse gases and a warming of our planet many scientists agree pose some of the greatest challenges to human survival in the 21st century.
The summit's keynote speaker, Thomas Homer-Dixon, a researcher focusing on global security at the Trudeau Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Toronto, bottom-lined what is at stake if we don't act now to reverse the status quo. "This is an absolutely staggering challenge we face and we are not innovating fast enough (to address it)," he said. "I am concerned about what kind of future we have created for our children and our grandchildren (and) if we leave it for them, the problem is going to be far too difficult to solve. We've got to start taking action now."
Unfortunately, we now have President George W. Bush in the U.S. and his water boy in Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who are both long-time deniers of climate change as something our fossil-fuel burning activities are contributing to. They've both used such words like "alleged" and "hypothesis" (as in alleged greenhouse gases and the global warming hypothesis) to marginalize any evidence that emissions from fossil fuels are contributing to wilder fluctuations in weather conditions that may already be responsible for untold deaths and destruction of property around the planet. Both may go down in history as appeasers of oil barons and other special interests that view any aggressive action to combat greenhouse gases as crashing the pig roast their enjoying around the guzzling of gas and record profits.
But we don't have time to wait for that.
Fortunately, there may soon be a new U.S. president who takes climate change more seriously, prompting whoever we have here as a prime minister to, more or less, fall in to line. Homer-Dixon described the coming U.S. election as one of the most important ones in recent history for that reason.
In the meantime, we can show some leadership at the grassroots level by demanding of our municipal, provincial and federal representatives that they invest our tax dollars in better public transit systems and in other more environmentally friendly ways of moving people and goods around in our communities, from walking or biking or taking a bus, to rail as more of an alternative to cars and trucks.
On the biking front, this coming week is the launch of the 'Bike to get there ... where you live, learn, work and play' campaign across Niagara. If you want to help fight global warming, contact www.rnbc.info to find out more about this campaign or contact 905-984-3626 at Tourism Niagara to obtain a detailed bicycling map for our region.
Marion Landry sees the campaign as one more way to combat climate change one step or one pedal at a time.
"I think we all have to do our little part," she said.
What other choice do we have? The alternative could be pretty grim for those who hope our children and theirs have an opportunity to live any quality of life in coming decades of this century.”
“Marion Landry doesn't just talk the talk when it comes to advocating bicycles as another alternative to cars for commuting everywhere from home to work or the corner store, or for just taking a relaxing ride through our countryside. Weather permitting, Landry is out there on a bike, almost every day of the week, pumping the pedals.
Earlier this month, she pedalled 18 kilometres each way -- two days in a row -- between her home in Thorold and the annual Smarter Niagara Summit our regional government held this year in Welland.
It took Landry, a public health nurse with the region and one of its most passionate biking advocates, more than half an hour to pedal a stretch of the Greater Niagara Circle Trail, paralleling the Welland Canal, to a banquet hall in the Rose City where the summit was held. Yet she arrived on time (looking more fit and relaxed than a good many of us who regularly drive such distances in cars) to a summit where several of the presentations lent weight to her efforts to encourage fellow Niagara residents to turn to the bicycle as a more environmentally friendly way of getting around.
A good third of the summit was taken up by presentations on moving forward, as rapidly as possible, with reshaping our communities in ways more amenable to getting around the continued unbridled burning of fossils fuels wreaking havoc on the quality of life in our communities with blankets of smog now responsible for more premature deaths in Canada and the U.S. from respiratory and heart-related diseases than from traffic fatalities and violent crimes combined. The emissions from these fuels are also contributing to greenhouse gases and a warming of our planet many scientists agree pose some of the greatest challenges to human survival in the 21st century.
The summit's keynote speaker, Thomas Homer-Dixon, a researcher focusing on global security at the Trudeau Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Toronto, bottom-lined what is at stake if we don't act now to reverse the status quo. "This is an absolutely staggering challenge we face and we are not innovating fast enough (to address it)," he said. "I am concerned about what kind of future we have created for our children and our grandchildren (and) if we leave it for them, the problem is going to be far too difficult to solve. We've got to start taking action now."
Unfortunately, we now have President George W. Bush in the U.S. and his water boy in Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who are both long-time deniers of climate change as something our fossil-fuel burning activities are contributing to. They've both used such words like "alleged" and "hypothesis" (as in alleged greenhouse gases and the global warming hypothesis) to marginalize any evidence that emissions from fossil fuels are contributing to wilder fluctuations in weather conditions that may already be responsible for untold deaths and destruction of property around the planet. Both may go down in history as appeasers of oil barons and other special interests that view any aggressive action to combat greenhouse gases as crashing the pig roast their enjoying around the guzzling of gas and record profits.
But we don't have time to wait for that.
Fortunately, there may soon be a new U.S. president who takes climate change more seriously, prompting whoever we have here as a prime minister to, more or less, fall in to line. Homer-Dixon described the coming U.S. election as one of the most important ones in recent history for that reason.
In the meantime, we can show some leadership at the grassroots level by demanding of our municipal, provincial and federal representatives that they invest our tax dollars in better public transit systems and in other more environmentally friendly ways of moving people and goods around in our communities, from walking or biking or taking a bus, to rail as more of an alternative to cars and trucks.
On the biking front, this coming week is the launch of the 'Bike to get there ... where you live, learn, work and play' campaign across Niagara. If you want to help fight global warming, contact www.rnbc.info to find out more about this campaign or contact 905-984-3626 at Tourism Niagara to obtain a detailed bicycling map for our region.
Marion Landry sees the campaign as one more way to combat climate change one step or one pedal at a time.
"I think we all have to do our little part," she said.
What other choice do we have? The alternative could be pretty grim for those who hope our children and theirs have an opportunity to live any quality of life in coming decades of this century.”
"Appeasers of oil barons"?... that's an old line taken out of St. Catharines MPP Jim Bradley's Liberal monologue, yes, the Jim Bradley who has done nothing about all those deaths that are caused by his Ontario Liberal government's coal plant emissions! Highway-builder Bradley is appeasing the oil barons today! Will Draper get rid of his gas-hog minivan and pedal a bike in the 'global-warmed' Canadian winter? Or is he just peddling the idea that someone else should? Of course, Draper never advocates any nefarious "special interests"!!
The above one-sided enviro-socialist views should be considered alongside other perspectives.
Peter Foster wrote in “Euro-Marxist menagerie”, (National Post, May 23, 2008):
“It was inevitable that the subprime financial crisis would provoke jeremiads from the left. That has been particularly true across the Atlantic, where politicians and eurocrats have used it as an opportunity to pour scorn on "Anglo-Saxon casino capitalism."
As such, the crisis has been particularly useful in distracting attention from the problems of overregulated European economies. Moreover, it has presented an opportunity to climb aboard the old moral high horse and trot out the hoary Marxist menagerie.
Last week, German President and former IMF head Horst Kohler described global financial markets as a "monster" that needed to be put in its place. He compared bankers to medieval alchemists.
French President Nikolas Sarkozy has called for a "re-moralization of capitalism." (Wonder if that would include a re-moralization of marital relations?) In Italy, Silvio Berlusconi has returned to power bemoaning globalization. EU finance ministers have spent a good deal of time lately berating executive pay.
Nobody calls for the outright scrapping of capitalism any more. Instead, what is reportedly needed is more and wiser "governance" of the capitalist beast by diehard proponents of the system that failed.
The latest call for more socialist direction came this week in a rousing epistle to Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, from a bunch of left-leaning politicians and fellow travellers led by former EC president Jacques Delors.
"Financial markets cannot govern us!" it begins, boldly striking down a straw man. The group, which includes former German chancellor Helmut Schmidt and former French prime minister Lionel Jospin, then delivers a lengthy diatribe on the shortcomings of capitalism, suggesting that the recent financial crisis rooted in U. S. subprime lending was entirely predictable, and "shows us, once more, that the financial market is not capable of self-regulation." The letter does admit that markets were "poorly regulated," but rejects without examination the notion that the fundamental problem might be such inevitably "poor" regulation.
The signatories castigate something they call the "shadow banking sector," and in particular the packaging of all that subprime crap. This admitted folly, however, is allegedly "only the symptom of a broader crisis in financial governance and business practices." According to the letter, "One [unnamed] investment bank earned billions of U. S. dollars by speculating downward on subprime securities while selling them to its clients, epitomizing the loss of business ethics!"
In the fevered minds of diehard socialists, there are no exceptional cases of corporate malfeasance. The whole basket of apples always has to be rotten all the way through.
"The problem," they declare, "is a model of economic and business governance based on under-regulation, inadequate supervision and undersupply of public goods."
Regulators and redistributors of the world unite!
However, the vast majority of the financial sector was, and is, regulated. One pregnant question is -- as noted -- how far such regulation leads participants to a false sense of security and neglect of due diligence. Another is exactly what new forms of regulation these letter-writers propose. In fact, what they propose, typically, is a lot more talking.
Inevitably, they insert only slightly updated versions of Marxist theories of immiseration: that wealth leads to poverty. "Rising income inequality," they suggest, "has gone in tandem with an ever-growing financial sector." Financial assets, they point out, now represent 15 times the total GDP of all countries (which, of course, compares apples with origins). The threat allegedly comes from "fictitious capital," whatever that may be, "with very little improvement for humanity and the environment." Which is patently untrue. CEO salaries are dragged out for a ritual necklacing.
Bizarrely, the authors even cite Adam Smith, although they make reference to his "other" book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments. They do not suggest what lessons we are supposed to draw from it, apart, presumably, from its implied contradiction of "laissez-faire."
"Profit-seeking is the essence of the market economy," they acknowledge. "But when everything is for sale, social cohesion melts and the system breaks down."
Is there any more hoary socialist shibboleth than the notion that, under capitalism, "everything is for sale," including babies and body parts? Reference is made to soaring energy and food prices, with no reference to the central role of government regulation in that state of affairs.
Apparently "decent" capitalism requires "effective public policy." (So much better than the much more common ineffective variety.)
The European Union might be better (or at least more) regulated than the United States, but little comfort is to be drawn from that. There are those property markets in the U. K., Spain and Ireland, and there's the rise of nationalism and populism.
What, as Lenin so lethally asked, is to be done?
"We need pragmatism, open-mindedness and co-operation in pursuing common goals!" declare the writers, boldly.
The open-mindedness would presumably involve forgetting the past, and ongoing, failures of European overregulation. Still, the main requirement is apparently the setting up of a "European Crisis Committee," presumably populated by the signatories and other like-minded souls. This group will then settle down on fat per diems to lengthy analysis in luxurious surroundings, preparatory to the convening of a "World Financial Conference."
Oy vey.
Nobody has ever claimed that capitalism, or the markets through which it works, are "perfect." However, they are by their nature self-correcting, and a painful process of correction is what we are now seeing. The hammers of socialism, however, still only ever see the nail of more and closer regulation as the solution. Accompanied, of course, by a great deal of moralizing and expensive talking.”
Lorne Gunter wrote in “So much for ‘settled science’”, (National Post, May 20, 2008):
“You may have heard earlier this month that global warming is now likely to take break for a decade or more. There will be no more warming until 2015, perhaps later.
Climate scientist Noel Keenlyside, leading a team from Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, for the first time entered verifiable data on ocean circulation cycles into one of the U. N.'s climate supercomputers, and the machine spit out a projection that there will be no more warming for the foreseeable future.
Of course, Mr. Keenlyside-- long a defender of the man-made global warming theory -- was quick to add that after 2015 (or perhaps 2020), warming would resume with a vengeance.
Climate alarmists the world over were quick to add that they had known all along there would be periods when the Earth's climate would cool even as the overall trend was toward dangerous climate change.
Sorry, but that is just so much backfill.
There may have been the odd global-warming scientist in the past decade who allowed that warming would pause periodically in its otherwise relentless upward march, but he or she was a rarity.
If anything, the opposite is true: Almost no climate scientist who backed the alarmism ever expected warming would take anything like a 10 or 15-year hiatus.
Last year, in its oft-quoted report on global warming, the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted a 0.3-degree C rise in temperature in the coming decade -- not a cooling or even just temperature stability.
In its previous report in 2001, the IPCC prominently displaced the so-called temperature "hockey stick" that purported to show temperature pretty much plateauing for the thousand years before 1900, then taking off in the 20th Century in a smooth upward line. No 10-year dips backwards were foreseen.
It is drummed into us, ad nauseum, that the IPCC represents 2,500 scientists who together embrace a "consensus" that man-made global warming is a "scientific fact;" and as recently as last year, they didn't see this cooling coming. So the alarmists can't weasel out of this by claiming they knew all along such anomalies would occur.
This is not something any alarmist predicted, and it showed up in none of the UN's computer projections until Mr. Keenlyside et al. were finally able to enter detailed data into their climate model on past ocean current behaviour.
Less well-known is that global temperatures have already been falling for a decade. All of which means, that by 2015 or 2020, when warming is expected to resume, we will have had nearly 20 years of fairly steady cooling.
Saints of the new climate religion, such as Al Gore, have stated that eight of the 10 years since 1998 are the warmest on record. Even if that were true, none has been as warm as 1998, which means the trend of the past decade has been downward, not upward.
Last year, for instance, saw a drop in the global average temperature of nearly 0.7 degrees C (the largest single-year movement up or down since global temperature averages have been calculated). Despite advanced predictions that 2007 would be the warmest year on record, made by such UN associates as Britain's Hadley Centre, a government climate research agency, 2007 was the coolest year since at least 1993.
According to the U. S. National Climatic Data Center, the average temperature of the global land surface in January 2008 was below the 20th-Century mean for the first time since 1982.
Also in January, Southern Hemisphere sea ice coverage was at its greatest summer level (January is summer in the Southern Hemisphere) in the past 30 years.
Neither the 3,000 temperature buoys that float throughout the world's oceans nor the eight NASA satellites that float above our atmosphere have recorded appreciable warming in the past six to eight years.
Even Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, reluctantly admitted to Reuters in January that there has been no warming so far in the 21st Century.
Does this prove that global warming isn't happening, that we can all go back to idling our SUVs 24/7? No. But it should introduce doubt into the claim that the science of global warming is "settled."”
Lawrence Solomon wrote in “32,000 deniers”, (National Post, May 17, 2008):
“Question: How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming? The quest to establish that the science is not settled on climate change began before most people had even heard of global warming.
The year was 1992 and the United Nations was about to hold its Earth Summit in Rio. It was billed as -- and was -- the greatest environmental and political assemblage in human history. Delegations came from 178 nations -- virtually every nation in the world -- including 118 heads of state or government and 7,000 diplomatic bureaucrats. The world's environmental groups came too -- they sent some 30,000 representatives from every corner of the world to Rio. To report all this, 7,000 journalists converged on Rio to cover the event, and relay to the publics of the world that global warming and other environmental insults were threatening the planet with catastrophe.
In February of that year, in an attempt to head off the whirlwind that the conference would unleash, 47 scientists signed a "Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming," decrying "the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action."
To a scientist in search of truth, 47 is an impressive number, especially if those 47 dissenters include many of the world's most eminent scientists. To the environmentalists, politicians, press at Rio, their own overwhelming numbers made the 47 seem irrelevant.
Knowing this, a larger petition effort was undertaken, known as the Heidelberg Appeal, and released to the public at the Earth Summit. By the summit's end, 425 scientists and other intellectual leaders had signed the appeal.
These scientists -- mere hundreds -- also mattered for nought in the face of the tens of thousands assembled at Rio. The Heidelberg Appeal was blown away and never obtained prominence, even though the organizers persisted over the years to ultimately obtain some 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners.
The earnest effort to demonstrate the absence of a consensus continued with the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change -- an attempt to counter the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. Its 150-odd signatories also counted for nought. As did the Cornwall Declaration on Environmental Stewardship in 2000, signed by more than 1,500 clergy, theologians, religious leaders, scientists, academics and policy experts concerned about the harm that Kyoto could inflict on the world's poor.
Then came the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine's Petition Project of 2001, which far surpassed all previous efforts and by all rights should have settled the issue of whether the science was settled on climate change. To establish that the effort was bona fide, and not spawned by kooks on the fringes of science, as global warming advocates often label the skeptics, the effort was spearheaded by Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University, and as reputable as they come.
The Oregon petition garnered an astounding 17,800 signatures, a number all the more astounding because of the unequivocal stance that these scientists took: Not only did they dispute that there was convincing evidence of harm from carbon dioxide emissions, they asserted that Kyoto itself would harm the global environment because "increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant
and animal environments of the Earth."
The petition drew media attention, but little of it was for revealing to the world that an extraordinary number of scientists hold views on global warming diametrically opposite to those they are expected to hold. Instead, the press focussed on presumed flaws that critics found in the petition. Some claimed the petition was riddled with duplicate names. They were no duplicates, just different scientists with the same name. Some claimed the petition had phonies. There was only one phony: Spice Girl Geri Halliwell, planted by a Greenpeace organization to discredit the petition and soon removed. Other names that seemed to be phony -- such as Michael Fox, the actor, and Perry Mason, the fictional lawyer in a TV series -- were actually bona fide scientists, properly credentialled.
Like the Heidelberg Appeal, the Oregon petition was blown away. But now it is blowing back. Original signatories to the petition and others, outraged at Kyoto's corruption of science, wrote to the Oregon Institute and its director, Arthur Robinson, asking that the petition be brought back.
"E-mails started coming in every day," he explained. "And they kept coming. " The writers were outraged at the way Al Gore and company were abusing the science to their own ends. "We decided to do the survey again."
Using a subset of the mailing list of American Men and Women of Science, a who's who of Science, Robinson mailed out his solicitations through the postal service, requesting signed petitions of those who agreed that Kyoto was a danger to humanity. The response rate was extraordinary, "much, much higher than anyone expected, much higher than you'd ordinarily expect," he explained. He's processed more than 31,000 at this point, more than 9,000 of them with PhDs, and has another 1,000 or so to go -- most of them are already posted on a Web site at petitionproject.org.
Why go to this immense effort all over again, when the press might well ignore the tens of thousands of scientists who are standing up against global warming alarmism?
"I hope the general public will become aware that there is no consensus on global warming," he says, "and I hope that scientists who have been reluctant to speak up will now do so, knowing that they aren't alone."
At one level, Robinson, a PhD scientist himself, recoils at his petition. Science shouldn't be done by poll, he explains. "The numbers shouldn't matter. But if they want warm bodies, we have them."
Some 32,000 scientists is more than the number of environmentalists that descended on Rio in 1992. Is this enough to establish that the science is not settled on global warming? The press conference releasing these names occurs on Monday at the National Press Center in Washington. You'll know soon enough if anyone shows up.”
Tom Harris wrote in “Even more deniers on climate”, (National Post, May 24, 2008):
“Re: 32,000 deniers, May 17
Important to add Larry Solomon’s list of declarations, petitions and other documents that debunk the notion of “consensus” in the climate science community is the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change. Created at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City by the International Climate Science Coalition, the declaration calls on world leaders to “reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as well as popular, but misguided works such as An Inconvenient Truth.” All taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) should “be abandoned forthwith”, declaration signatories conclude.
Perhaps most significant among the declaration’s assertions:
- “There is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity have in the past, are now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.”
- “Attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering.”
Because of overwhelming public interest in the Manhattan Declaration, and the fact that everyone, not just scientists, will be detrimentally affected if governments continue to yield to climate campaigners, we have opened endorsement up to everyone. In the past three weeks, over 400 people from all walks of life, experts and ordinary citizens alike, have joined the original 500 endorsers (150 of whom are experts in the field) to add fuel to the fire rapidly consuming Gore/Suzuki/UN climate mythology. Anyone can endorse online by simply visiting http://www.climate-scienceinternational.org/.”
-
See more on the future disaster, in 2015, that was Rajendra Pachuari. Good Ole Pachuari was the IPCC Chair since 2002, then resigned in 2015, amidst charges of molestation, stalking and sexual harassment.
We have to remember that this pathetic hack was the main GreenFear mouthpiece globally, as were Liberal GreenFear-pushers Jim Bradley in Ontario and Stephane 'Bumbledore' Dion federally in Canada. Dion's Poop-O-Gram-filled 'Green Shift' campaign literature prominently featured Pachauri as if he were a green deity. What lies.)
-
No comments:
Post a Comment