Calling on Canada's Cagiest Climatologist to provide evidence of AGW, Chapters 58 and 59

CHAPTER 58 

    Interesting column by Danielle Smith in the Sept. 6, 2019 Calgary Herald, regarding an interview which Canadian Crime Minister Justin Turdeau had on Netflix with a so-called 'comedian', Hasan Minhaj: 

..."Minhaj praises post-nationalist Trudeau for inviting the world to Canada’s doorstep with his welcome-to-Canada tweet heard around the world, then seems shocked that it resulted in an immigration backlash, particularly in Quebec with its secular law banning religious apparel in public service jobs.

He even points out that Trudeau’s 32 per cent popularity is lower than Donald Trump, who is at 41 per cent.

As much as I can revel in a bit of schadenfreude for our pompous prime minister getting his comeuppance by an even more pompous American, about halfway through it stops being funny. Minhaj’s interview may have been bad for Trudeau, but it is even worse for Alberta.

Minhaj saved his most devastating blows for talking about Alberta’s oilsands, which he acknowledges is the third-largest oil reserve in the world, and which he calls the tarsands because they “are dirty and gunky, mixed in with sand, and refining it causes a ton of pollution.” To his credit, Trudeau does a good job explaining how pipelines are a better way to transport oil than rail or trucking and talks about how Canadians know we can balance the environment and the economy.

Minhaj would have none of it, though, and he proceeds to damn Trudeau with his own words, saying Trudeau sold himself hard as the guy who would “get the Paris agreement done,” calling him a “climate hero,” a “one-man PR team for the environment,” pointing out that climate change was his “signature issue,” and even saying he would be what the Green New Deal would be like “if it had piercing eyes and wanted to read you poetry” — whatever that means.

For Canadians, it’s jarring to hear an American complain about the twinning of an existing pipeline when the U.S. has 116,000 kilometres of crude oil pipelines, the largest network in the world. It’s shocking to hear an American complain about the expansion of Trans Mountain to carry 890,000 bpd, when the U.S. approved three new pipelines in the last three years that will carry 2.4 million bpd. And it’s beyond belief an American would be outraged by our tanker shipments going from 60 to 400 a year from Burnaby, when tanker exports from the U.S. Gulf Coast are now at their highest ever.

Minhaj joins a long list of celebrity hypocrites that includes Al Gore, David Suzuki, James Cameron, Leonardo DiCaprio, Jane Fonda and the like — acting as if Canada is solely to blame for the world’s use of crude and expecting us to bear the sole obligation to stop producing it.

I’ve been perplexed for some time about why it is that wealthy, fossil-fuel guzzling stars target us. Minhaj finally explains why we in Canada are held to a higher standard than anyone else.

In an homage to the Black Panther comic book hero, Minhaj ends the segment by telling Trudeau he is the White Panther presiding over WaKanada and that our country is “a proving ground for whether progressive policies can work.”

Think about that: the progressives of the world want Canada to be a demonstration project, proving that we can support mass immigration, eliminate poverty, offer free health care to all, maintain pristine landscapes, while choking off the principal source of wealth that allows us to accomplish all those things.

As I said, I almost felt sorry for Trudeau. But he’s to blame for the pickle we find ourselves in, by raising expectations that could never possibly have been met. No wonder celebrities think we live in a movie."

*

The yankee left's obsession with Canada as a political laboratory experiment is quite clear. Politically challenged Demotards continually demand and expect that Canadians (mainly left-lib bolshies) obediently obey the left's moral-virtue signals, and obediently submit to being manipulated by U.S. GreenFear social-engineering experiments. 
Of course, it's not only yank leftists, but Canadian ones as well who desire to oppress their fellow Canadians - y'know, GreenFear-pushing scumbags such as Jim Bradley, Justin Turdeau, Catherine McKenna, Stephane Dion (heck: all Liberals...) as well as Canada's gaggle of commy dippers and green eco-fascists. 
We see how American organizations (Tides) openly conspired "to land-lock the Tar Sands"; to choke off Alberta's oil industry. 
We see Trudeau's federal Liberal links to these U.S. efforts through the activities of Butts - who was also McGuinty's chief of staff provincially during the Liberal's eco-terror reign in Ontario.
The cancer of Jim {The Godfather of GreenFear} Bradley's Liberal eco-terrorism - having helped destroy Ontario - metastasized and sought another host to feed upon, and so spread from Ontario to infect Ottawa. That same cancer had also earlier spread provincially to Alberta with the election of Notley's commy dippers.
   We know that during his election campaign, oil-hater Trudeau had happily accepted Obama's 'Dream Team' agents / 'political advisors' to 'assist' the spread of globalist eco-terror in Canada. 
  Yep: Turdo invited foreign actors to help interfere in a federal election. 
   Even back in 2012, Susan Delacourt reported in the Toronto Star, Nov.12, 2012 how Justin Trudeau, still an MP, was drooling over Obama and seeking influence from yankee Democrats:
   "...The outreach to the Obama campaign by the Trudeau team shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.

David Axelrod, Obama’s senior strategist, worked a decade ago with Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, when the Liberal politician was still in opposition and looking for ways to take power from the Conservatives. And some of the top people in the Trudeau leadership campaign, including Gerald Butts, also worked in the Liberal leader’s office when Axelrod was offering his wisdom to McGuinty from 2000 to 2002.

Marie Bountrogianni, a former Ontario Liberal cabinet minister who is supporting Trudeau, was in Chicago and Iowa to help out in the final days of the U.S. presidential election this month and even stayed overnight at Axelrod’s country home in Michigan, along with a dozen other volunteers.

She said she was “blown away” by the high degree of sophistication in the Obama organization — the technology, the discipline and its ability to execute large shifts in strategy. Bountrogianni was initially assigned to be part of a get-out-the-vote (GOTV) brigade in Wisconsin, but dozens of volunteers were suddenly rerouted to Iowa, where they were greeted with new packages of call orders and scripts to follow. “I couldn’t believe how organized they were,” she said.

Liberals are in the midst of a large effort here to raise their own game in gathering databases and building home-grown technical sophistication, with hardware purchased from the Obama Democrats. Bountrogianni says Liberals should pay close attention to how the Obama team has pulled this off, especially among disengaged voters and with the help of masses of micro-donations.

Taleeb Noormohamed, who was also a federal Liberal candidate in the last election, went to Nevada to campaign for Obama in the final days of the presidential election too.

He said he was impressed by how much the Democrats had done to identify the vote before the election even began, and how much they knew about their potential voters. Noormohamed said Liberals could take some lessons from the Obama campaign in staking out strong positions on issues that will engage disaffected progressives — “stop being afraid to say where we stand” — and in doing as much as possible before the election to amass lists of possible Liberal support.

The new class of voting delegates for the federal Liberal leadership — “supporters,” as opposed to paying members — will be a big help in building that stockpile of information, Noormohamed said."

  Yep: the Democrat Obama cancer that infected McGuinty and which destroyed Ontario in the process, was then purposefully utilized by Turdo to destroy Canada.
    Of course, in 2012, this article by Delacourt was meant to be a compliment to Turdo, to McGuinty, and to Obama's Democrats. The America-hatin' TorStar was more than happy to suspend its vitriol, if a demoncrat was helping interfere with a Canadian election! (Say it ain't so, Susan!!) And clearly, many Canadian Liberals happily entered the United States to interfere in theirs.
   This was ALL SEEN AS GREAT by the Star back then!
    Funny how disgusting all that looks, now in 2019, after the horrors under McGuinty and Wynne in Ontario, and then 4 years of disaster federally under Turdo. 
Turdeau was in bed with Obama, and Obama's disgusting Democratic socialism, from way back. It destroyed Ontario and helped destroy Canada. (No wonder the Liberal hack Bill Morneau was seen skulking around the Javits center on election day in the US, drooling at the prospect of kissing Crooked Hillary's anticipated-victorious claws.) Delacourt had unwittingly back then provided the clear links and the undeniable evidence of foreign political interference in Canada at the invitation of Canada's Liberals, and foreign interference in the States by Canada's Liberals, by invitation of Obama. 
    (...all this while Vivian Krause, also in 2012, was reporting on other U.S. interference and subterfuge in Canada, see further below, which was ridiculed by scumbags such as Liberal David McGuinty and NDPeer Claude Gravelle)
   In 2015, the fetid stench of Obama was perfume to Turdeau. This cancer existed RIGHT IN TURDEAU'S OFFICE; its goal: to create disruption in Canada's economy, through the propagation of GreenFear eco-terrorism.
   On Oct.16, 2019, Obama further interfered in Canada's federal election by endorsing his blackfaced sycophant Trudeau. Not one Liberal complained about 'U.S. interference', as they of course would have, if Trump or Bush had said anything similar during Canada's federal election.

     See how yankee eco-terrorists attempted to interfere with the provincial election in Alberta, as detailed in this Apr.12, 2019 National Post column by Vivian Krause.  

     You can bet that ignorant clowns such as Minhaj - those sanctimonious believers of "Trump-Russia" conspiracy theories -  couldn't care less when it is THEIR country openly meddling, openly interfering, with elections held in Canada. 

    That American GreenFear-mongers are meddling in Canadian affairs (despite the ignorance of Minhaj and his audience) is not a new thing; seven years earlier, Vivian Krause had appeared before a Feb.9, 2012 Federal House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources hearing, delivering this statement:

   "...I will be making my remarks in English, but I would be happy to answer any questions in either French or English.

     My name is Vivian Krause. Over the past five years I have followed the science and the money behind environmental campaigns. I've written a series of articles published in the Financial Post and elsewhere. I also write a blog called Fair Questions. I'm not part of an industry, political party, or a campaign.

    As I prepared to testify today, I watched a short video at the website of the joint review panel for the Northern Gateway project. In that video, the chairperson of the panel, Sheila Leggett, says the decision that the panel will be making is on whether the Northern Gateway is in the public interest of our country. She emphasizes that public participation is important, and that the panel is focused on making sure it has a process that is open, fair, and transparent. With the backing of government and the oil industry, one of the most powerful industries in the world, it's expected the proponents of the Northern Gateway will have significant resources at their disposal. This is common knowledge. When the public hears from the spokespeople from the ministry and government, we consider the source.

    What hasn't been known until recently, however, is that some of the opponents of various pipeline projects and the campaigns against the Canadian energy sector also have some deep-pocketed supporters south of the border. I believe that in order for the joint review panel to conduct its work in a manner that is open, fair, and transparent, funding on all sides should be out in the open. In my review of the American tax returns of the foundations funding the environmental movement both in the U.S. and in Canada, I've traced $300 million that has gone from American charitable foundations to environmental campaigns affecting our country. Most of my analysis is based on American tax returns because the IRS requires greater disclosure than the CRA.

    The $300 million is from roughly 850 grants that I've traced from ten foundations. In addition to these foundations, an additional dozen or more American foundations have granted substantial funds to Canadian environmental groups. By my analysis, American funding from the foundations that I've followed has increased tenfold over the past decade, from about $4 million in 2000 to $50 million in 2010. Of the $300 million in American funding that I've traced, at least $30 million is specifically for campaigns targeting the oil and gas industry in Canada.

    As I see it, the campaign against Canadian energy is one side of a two-sided coin. The other side of the coin is the creation of the renewable energy industry. In trying to understand the campaign against Canadian oil and the pipeline projects that are the lifeline of the Canadian energy sector, I think this is perhaps the most important insight that I can offer. This thinking is reflected in the strategy paper entitled “Design to Win”, which is prepared by the California Environmental Associates and funded by all of the big American foundations that are funding the campaign against Canadian oil. In that document, there's a diagram that clearly spells out that consumer and voter campaigns are funded in order to influence politicians to create the context for, and I quote, “massive shift in investment capital from dirty to clean energy”.

    Of course, the dichotomy between dirty and clean energy is a bit of a false dichotomy in the sense that the so-called clean energy industry also has some negative environmental impacts. Underneath this dichotomy is another dichotomy, which of course is between energy that has historically been largely or partially from foreign oil imports and an industry that has been created that is primarily domestic.

    The campaign to shift from dirty to clean energy, as it appears to me, is also about reducing dependence on imported oil, and increasing energy independence. In fact, if you read the fine print, you will find that American foundations say this themselves in their strategy papers, that one of their interests is in increasing American energy security and American energy independence.

    In the media coverage in the public debate over the last few weeks, there have been several recurring questions. I'd like to speak briefly to each of these. The first question is, so what? Environmentalists have downplayed the extent of their American funding by saying the oil industry has foreign investors, and the environmental impacts of the oil industry are global, so it's fine for the environmental movement to source its funding globally. These are valid points. I will argue, though, that at the heart of the funding matter is not just the foreign nature of the funding; it's the fact that the money involved is big, and that it's coming from billion-dollar foundations, and in one case a hedge fund billionaire. And the funders that are funding this strategy are funding science as a marketing tactic to sway market share, to manipulate markets, and in some cases to protect trade interests. If thousands of Alaskan families say they are giving $25 or $30 to B.C. environmental groups, that would be foreign funding, but I don't think it would bother us, because in fact if there is a major oil spill, Alaska would be affected.

     What we see here is the opposite of that. It's not small amounts of money from a large number of foreign sources; it's very large amounts of money from a very small number of billion-dollar foundations. Actually, my blog and most of my writing has been about the science and the money behind environmental campaigns. Really, it's the use of the flawed science and some of the exaggerated claims that are my biggest concerns. Some of what the environmental organizations are saying is simply untrue. This brings me to ask who is funding these campaigns and why.

    Another question that comes up is the question of who is calling the shots. Environmentalists insist that they're in the driver's seat. However, this does not quite ring true for me, because most of the foundations funding these campaigns don't accept unsolicited proposals. In other words, they have their own ideas.

    The third issue is what we might call the constituency issue. This is an important question for the joint review panel. When an organization receives a substantial portion of its funding from foreign sources, who does that organization represent? For example, RAVEN, a small first-nations group that campaigns heavily against the proposed Prosperity Mine in B.C., reported in its tax return for 2009-2010 that 83% of its funding is from outside Canada. When an organization is that heavily funded by foreign funding, whose interests is it representing? Are they Canadian interests or the interests of its foreign funders, or perhaps both?

    Incidentally, I've also seen grants that mention specific mines and other specific projects. In one case, it was a ski resort, the Jumbo Glacier ski resort, in British Columbia.

    When billionaire funders are involved in influencing public opinion and public policy on a major issue of national importance, I think the money should be out in the open, whether the billionaire funders are American or Canadian. I believe that this applies to foreign investment and philanthropy, as well.

    Going forward, I hope that the CRA will require the same level of disclosure as the IRS. If that had been the case, this would have been out in the open over the last ten years. I also hope, as I've said before, that government and industry will begin a dialogue directly with the American foundations that are funding the campaign against Canadian energy. These foundations give away $1 billion a year. I don't know that they can be outspent, even by the oil industry. They've already spent hundreds of millions of dollars in our country, so I think it's clear that they're serious about what they're doing.

    I think the time has come for dialogue directly between the Canadian energy industry and the American foundations that are funding the campaign against it.

    Thank you very much..."

    Panelist David Anderson begins to question Krause:

 "I want to thank our witnesses for being with us today.

    Ms. Krause, I'd like to start with you. I wish we had a little more time to explore deeper some of the things you've talked about here.

     Most of us assume that the battle we see against pipelines and oil sands is an ideological one. It was very interesting this morning to hear you talk about the economic aspects of that. It's also interesting that we see these socialistic obsessions being funded by billionaires.

    Who are the key players in the foreign funding that's coming into Canada? Can we track the money a little bit? How does the money get into Canada? What organizations does it comes through, for the most part?

Ms. Vivian Krause:    The main funders are the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Oak Foundation, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The Rockefeller Family Fund funds things south of the border. There's also the Wilburforce Foundation, the Brainerd Foundation, and the Bullitt Foundation. Those are the main ones.

The big five are Hewlett, Packard, Moore, Pew Charitable Trusts, and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Those foundations have $20 billion in assets and give away about $1 billion a year. 

Mr. David Anderson:  Many of them made their money from the oil and gas sector. 

Ms. Vivian Krause:   For example, the wealth of the Pew Charitable Trust originates from oil, as does Rockefeller's. 

Mr. David Anderson:   How are they able to get that huge amount of money you're talking about into Canada?

Ms. Vivian Krause:   To finish up, I think it's important that there is a plan here. In fact, Tides Canada was funded by the Hewlett Foundation to develop “a strategic plan to address oil and gas development in British Columbia”. That was in 2004 that Tides Canada was paid $70,000 to develop this plan by the Hewlett Foundation. Since then Hewlett has poured in $26 million. 

    I think it's fair to ask what the plan is. Does it involve funding a large number of environmental groups that campaign in concert against Canadian oil? Does it involve the creation of the Great Bear Rainforest? Does it involve funding the first nations on the strategic north coast of B.C.? Does it involve funding a particular scientist, politician, or political party? Those are fair questions. What's the plan? 

    Secondly, of the $300 million I've traced, far and away the largest recipient is Tides Canada and its sister organization the U.S. Tides Foundation. I've traced $60 million of American money that has gone through Tides Canada over the last ten years.

Mr. David Anderson:   Do you know what percentage of that has gone into this project in Alberta or B.C.? Is that too difficult to find out?

Ms. Vivian Krause:

    Just to give you one example, the Hewlett Foundation and the Packard Foundation together have granted $90 million towards B.C. environmental groups. Of that $90 million, about $80 million was specifically for projects to create the Great Bear Rainforest, and also to address the energy sector. It's interesting that here we have $55 million that's specifically for the creation of the Great Bear Rainforest, but of course that isn't called the Hewlett Packard Rainforest, it's called the Great Bear Rainforest. Now, in the name of protecting the Kermode bear, environmentalists are arguing that oil tanker traffic needs to be banned on the entire gateway portion of the B.C. coast. The interesting thing about it is that the Great Bear Rainforest goes from the northern tip of Vancouver Island all the way to the southern tip of Alaska, every square inch of the coastline.

Mr. David Anderson:   So were they to get their way, they would shut down any possibility of moving supplies out of that area.

Ms. Vivian Krause:

    Whether it was the intention or not, I don't know. But the Great Bear Rainforest has become the great trade barrier. I do find it interesting to note, though, the tax returns of the Wilburforce Foundation. Of course the Wilburforce Foundation was created by Gordon Letwin, who is one of the original founders of Microsoft. Gordon Letwin has put nearly $100 million through the Wilburforce Foundation, some $60 million of which came in Microsoft shares. So Wilburforce in turn has granted $16 million to B.C. environmental groups.

    One of their grants was specifically to devolve control of land on the B.C. coast to first nations and local communities in the interest of protecting the Great Bear Rainforest. I find it interesting that an American foundation saw fit to empower Canadian aboriginal people, of all the aboriginal people in the world. Having worked with the United Nations in Guatemala for six years and in Indonesia, I would have thought that there are other aboriginal people in the world who could also have used those resources. It does strike me as interesting that so much American money has gone into the creation of this park, a no-trade zone specifically on our strategic gateway to Asia.

Mr. David Anderson:    It's interesting, because some of the environmental groups would agree exactly with what you're saying. I've got a quote from Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, where he said:

The effort to stop Keystone is part of a broader effort to stop the expansion in the tar sands. It is based on choking off the ability to find markets for tar sands oil.

    So it sounds like that's actually the political activity behind what's really going on here..."

 Later at this hearing, another panellist, socialist Claude Gravelle, starts questioning Krause. 

It is instructive to witness Gravelle's inherent bullying, antagonism and disrespect towards Krause throughout their entire interaction - truly a disgusting representation of scumbag socialist fascism: 

"We go now to the official opposition, to Mr. Gravelle, for up to seven minutes.

Mr. Claude Gravelle (Nickel Belt, NDP):  

Thank you, Mr. Chair.   Ms. Krause, you've made some pretty serious allegations impugning the motives of U.S. charitable foundations, suggesting that they are pawns in some economic strategy.Do you have any real evidence that there are U.S. commercial interests funding the Canadian environmental movement efforts to protect our wilderness and our coasts? Do you have any real evidence?

Ms. Vivian Krause:    With respect, sir, you're putting words in my mouth that I haven't said. What I can tell you is what is written down in the tax returns--

Mr. Claude Gravelle:  Can I just stop you for a minute here?

Ms. Vivian Krause:     Please do.

Mr. Claude Gravelle: I just want to quote Peter O'Neil from The Vancouver Sun, who has you as saying, “I have seen no glaring evidence of commercial interests in the U.S. that are funding the campaigns against the Northern Gateway.” Yet today you've made all kinds of accusations here. 

Ms. Vivian Krause:  Yes, well I understand commercial interests to be a particular company, and I don't see any evidence of that. What I do see is--

Mr. Claude Gravelle:   So you haven't seen any evidence of this happening?

The Chair:    Would you let her answer the question, please, Monsieur Gravelle? 

Mr. Claude Gravelle:  She's made some pretty serious accusations here. 

The Chair:   Go ahead, Ms. Krause. 

Ms. Vivian Krause:   I'd be glad to respond to your question.

    What I do see is that wealthy Americans have the interest of their own country at heart, as, I think, do we. My impression is that perhaps what is driving this is the overall broad interest of the American economy. I think one of the best things that any country can do for itself is to give itself a good secure supply of energy and to cut the competition off from having that. So I've never suggested, and I would not suggest, that there is a particular oil company or any particular commercial interest behind this. But it is clear--and the foundations have said themselves--that they are interested in increasing the energy security and the energy independence of the United States and also in weaning the United States off imported oil.

Mr. Claude Gravelle:   So what you're saying is you have no evidence.

Ms. Vivian Krause:   I'm saying that I believe that the--

Mr. Claude Gravelle:   Okay, so you have no evidence. You just have accusations.

The Chair:   Monsieur Gravelle, do give the witness--

Mr. Claude Gravelle:   She doesn't have any evidence.

The Chair:   Do give the witness a chance to answer, and you can ask another question later.

    Go ahead, please, Ms. Krause.

Ms. Vivian Krause:

    I would say I do have evidence, but not of commercial interests. I think there is evidence of the motivations. They're clearly written down. I think they are mixed and that there is a real true interest in protecting the environment and addressing the true environmental impacts of the energy sector. But I think the interest is not purely in protecting the environment, because the foundations themselves say that they're also interested in issues of energy security, national security, and energy independence.

Mr. Claude Gravelle:  So you've only targeted environmentalists with your crusade. If we look at your background, we see that you've worked for a Conservative MP, you've worked in the salmon farming industry, and you've been paid on at least one occasion by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. It doesn't take much of a conspiracy theorist to claim that the real hidden agenda is coming from you.

    Have you conducted any research about the remaining secret backers of the Enbridge pipeline and what interests they are silently promoting?

Ms. Vivian Krause:   Well, sir, first of all let me say, just to give you the right numbers, I did work for a Conservative MP for four weeks, and I was fired.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Vivian Krause: I worked for the United Nations in the poorest countries of the world for ten years.

Mr. Claude Gravelle:  I'm not surprised.

Ms. Vivian Krause:  I also worked for the salmon farming industry. That was ten years ago. For the last five years, I've been working on this unpaid. I'm not paid by anybody, okay?

    Could you remind me again what your second point was?

Mr. Claude Gravelle:   We'll go on to another question.

An hon. member: He forgot.

Mr. Claude Gravelle: Oh, we'll go on to another question.  You've been trained as a nutritionist-- 

Mr. Claude Gravelle:  Never mind.  You've been trained as a nutritionist?

Ms. Vivian Krause:   Yes.

Mr. Claude Gravelle: We've had some pretty highly qualified people come to our committee, with expertise on subjects like industry, labour.... We've had government officials and leading academics testify on the decline in the refinery industry and the loss of jobs. So as a nutritionist, you're not an expert. Why are you...?

Ms. Vivian Krause:  Why am I doing this?

Mr. Claude Gravelle:  Yes.

Ms. Vivian Krause:

  I'll be glad to answer your question. The reason I'm doing this, sir, is that no one else did. Frankly, the work I've done I think is important. It shouldn't have been done by an unpaid lay blogger working on her dining room table using Google. It should have been done by the media--this is investigative journalism type of work--but that wasn't happening. I felt it was an important issue, and that if I didn't do it, it just wouldn't get done. So that's why I did it.

Mr. Claude Gravelle: 

Do you not agree that it seems more concerning that a foreign-state-owned company like Sinopec has not only bought up large swaths of oil sands, but is now trying to push the pipeline through? You hardly even need a conspiracy theory to imagine that they aren't looking out for Canadian interests, because they also have a veto on new refineries in Canada. Don't you find that kind of odd?

Ms. Vivian Krause:  If you are saying that foreign investment in a Canadian industry should be out in the open, I agree with you. When foreign funding to the critics of industry is coming from a hedge-fund billionaire and billion-dollar foundations whose expressed interest is the energy security and energy independence of their own country, I think that should be out in the open. I think all funding should be out in the open.

Mr. Claude Gravelle:    If you think this should be out in the open, why aren't you researching these companies that are backing Enbridge?

Ms. Vivian Krause: Many other journalists have already done it. It's already out there. No one was looking into the foreign funding of the environmental movement, and that's why I did.

Mr. Claude Gravelle:  There is a chart of the Prime Minister with Ethical Oil, the two ministers and a bunch of staffers. I think maybe your picture would fit in quite well, because that's what you're defending: Ethical Oil. I just can't believe what you've been saying.
Ms. Vivian Krause:  I think it's obvious that they have used my research in their campaign, but they have done so without my permission. Frankly, in some cases they have inaccurately quoted my research, and I've insisted on having the record corrected. I'm not part of that campaign.The point I'm trying to make is that we have money coming here from foreign billionaires. In the public debate--

Mr. Claude Gravelle:  We also have money coming in from billionaires supporting the pipeline.

The Chair:  Your time is up, Mr. Gravelle

Ms. Vivian Krause:   I was just going to say that in the public debate the emphasis has been put on the fact that the money is foreign. I've been trying to put the emphasis on the fact that it's big. If you look at my blog, you'll notice that I've also drawn attention to the money from big sources in Canada. For example, the Bronfmans have contributed $6 million to the David Suzuki Foundation: $2 out of every $25 of funding to the David Suzuki Foundation has come from the Bronfmans, the Claudine and Stephen Bronfman Family Foundation. 
 I haven't looked only at American money; I've looked at big money on both sides of the border.."

   NOTE that, instead of being concerned about what Krause actually revealed, this disgusting NDP hack Gravelle did his utmost to personally demean her, and to dismiss and discredit her findings! This f****r didn't give a damn about what she had brought to his attention in 2012. As long as someone - even Americans - were out to destroy Alberta, well, that was good enough for Clod.

This is how GreenFear fascism presents itself in Canada - and asshat clowns such as Minhaj have no fu*kin' clue, either.

  Later panellist Blaine Calkins asked Krause some questions: 

"My last question is for you, Ms. Krause. I would like to know exactly what the difference is between the reporting mechanisms that you found in Canadian reporting through CRA and the tax reporting in the United States. Could you give us a little bit of detail on what the difference was that allowed you to do your investigation?

    The other question I have for you is an opinion question. In your opinion, if it was found that large Canadian charitable foundations were seen to be heavily investing in charitable organizations, or transferring massive amounts of money from Canada into the United States to influence United States domestic policy, what do you think the reaction would be of the United States Congress?

Ms. Vivian Krause:

  To answer your first question, in what are called 990 tax returns of 501(c)(3) charitable foundations, they're required to report a couple of things. One is the grants that they make—the recipient, the stated purpose, the amount, and the date. If that information were publicly available from Canadian foundations then, for example, we'd know what Tides Canada has done with the $60 million that it got from American foundations.

  Another important piece of information is who is being paid, in terms of the PR firms and other for-profit businesses that are funded. In the U.S., charitable foundations are required to report the five highest payees or contractors, and the amounts that they were paid. They're also required to report the names and the exact amount of the salary of the five highest-paid employees. So it's those three things—the grants and the details of the grants, the details of the highest-paid contractees, and the details of the highest-paid employees.

   Perhaps I could answer your second question by telling you that in July of last year I was invited to New York by a small American think tank, the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. They convened a meeting with some of the top American journalists in the New York area who cover the energy sector—people from Forbes, Fortune, the Wall Street Journal, and others. They said to me, “What's going on? Don't you have any lawyers in Canada? Why aren't you suing these foundations?” They couldn't believe that we were just letting this happen. One guy told me that unless you get your lawyers down here, they're just going to be laughing all the way to the bank.

   That was their reaction. As far as Congress, I don't know, but I can tell you that was the reaction of the journalists around the table when I met with them in New York.

The Chair:   Thank you, Mr. Calkins and Ms. Krause"


Later, more questions for Krause from panelist Brian Jean:
"Mr. Brian Jean (Fort McMurray—Athabasca, CPC):

 Thank you, Mr. Chair.  Thank you to the witnesses attending today.

    I do believe, Ms. Krause, that these radical foreign interest groups that you speak of threaten our economy and our national sovereignty. There's no question that I firmly believe that Canadians want an independent Canadian decision by Canadians in the best interests of Canadians. These groups' interference in our national agenda does not help anything.

    I will say I am from the oil sands. I am from northern Alberta. I'm a registered trapper. I also have a science degree. My big thought in life was that I was going to be an environmental lawyer. I was a lawyer but I returned to the oil sands and practised there for many years. I have a trapline within three miles of an oil sands plant. I have a trapline cabin three miles away from Nexen, which operates up there. I can assure you, based on what I've seen, the environmental integrity of the oil sands is much superior to that found in the United States, especially in California, Venezuela, Africa, and just about any other place I've seen pictures of and visited first-hand. They are doing a great job up there.

    And they are doing a great job employing Canadians. Many Canadians from right across the country work up there. When I moved there in 1967, there were 1,500 people there. Today there are over 150,000. People from the Nickel Belt, in fact.... Maybe that's why Mr. Gravelle is so angry, because a lot of people from his riding have moved up there temporarily or part-time. Indeed, these people make $150,000 per year and take the money back. In fact 5,000 Quebeckers and many others live in my riding.

    I do have some questions in relation to these charities. I had a chance to meet with Tides Canada last week. They told me in no uncertain terms that they do not have anything to do with Tides USA and they did not receive money from them. I talked to CRA last week as well. They told me that on the website they have in Canada they do list the salaries of the ten highest-paid people, but not the people in particular, and they don't list contractors, which I suggested they should do.

    How do they get the money into Canada? I don't know who they do it to; I'm not a forensic accountant. But I'd like to know who they get the money to, whether it's other charities, as you mentioned, or whether it's bands or chiefs or lobbyists, and how they get it into Canada. Certainly I would like to look at legislation to stop these people from bringing in the money, doing so either through disclosure or otherwise stopping them from interfering in Canadian interests.

Ms. Vivian Krause: 

  I can show you—in fact, it's posted on my blog—the excerpts of U.S. tax returns showing that the U.S. Tides Foundation has paid Tides Canada over $4 million. You can also go to the website of Bullitt Foundation and you can see for yourself that the Bullitt Foundation has paid Tides U.S. over half a million dollars for projects of Tides Canada. 

Mr. Brian Jean: 

    Okay. Does Tides Canada get directly involved in opposing these applications, for instance the Northern Gateway in particular? Right now we sell our oil for $12 per barrel less than what we should get for international pricing. As we have no other route to sell this oil to, we sell it to the United States. So we sell it at a $12 discount, and that has to stop.

Ms. Vivian Krause:  The second question you asked me was how does the money get into Canada. 

    What I see happening is that some Canadian charities, including Tides Canada, have equivalency status in the U.S., so essentially they're like American charities. What happens is, the American foundations make grants to Tides Canada to its U.S. side. They take money in on the U.S. side. Now, in Canada, Tides Canada has two entities. It actually has three, but two of them are active. One is the Tides Canada Initiatives Society and the other is Tides Canada Foundation. So the Tides Canada Foundation takes money in from the U.S. and then transfers it over to the Tides Canada Initiatives Society. Now, that doesn't report back to the U.S., so the activities of Tides Canada Initiatives Society, as I understand it, are not reported to the U.S., which raises another whole set of questions. 

Mr. Brian Jean:   So how do they disburse the money to interfere in our interests?

Ms. Vivian Krause:   I see two things happening.

    One, the vice-president of Tides Canada did an interview with CBC As it Happens a couple of weeks ago, and she said that Tides Canada does not have a position against the Alberta oil sands. I regret to say that doesn't ring true for me, because I look at the projects that Tides Canada is funding, and I also look at the places it accepted donations from. For example, Tides Canada has accepted, if I'm not mistaken, almost $1 million, at least five grants going back at least five years, from the Oak Foundation. 

    Now, the Oak Foundation, just to give you one example, has funded ForestEthics to get at least ten Fortune 500 companies to disavow Alberta oil and to put pressure on American regulators to create disincentives for the Canadian oil industry. Tides Canada has received money from many American foundations that are funding the tar sands campaign, the campaign against Canadian oil. I don't see how they can say they have no position against our energy industry, yet they're accepting funding from the foundations that obviously do. 

       Secondly, they have funded the groups that are running the campaign. For example, just one grant to ForestEthics was for over $700,000. Now, ForestEthics, the CEO of Tides Canada said a couple of weeks ago, is a project of Tides Canada. Another three groups are funded under the name of the Rainforest Solutions Project. Tides Canada funds Greenpeace under the Rainforest Solutions Project.

The Chair:   Thank you, Mr. Jean.

Mr. Brian Jean:   I know my time is up, Mr. Chair. On a point of order, though, I'm just wondering, if the witnesses have any solutions on what legislation to propose to stop this type of funding or disclosure, if they could provide that to the chair and it could be circulated to the members.

The Chair:   Certainly. The witness is free to do that at any time."

Later, panellist Hon. Laurie Hawn asked Krause questions:

 "Ms. Krause, I have a question for you, and obviously it's going to be an opinion question, or an opinion on your part. With the money that's coming into Canada to influence the process, and we've talked about who that money is targeting, is it targeting politicians--and I'll put an opinion in your mouth and you can agree or disagree--or is it targeting first nations specifically to get them to resist, because they can be much more effective resisting something like this than other groups? Who's the target for that money?

Ms. Vivian Krause:

    I think what I've seen is that the target is to influence politicians indirectly by shaping public opinion and by getting media coverage that puts pressure on politicians to make certain decisions. I think I have seen grants specifically to influence regulation. One that comes to mind, and I testified about it last time I was before the committee, is that the Bullitt Foundation funded the Dogwood Initiative and other projects supported by Tides Canada, and I quote, “to mobilize urban voters for a federal ban on coastal tanker traffic”.

    Days after I testified to this committee about that grant, the Bullitt Foundation rewrote the grant. Since I've been doing this research, seven foundations have rewritten or removed their grant information about specific grants.

The Chair:  Thank you, Ms. Krause, and thank you, Mr. Hawn. Your time is up"

Then Hon.David Anderson again had a chance to ask Krause:

" Mr. David Anderson: 

   I'll go back to Ms. Krause. The U.S. has an interest.... Mr. Jean made a comment about our oil going into the United States at a discount. The Alberta government has said that if we get access to another market, the difference in that amount for which we'd be able to sell our oil is going to be in the tens of billions of dollars. When you talked this morning about economic interest, you talked more about the renewable energy industry being involved perhaps in some of this discussion, about their concern about U.S. energy security. Have you heard anything, or do you get any impression that some of this lobbying is being done in order to maintain that discounted price they get on their oil?

Ms. Vivian Krause:

    Nothing, no.

    If I may, I would just like to mention one thing. Looking at my notes in response to Mr. Hawn's question earlier, I think it's an important point for the committee. I mentioned that the Oak Foundation had made several grants to Tides Canada. In fact it was four grants since 2005, for almost $900,000. But here's the thing. The Oak Foundation specifically funded the West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation, and I quote, “To constrain the development of Alberta's tar sands by establishing a legislative ban on crude oil tankers on British Columbia's north coast”. Then they say: “The desired result would be a permanent legislative tanker ban and cancellation of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline.”

    Also, they funded Greenpeace for something called the “Stop the tar sands campaign”. The Oak Foundation says: 

This will result in the withdrawal of two institutional investors from the tar sands by 2012; the disengagement of Norway's Statoil and Britain's BP from the tar sands project; the end of tar sands subsidies from the Government of France...

The Chair:   Thank you.  And thank you, Mr. Anderson. "

  Then later, the disgusting dirtbag Liberal David McGuinty (...the scumbag brother of Ontario's Lying Liberal Douchebag Dalton McGuinty...) decided to attack Krause, in the same fashion as Gravelle had done earlier:

"Mr. David McGuinty:

 I wasn't going to return to this, Ms. Krause, but I'm going to return to it. You said that Canadian environmental foundations are funnelling money through American subsidiaries. Is that right?

Ms. Vivian Krause:   No.

Mr. David McGuinty: What did you say? 

Ms. Vivian Krause:  I've said a lot. I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically.

Mr. David McGuinty:   You said that foundation money coming from the United States is actually going into receiving entities in the United States that are effectively wholly owned by Canadian environmental foundations.  Did you say that?

Ms. Vivian Krause:  Yes.

Mr. David McGuinty:  Under what tax structure in the United States are those foundations...what part of the code? Where is it under the United States code for tax? How are they structured?

Ms. Vivian Krause:  I'll give you an example. Tides Canada--and the same applies with the Living Oceans Society--has equivalency status in the United States as a 501(c)(3) charity. Because they have charitable status, American foundations made grants to them, and as American charities, they report to the IRS. The information I have about Tides Canada's spending is all from its American tax returns.

Mr. David McGuinty:  Is this illegal?

Ms. Vivian Krause:   I believe so.

Mr. David McGuinty:  You believe so. Are you a lawyer? 

Ms. Vivian Krause:  No. 

Mr. David McGuinty:  Are you an economist?

Ms. Vivian Krause:  No, I'm a nutritionist.

Mr. David McGuinty:  Are you a transfer pricing expert?

Ms. Vivian Krause:  No. 

Mr. David McGuinty:  Are you a tax lawyer? 

Ms. Vivian Krause:  No. What's your question?

Mr. David McGuinty:  My question is, is it illegal? You say you believe so.

Ms. Vivian Krause:   I said I believe so, but that's what I believe. I'm not giving you an opinion as a legal expert. 

Mr. David McGuinty:  You don't know, do you? 

Ms. Vivian Krause:  No.

Mr. David McGuinty: Okay. You believe. 

You've been asked repeatedly by Conservative members of Parliament to give your opinion. Are you an expert?

Ms. Vivian Krause:  Sir, I was asked to come to this committee and provide answers to your questions. I'm doing my best.

Mr. David McGuinty:   I understand. You're down as an individual; you're described as a witness who's coming here and appearing as an individual.     Are you an expert? Are you a professor of law? 

Ms. Vivian Krause:  I believe I've answered your question. 

Mr. David Anderson:  Point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair:  Yes, Mr. Anderson.

Mr. David Anderson: This is asinine. Mr. McGuinty should know better than to try to bully witnesses. He should at least show some respect for her. She has come here with information today for the committee. He can at least have the decency to treat her in a civil manner. 

The Chair:  Thank you, Mr. Anderson.  Mr. McGuinty, you asked your question. It was answered. You have to be reasonable in dealing with witnesses

Mr. David McGuinty:  You're right, Mr. Chair. I think that's why it's important. I'll change the line of questioning, because we have ascertained that Ms. Krause is not appearing today as an expert on any field related to this whole question of foundation structure or American tax law.

 I think she's offering opinions. It's good to know that she's offering mere opinion, which is not expert opinion.

Monsieur Caron, you said earlier that NEB is only able--

Mr. David Anderson:  Point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair:  Mr. Anderson. 

Mr. David Anderson:  I think out of decency Mr. McGuinty should give Ms. Krause an opportunity to respond to what he had to say there. She's done work for five years on one subject. I'd say that makes her probably more of an expert than anyone else in this country, and we've heard that today. Give her an opportunity to respond.

The Chair:   Thank you, Mr. Anderson.  Okay, Mr. McGuinty, go ahead.

Mr. David McGuinty:  Time is of the essence. I have some important questions for the other witnesses.

The Chair:  It's up to you.   Go ahead, please. Each member directs his questions within reason. You need to give a reasonable amount of time for a response.

   At this point, having been exposed for the indecent, abusive stinking piece of horsesh!t that he is, Liberal Douchebag David McGuinty slithered off his assault upon Krause.

  Who knows what McGuinty would have done, had Anderson not intervened. McGuinty was acting like some kind of psycho here.

  This treasonous Liberal couldn't care less about the meddling which American leftists were perpetrating in Canada - BECAUSE HE AND HIS OIL-HATIN' LIBERAL PARTY INNATELY APPROVED OF THIS!!!

   Douchebag David showed absolutely no interest into what Krause had uncovered, because McGuinty was more than happy to let that kind of foreign meddling continue. After all, Krause had uncovered foreign fifth columnists who shared McGuinty's Liberal-party hate for Canadian oil.

   McGuinty didn't like his Liberal biases challenged, so he chose to figuratively just beat up the woman who came to Ottawa to try to tell the government about what she had uncovered.

 (...and hey: let's not ask where Turdo's puppetmaster Gerald Butts was hanging around in 2012...}

CHAPTER 59

Following up on the subject (detailed earlier in Chapters 37 and 46) of Green Fascist Doomsday scenarios, another typical insane example comes our way as seen in this Sept.4, 2019 report in Sweden's Fria Tider, where the idea was presented that humans should practice cannibalism to 'save the planet'.

    Yep... ...THIS is what GreenFear-pushers such as Turdo, McKenna, Jim Bradley, etc. are all about.

This is the kind of far-left extremist GreenFear fascism which the lib left has been fanning and drooling over. The TV4 report reads:

"Can you imagine becoming cannibal and eating other people to save the climate? That issue was seriously discussed in yesterday's After Five in TV4.

Anyone who watched TV4 After five on Tuesday may have

been, to say the least, surprised. There, the idea was presented to start eating people.

The feature is about the fair "Gastro Summit - about the future of food" in Stockholm, where the behavioral scientist Magnus Söderlund holds seminars on the possibility of eating human flesh - to "save the climate".

- What makes most of us react instinctively with disgust when talking about eating human flesh to save the climate ?, wonders host Tilde de Paula.

Magnus Söderlund answers:

- First of all, it is that this person who is to be eaten must be dead.

One problem could be that dead bodies overall are taboo. In addition, criticism arises against defiling a dead body. Another explanation, says Söderlund, is that many are "slightly conservative" when it comes to eating something they are not used to, ie other people.

The conclusion is that it can be difficult to get the Swedes to become cannibals for the sake of the climate. However, according to the researcher, it is important from a sustainability perspective to discuss different options for the future.""
-----!!!!!!-----

When are Turdo and McKenna going to advocate for this Green Policy Initiative, the Turdo Soylent Green Plan For Canadians?! 

Funny that the St.Catharines Standard hasn't asked Liberal hacks such as Turdo, Jim Bradley, or Chris Bittle, about their reactions to implementing this Green Friendly method of cannibalism to 'Battle The Climate Crisis', to 'Save The Planet From Peril'!

Who will Jim Bradley eat first?! Or maybe Suzuki will feast on Bradley first?! Maybe Elizabeth May will eat Climate Barbie, as a tasty example of Planetary Climate Stewardship?

So many questions remain unanswered from Canada's provincial and federal Liberal Parties!

"Cannibalism For The Climate" can be Trudeau's signature policy - the newest, stylish 'Final Liberal Solution For Earth's Climate Emergency Crisis' !

Gosh, all Justin Trudeau has to do is sneak in a quick approval and Canadians can soon be legally 'Saving The Earth' in kitchens across We The North-istan.

So, "it's all settled" then - the Liberals are all for it... after all, that's their own default answer, isn't it: 'it's all settled, don't ask any questions'?!

If these Liberals are against cannibalism, well, then, they are denying 'Solutions To The Climate Emergency'!!

If Liberals are against eating human corpses in the name of Mother Gaia, then they are 'Impeding Progress To Save Mother Earth From Doom"!!

If these Liberals are against cannibalism, well, then they are nothing more than 'Climate Change Deniers'!!!

Isn't THAT how the Liberal's own narrative works - when they apply it to others?  

* 

   Strange claims were made by Evan Solomon during his Nov.13, 2019 radio show on Toronto's 1010 AM (former CFRB) regarding climate change and how it should be taught in schools, because kids (...who, in Ontario - which had been ruled for 13 years by rabid climate-change infected Liberals) apparently didn't know enough about climate change; and didn't know the difference between climate and weather... yeh, sure... nor critical thinking either, eh, Evan...???!!}

   Funny eh?

   Yeah: but the Liberal angle wasn't even mentioned. That the McGuinty/Wynne Liberals in Ontario screamed and lied about climate change for over a decade, but, apparently, according to Evan, this didn't register to students?! 

  WOW, Evan: please see Chapter 37 . I mean, ya can't go on prattling about this without the background...
  Evan, were you cognizant of the climate propaganda which the Liberals were spreading in Ontario's schools for 13 years??!

   Lookit this: suddenly {now that Doug Ford is Ontario's premier} the newly minted narrative is being trotted out that Ontario's schools have NOT DONE ENOUGH climate brainwashing, and that Evan wants MORE??!!

   What were those eco-terror school walkouts, just several weeks ago {...conveniently (hahaha) just before Canada's federal election..!} all about, Evan, which were organized to pay homage to Greenshevist Greta?!!

   Weren't those children 'activated' by the same unionized teachers who had been indoctrinating their students, spreading climate fear in Ontario for years?! Evan, are ya sayin' that the teachers haven't done their climate change fear-mongering properly?!

    Evan also stated something to the effect that there are people out there who are afraid of having children because that would 'endanger the planet'. {such as the GreenBolsheviks in the States}

   On that point, Evan is correct - there are people brainwashed into believing this.
   But then, Evan fails to pinpoint exactly how and why students have been manipulated into these beliefs.
     (In other words, eco-terrorists in Ontario's schools have frightened children into believing marxist climate hogwash - so, what is Evan's solution? MORE eco-terror-marxism?! Or no more political marxism and no more GreenFear-based religion masquerading as 'science' ?????)

  Evan then goes into a nonsensical tangent, starting by basically saying that these students should grow up not being afraid of having children (...if we stop right here at this point, Evan is - again - correct... ...) but then, he goes off the rails to say that they should have kids BECAUSE THEIR KIDS ARE THE ONES WHO WILL SOLVE "CLIMATE CHANGE"!!!

    WOW!!!! What bunch of convoluted climate crap!!

    Evan makes these at-first-salient points, but then introduces these bizarre side angles - almost like non sequiturs, really....) which neutralize his own points.

   Evan should have stated clearly the eco-marxist concept underpinning the 'climate change' hoax, which vilifies humankind as causing weather and climate, claiming that MANKIND IS THE ENEMY - including CHILDREN.

  Controlling earth's population is the underlying tenet of the fascistic GreenFear movement; that fact is as old as the hills. It's like having a discussion about how 'great' the Good Ole Democrat party is in the States, without even acknowledging that the Klan was the Democrats' own 'military wing'. Yep, talkin' 'bout that will spoil the narrative...

    Scaring children into believing they shouldn't have children of their own when they become adults, is part and parcel of the GreenFear propaganda campaign.

   

   The misanthropic claim that MANKIND IS A THREAT TO PLANET EARTH is the underlying tenet of the climate change-global warming lie. 

A GreenFear-monger just can't 'half believe' this claim, yet then nevertheless continue to still blab on about climate change!

If you traffic GreenFear climate lies, you MUST also 100% believe that MANKIND IS  THE PROBLEM. 

This extreme anti-humanism/ nihilsm is the foundational bedrock of the GreenFear lie. 

You must despise mankind to promote GreenFear; these are NOT mutually exclusive concepts; they are inseparable. 

You cannot traffic the GreenFear lie, yet ignore the actual rest of the story: that the lie also demands that you believe that 'man caused the weather and the climate to change'. 

This 'leap-of-faith' becomes a religious and political belief, but isn't science.

   

   We are told time and again that MANKIND CAUSES CLIMATE CHANGE.

   We are told over and over that MANKIND IS DESTROYING THE PLANET.

   We have been inundated with the lie that CLIMATE CHANGE IS MAN MADE.
   We are told constantly that TIME IS RUNNING OUT.

   We are frightened by phony 'TIPPING POINTS'.

   We are told repeatedly that IT'S ALL SETTLED.

   We are told these doomsday lies, every day, by essentially every Canadian politician and media outlet, where any rain/wind/sun/snow/storm - really, any weather, anywhere on earth - is suddenly conjured up and conflated as being 'proof of man-made climate change'! 

     Mankind's very existence is cited AS THE CAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE. 

 
    We are being told that PEOPLE ARE THE PROBLEM - Prince-No-More Harry and his wife are just a few of these GreenFear-infected anti-natalists, who in the summer of 2019 claimed great supposed-virtue by signaling they will have 'just 2 children'. Well isn't THAT precious? (Umm, are ya gonna adopt them, Harry..? oh...are ya gonna abort the others...? ...? ...?)

  American demoncrats such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blithely demonized birth as being an immoral act against the Planet.  

   Evan got some points across, but the idea that students could be educated about 'climate change' is seriously both a worthy, and flawed, idea.

   That any teacher in Ontario would ever be reprimanded for propagandizing their classes with one-sided political science-fiction /GreenFear-religion disguised as real science, is hardly believable. The GreenFear propaganda is so ingrained in Canadian media culture, that a rational discussion and dissection of the issue can hardly be made anymore. 

   Any Ontario teachers who'd dare question the GreenFear orthodoxy would quickly be attacked as figurative 'Uncle Toms', shamed, ostracized, labelled as 'deniers', etc.
   We saw some GreenFear-spreading bolsheviks do just that in Niagara in Jan-Feb 2020, when a cabal of climate commies helped oust a member of the Niagara Conservation Authority, where the bolshies called the board member a climate denier... a sad, but, true... and common tactic of the green fascist left.
   We know and have seen the drill by now  - attacks carried out by climate fascists who deny that the earth's climate has changed forever, before man was even around.

   Spreading GreenFear Gospel is a political act, where religion is disguised as 'science', and is then politicized.
   If you thought that Ontario's public school system was 'secular' - look again.
Maybe Solomon can do an entire segment on what happened at the Niagara Region Conservation Authourity??!! We know that TVO and the Paikin won't dare examine the role of  green fascism in this incident!!

*

Chapter 39 (update continuation) 

..." Niagara This Week didn't 'dig deeper' at all.

They DIDN'T EVEN TRY - because THEY DON'T KNOW HOW. 

This is not a journalistic organization: it's a TorStar PROPAGANDA outlet, masking itself as a 'news' organization.

These are not journalists, they're urinalists.

*

More polar bear GreenFear was spread by Global News in a 'report' by Corne van Hoepen, on Feb.27, 2020, who wrote:

 "...In recent years, there has been confusion over whether polar bear numbers are increasing, or they’re on the brink of extinction.
“Confusion over polar bear numbers is justified, as some populations are increasing, while others are declining,” said Brandon Laforest, a senior specialist of Arctic species at WWF Canada...."

Hmm: so, um, who has been sowing that confusion... and why?! 

Who's been telling us that polar bears are about go extinct???????????????????????!
Strange how confused Corne JUST CAN'T GET AROUND TO TELLING US!!
Can't be the WWF GreenFear-sheviks, can it!!!!!!!!!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

*

We can see how the sad Greta was brainwashed by green bolshevik propganda. in this May 4, 2019  report "Stop lying to children about dying polar bears as a way to achieve action on climate change".

*

 How about that "climate change" gotcha-question-attack sprung by Kommy Kammy Harris against Judge Amy C Barrett at the Supreme Court confirmation hearings in Oct 2020?!!! Kammy has just officially 'jumped the shark' with that sick amateur rank stunt - there's no effing credibility left, anywhere in the Demotard party.

 Yet  for months, from the late summer 2020 into late Oct, daily phony poll reports on the MSM (Marxist Socialist Media) have been repeatedly claiming that Biden and Harris are in some kind of massive lead over Trump!! The looming Democrat disaster is palpable - yet the MSM liars continue to peddle their anti-Trump hate and delusions of a 'Democrat blue-wave' victory! Canadian MSM dutifully report the same lies and peddle the same misinformation, with the help of censors such as Twatter and Farcebook.

 Biden has maybe what, a dozen people show up at his almost-deserted phony 'rallies'  (...most of whom are camera techies and reporter/propagandists) while Trump holds peaceful protests overflowing with capacity crowds of thousands of supporters, where thousands more can't even get in. Trump supporters line the streets waiting to cheer on Trump, while no one bothers to show up for Burisma Joe's pathetic motorcade. This happens all over the country, yet the MSM censor it or downplay it.

 On the ABC phony townhall (Oct 15, 2020), Disney cartoon-journalist George Stephanopoulos showed himself to be nothing more than a propagandist, when he refused to ask demented Joe about the breaking 'laptop revelations' and the Bidens' activities in Ukraine, while Ole Joe was Obama's point man in Ukraine. (Had this been Trump, the hack George would have been asking about it) But George just acted like a typical Biden c*ck holster, basically giving Quid-Pro-Joe a free ride and a free hour-long commercial on primetime network TV. Joe was coddled, as if he was aa delicate child. How the hell can this be a presidential contender???!

*

Below is a repeat of Chapter 16, with added updates from 2020 building upon the same theme of climate change lies and Lake Ontario/Great lakes flooding:

CHAPTER 16 

   Speaking of the 'political manifestation of climate-change', on Apr. 29, 2017 we saw AGW-infected Niagara politicians such as Carlos Garcia and St.Catharines mayor Walter Sendzik immediately link spring flooding at Lakeside Park with climate change - with no AGW evidence provided, and with no questions asked by reporter Allan Benner!
These two GreenFear-mongering politicians
"agreed that climate change is to blame for the problems.
“When someone says, ‘What does climate change look like, and what does it mean to a city like St. Catharines?’ This is what it means,” Sendzik said. “It means a higher rate of erosion on our shoreline, it means flooding in areas like Port Dalhousie and Lakeside Park, and it impacts the yacht club.”

So: what does GreenFear propaganda look like?!
Well: look no further than Benner's biased 'report' about 2 smug local clowns peddling Al Gore's and Jim Bradley's climate-change-paranoia!!
You'd think by reading this St.Catharines Standard crap, that the water levels in the Great Lakes watershed had never deviated in the last... oh... thousand years! (....or, even since Jim Bradley was first elected!)
Apparently, we are to believe that there had never been any rate of erosion in the Great Lakes - until this week!! Apparently, prior to April of 2017, the entire Great Lakes ecosystem was always in a comfortable stasis, where nothing had ever changed !
(The Standard did not bother to ask Mayor GreenPants why his city approved a condo building being built beside Lakeside Park literally feet from the flooded lakeshore!! I guess the mayor and the Standard need future 'climate-change victims' to justify this GreenFear-mongering)
The Standard plants a biased half-story without the context; keeping the GreenFear propaganda alive a little longer, rehashing the phony narrative whenever possible - kudos all around for a great team effort of fake-newsmanship!
Report the AGW lie, don't question the liars pushing the AGW premise. Don't ask, don't tell, nudge-nudge wink-wink - that's how the national media typically dances with Cagey, and those same jive moves are copied locally.


Compare mayor Walter Sendzik's GreenFear-mongering on Apr.29, 2017, to this May 5 CBC story by Laurene Jardin (headlined "St. Lawrence River could rise if N.Y. request to lower Lake Ontario is approved") reporting New York State Governor Cuomo's request to open up the dam at Cornwall to drain off more of Lake Ontario's water. This is completely relevant to the issue - yet, it's funny how Sendzik (the Agenda-21-infected mayor) never made any mention of any dam, nor its effect on the water levels in Port Dalhousie! The local yokels were left with the (intended) scary impression that this was all due to 'climate change'.

And reporter Allan Benner didn't bother to ask about that, either (...remember: the point is to play up and propagate the false impression of AGW, not to question its false premise... to propagate the 'climate-change' agenda by spiking the appearance over the substance.)
Jardin wrote:
"Jean Aubry-Morin, a Canadian member of the International Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Board, said it's a balancing act...
Aubry-Morin said that the board would take current water levels in Quebec into consideration before adding any water into the St. Lawrence.
Because of the snow melt and spring showers, the international board redistributes water into the appropriate body of water every year.
What's abnormal about this year, Aubry-Morin says is the amount of precipitation the provinces have seen in the last six weeks.
"It's a one-in-20-year situation," he said".

   Yet, mayor Sendzik and councillor Garcia acted as if they'd never heard of any kind of  'once in a 20 yr situation' - to them, this was 'evidence' of drastic climate change (which probably in their minds, was also directly and personally caused by Donald Trump!)
      No one in Benner's story mentioned the Cornwall dam's existence, let alone its purpose!
No one mentioned the dam's systemic effects, downstream and upstream, upon the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence watershed, and its effect locally, upon the beach at Lakeside Park!!!
And Benner didn't bother to ask about any of this, either.
It's interesting to note that in her story, CBC reporter Jardin did NOT make any of those expected, typical, obligatory, false-causation references to 'climate change'. That was an unexpected, refreshing move.


SO: now let's see what cagey ol' David Phillips saying about all this!!


Let's look at Stephen Smith's May 4, 2017 CBC story (headlined "Mix of 'rare events' led to rapid rise of floodwaters in Montreal's West Island, prof says"):

   "David Phillips, a senior climatologist with Environment Canada, said another factor adding to the problem is the repeated occurrence of storm systems over the last five weeks that didn't just come and go, but stuck around for days.
"They haven't been hit and run," he said. "They've had more time to linger and spread more of their misery. Instead of one day of rain, we're seeing maybe two or three days of rain from the same system."
April had 19 rainy days in total, Phillips said, and many of those days saw heavy amounts of rainfall.
"It was not just a drizzle, an inconvenience — it was a gully washer, like half a month worth of rain in one day," he said."
There goes Cagey again, with his oft-repeated, very scientific "gully-washer" rhetoric...
It's funny how the CBC reporter Stephen Smith - when he had the chance to do so - DID NOT BOTHER TO ASK David Phillips if the flooding along the Great Lakes confirms Al Gore's Inconvenient Truths about Climate Change. 

Isn't THAT what every leftist infected with AGW wants to know?!?
They want confirmation from Environment Canada's TOP CLIMATOLOGIST that this flooding is caused by AGW!
They want to know that the Trudeau government's "it's real, it's all settled" climate change policy is based on science.


When David Phillips blurted to reporter Stephen Smith that "It was not just a drizzle, an inconvenience — it was a gully washer, like half a month worth of rain in one day", why didn't reporter Smith immediately ask if this gully-washer of rain was an example of 'man-made climate change'??
Was this an "inconvenient" question for the reporter ask?
Or did Smith - anticipating that it would be an "inconvenient" question for Cagey to answer - decide to self-censor, to HEROICALLY MUZZLE HIMSELF and to not ask it, in order to protect and not embarrass Cagey??!


Why ignore such an obvious follow-up question??
Why didn't the CBC reporter Smith simply ASK Canada's Senior climatologist to directly confirm that all this flooding is due to AGW?


After all, isn't that a simple, straight-forward question for a reporter to logically ask, after he's just been told by Canada's Senior Climatologist that a half-month's worth of rain fell in one day??


Wouldn't a reporter reasonably ask, following-up on Phillips' own gully-washing rhetoric: 'Mr. Phillips, you cite lots of rainfall - a half-month's worth of rain in one day... is that an example of man made climate change, Mr. Phillips?'


Why didn't the CBC reporter Smith follow-up on what Phillips said?


Even small town mayors are apparently convinced it's all due to climate change - so what is preventing BOTH Canada's top climatologist, and Canada's national broadcaster, from publicly providing what should be such a straightforward answer, to such a straightforward question??
Trudeau's Liberals (and Turdo's hacks never lie..) have told us that 'climate change is real'; so why does the CBC shirk from asking Environment Canada about confirming 'climate change'??


What prevented the CBC's Stephen Smith from asking David Phillips this question?

Let's ask (... yes.... again... ...):
- was David Phillips "muzzled" by anyone?!
- did anyone prevent or suppress David Phillips from answering such a question?!
- is it an unspoken belief that it would be beneath the dignity of David Phillips to be asked such a direct question?!
- did any one "muzzle" Stephen Smith (or any other CBC reporter, for that matter?!)
- did anyone prevent or suppress reporter Smith (or any other CBC reporter) from asking David Phillips to confirm that the flooding IS INDEED the direct result of AGW?!
- is it beneath the dignity of any CBC reporter to directly ask Philips such a question?!?


Now - let's continue from the above, by looking at this Dec.15, 2020 report from the Watertown Daily Times, which deals with the very same subject which Sendzik, Garcia and the St. catharines Standard hack Benner were propagandizing about in 2017:

"IJC gives green light to increase Lake Ontario outflows to prepare for possible flooding

12/15 - Watertown, NY – In anticipation of high volumes of water entering Lake Ontario next year, the International Joint Commission has granted pre-emptive permission to deviate from its controversial Plan 2014.

On Friday, the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence River Board announced the IJC gave the green light to increase outflows beyond those outlined in Plan 2014 from the Robert Moses-Robert H. Saunders Power Dam in Massena, even though Lake Ontario water levels as of Friday remain at about its seasonal long-term average. The lake’s levels have been on their seasonal decline since June.

But the levels of Lake Erie, as well as each of the upper Great Lakes, remain feet above their average water levels — water that’s coming toward Lake Ontario and threatening even more lakeshore flooding for the north country.

The deviation will begin Jan. 1 and continue through the end of February. This regulation strategy will be reassessed at that time and could be revised with a request for further deviation from Plan 2014.

The main driver of a “high-water event” for Lake Ontario next year, according to the IJC, will depend on various seasonal factors such as precipitation and snowpack runoff. The winter season has been rather mild so far this year, but the lake and river board is adopting this deviation plan now to prepare.

The lake and river board has automatic permission to increase outflows past the Plan 2014 threshold when water levels hit a certain high, and usually doesn’t occur during the winter months. But Lake Erie’s rising water level poses a serious threat.

“There remains considerable uncertainty in the weather and water supply conditions between now and next spring,” a release from the IJC reads. “These natural, uncontrolled hydrologic factors are the primary driver of water level fluctuations on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River.

“If basin conditions are extremely wet, and similar to those observed in 2017 and 2019, no deviation strategy will prevent water levels that can cause flooding and damage shoreline properties,” the release continues. “Providing those types of benefits are beyond the reach of water regulation and are more reliably addressed through coastal resilience and planning.”

Plan 2014, IJC’s plan for managing water levels, was implemented in December 2016, but came under fire after mass flooding in 2017.

In 2017 and 2019, the lake and river saw what people refer to as once-in-100-year flooding less than two years apart. The flooding caused severe damage to the lake and river shorelines, costing shoreline property owners and the state millions of dollars.

Watertown Daily Times"

-

 So we see that in 2020, the same arc on the same subject continues - but here we now see by contrast HOW SENDZIK and GARCIA were LYING in 2017!

THIS IS WHAT the Standard urinalist hack Benner refused to report in 2017!!

They just lied by claiming it was ALL DUE TO CLIMATE CHANGE!!  To hell with the fact that "natural, uncontrolled hydrologic factors are the primary driver of water level fluctuations on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River " - right?!!

Because pos like Jim Bradley and Turdeau insist that 'Climate change is man made', and because GreenFear enablers in the media believe it, therefore "natural uncontrolled hydrologic factors" CANNOT EXIST !!!

These Green Fear propagandists just lied in 2017, and the press lackies enabled them. What a cosy set up.

Benner could have EASILY dug into Sendzik's and Garcia's GreenFear lies - the IJC 2014 report was already in place and known - and Benner should have acted as a journalist and NOT as a stenographer / urinalist parroting climate change lies WITHOUT examining them, without bothering to provide a shred of context or of journalistic integrity.

It's a blatant fraud by ALL involved. The political left ejaculate lies; the eager press monopoly happily licks it all up. 

When will the St.Catharines Standard apologize for its phony 'reporting'; for its journalistic malpractice? When will the St.Catharines Pathetic SubStandard ask Canada's Cagiest Climatologist David Phillips to DISPUTE that "natural, uncontrolled hydrologic factors are the primary driver of water level fluctuations on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River"???!!!!

 How about asking that Liberal scumbag Jim Bradley (now with a year-long phony Niagara Regional 'climate emergency' law in place!!!!) to dispute that "natural, uncontrolled hydrologic factors are the primary driver of water level fluctuations on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River".

Bradley - like Sendzik and Garcia - when pressed, would have to also pretend that all Great Lakes water levels are are NOT natural, but are all man-made, all due to AGW!! So, it's best to NOT dare ask Ole "Climate Emergency" Jimmy anything about  umm... ahh... the real causes of the 'climate change' that Sendzik and Garcia are lying about!! 

When will the St.Catharines Standard follow up with Sendzik and Garcia, including a discussion on this 2020 report, comparing it in contrast to what they were all saying in 2017? (answer: never -  their job as propagandists is to PRETEND 'man-made climate change' exists, not to PROVE it exists, by all means possible).

How f*ckin sad.

*

More 'extreme' climate caginess coming soon!