IPCC: A Closer Look

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the primary scientific organization driving the concept of man-made climate change through the production of greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane which is referred to as AGW. The IPCC is funded by governments from many countries around the world (an IPCC Trust Fund established in 1989 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)).

A look at the 2013 IPCC climate report: IPCC`s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). This section is a quick overview of IPCC research and predictions and the flaws associated to them. For more detail, see the individual sections below this section.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4).{2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2-4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5-5.6, 6.2, 13.2}

• Climate change over the past millennia has repeated itself multiple times as noted by several ice core samples and other studies.
• The Antarctic and Greenland collectively contain 99% of all land ice. It has been documented several times that they are not melting therefore there is no significant sea level rise. NASA specifically states that the IPCC is wrong with this claim.

Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth`s surface than any preceding decade since 1850 (see Figure SPM.1). In the Northern Hemisphere, 1983-2012 was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years (medium confidence). {2.4, 5.3}

• The 1930`s was very warm and dry and known as the dust bowel. From 1940 to the mid 70`s the earth went through a period of global cooling. A warming after this would be natural.
• The Antarctic temperature has actually been decreasing during this time period.

Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent ( high confidence) (see Figure SPM.3). {4.2-4.7}

• According to NASA, the Antarctic ice has been expanding and not melting. NASA specifically states that the IPCC is wrong with this claim.
• The Antarctic temperature has actually been decreasing during this time period.
• The Antarctic set an unofficial world record for coldest temperatures in 2010 and 2013
• During the years 1897-1917, early explorers documented the ice around The Antarctic and modern satellites confirm there has been no decrease as of today
• Antarctica is part of the Ring Of Fire, a group of active volcanoes in the Pacific. The most southern active volcanoe is in the Antarctic and is called Mount Erebus
• A 2012 NASA study of ice core samples found that the ice melt of Greenland is consistant with similar melting in 1889, long before industrial CO2.
• A 2016 study published in sciencemage.org found that melting of the Greenland basins of the southeast and northwest has been linked to a geothermal hot spot.

The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia (high confidence). Over the period 1901 to 2010, global mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m (see Figure SPM.3). {3.7, 5.6, 13.2}

• Without any ice melting at Antartctica and minimul ice melting at Greenland, a sea level rise would be minimal as only land ice melting contributes to sea level rises and not sea ice melting.

The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years. Carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification (see Figure SPM.4). {2.2, 3.8, 5.2, 6.2, 6.3}

• A 2006 Institute of Science in Society study found that cool turbulent ocean water absorbs CO2 while warmer less turbelent oceans release CO2. Since ocean temperatures have increased slightly, then they would not be absorbing any atmospheric CO2.

Climate models have improved since the AR4. Models reproduce observed continental- scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid-20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (very high confidence). {9.4, 9.6, 9.8}

• In February 2016, a Nature Climate Change article published by IPCC scientists stated, "Fyfe et al.1 showed that global warming over the past 20 years is significantly less than that calculated from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 models pArcticipating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). This might be due to some combination of errors...". In other words, the models are still wrong.
• Years before Fyfe et al, mathematician Steve McIntyre had analysed the IPCC models` data and stated that their models were wrong.

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3-10.6, 10.9}

• A 2013 NASA article looked at the effects of the sun and suggested "that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific".
• An article from the University of Cambridge found the Earth`s mantle could have an affect on climate and "it could also affect things like the stability of the ice caps and help us to understand past climate change."
• CO2 emissions could likely have some affect on current climate change but not be the only reason. Other than the assumption by the IPCC, no actual studies were found to provided a percentage breakdown between natural climate change and AGW.

Observing how every prediction made by the IPCC has flaws that are identified by other reputable scientific organizations such as NASA, Physics.org, Nature.com, etc. then it becomes apparent and very important for society to allow for all scientific research on the subject of climate change and not just the research endorsed by the IPCC. Please see the sections below for more detail on the issues of IPCC research.

IPCC Caught Behaving Unethically
The structure of the IPCC is set up in such a way to create bias to AGW. Authors and experts who submit research to the IPCC must conform to a preconceived expectation that AGW is real, IPCC Authors and Experts.
Authors: "...selected by the relevant Working Group/Task Force Bureau... from among experts listed by governments and participating organizations...". In other words, only scientists from an accepted list by their government are allowed to submit research to the IPCC.
Review Editors: "... ensure that all substantive expert and government review comments are afforded appropriate consideration by the author teams, advise Lead Authors on how to handle contentious/controversial issues...". In other words, articles must reflect government views and contentious/controversial issues must be dealt with. Scientific articles that disagree too much with the government and IPCC are subject to some kind of editing.

Typical IPCC graph produced from their climate models.

In 2009 leaked emails from the IPCC and CRU suggest that climate change data and reports are tightly controlled by a small group of its members and any scientist that questions either is critized and prevented from speaking up. Any Freedom Of Information requests to make their data public resulted in them deleting their data instead.
Climategate Scandal News copy
Climategate Scandal News
British scientist in climate row admits 'awful' emails

IPCC Caught Behaving Unethically Again

In 2011 leaked emails from the IPCC and CRU suggested that they had not changed their ways from 2009 and were still preventing scientists who did not agree with them from speeking up. Climategate Scandal 2.0 News copy
Climategate Scandal 2.0 News

IPCC Numbers And Models Wrong
Canadian mathematician Steve McIntyre along with other scientists who analysed the IPCC data found that there was no drastic increase in average temperature over the past century. Rather, the IPCC calculations were wrong.
Climate Audit by Steve McIntyre
Temperature Graphs
Top graph: Michael Mann's "hockey stick". Bottom graph: Wilson et al 2014


For years the climate alarmists have claimed that their models are accurate How reliable are climate models? This article goes on to explain why you should believe their climate models. However, in February 2016, all their models' accuracies came into question by their own people...

Trends in global surface temperature for 1993-2012. a, Observed trends. b, Average simulated trends from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 CMIP5 models. In February 2016, a Nature Climate Change article published by IPCC scientists stated, "Fyfe et al.1 showed that global warming over the past 20 years is significantly less than that calculated from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 models pArcticipating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). This might be due to some combination of errors..." This is what Steve McIntyre and climate scientists have been stating for all these years!!

In 2015 NOAA published an article claiming that the warming hiatus never really existed (Fyfe et al. already contradicted this claim in 2016). Dr. John Bates, a former climate scientist at NOAA, published an article in 2017 explaining how NOAA used data that had not been fully scrutinized for accuracy to make this claim. "In the fall of 2012, the monthly temperature products issued by NCDC were incorrect for 3 months in a row".

Scientists And Meteorologists Speak Up
For years many scientists have spoken up about their disagreements with the IPCC results. Below are some brief samples of scientists and their concerns with the IPCC:
Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever debunks global warming
Freeman Dyson: Theoretical physicist and mathematician on global warming
Dr. Judith Curry's address to the US Senate Commerce Committee Hearing
Meteorologist John Coleman: How the Global Warming Scare Began

Ground Weather Stations Not As Reliable As First Thought
Climatologist Dr Richard Keen - Show Me The Data

Ground thermometers have changed over the years. We went from mercury to electronic. Their sheds went from wood to metal to plastic and also changed in size. Weather sheds that were originally located in a country setting were later surrounded by buildings as near-by cities grew. There are many more issues mentioned in the above video to explain why the percieved 1 degree Celsius temperature increase stated by the IPCC might be inaccurate.

Climate Has Always Changed
"Since 2,500 B.C., there have been at least 78 major climate changes worldwide, including two major changes in just the past 40 years."
"By the end of this 21st Century, a cool down may occur that could ultimately lead to expanding glaciers worldwide, even in the mid-latitudes. Based on long-term climatic data, these major ice ages have recurred about every 11,500 years. The last extensive ice age was approximately 11,500 years ago, so we may be due again sometime soon. But, only time will tell." Global Temperature Trends From 2500 B.C. To 2040 A.D.
By Climatologist Cliff Harris and Meteorologist Randy Mann

Based on glacier ice core samples there have been at least 4 ice ages (global cooling) followed by a period of global warming each time. Neither global cooling nor global warming is a new thing that is caused by humans.

Most people are aware that during the Medieval Warm Period Vikings had settled on the southern shores of Greenland as the temperatures back then were about as warm as they are today and could sustain some farming until the Little Ice Age. However, there was a time even before this that Greenland was even warmer. According to a Scientific American report from 2007 about 400,000+ years ago Greenland (in the Dye 3 area) had forests, insects and spiders. "And based on the tree species found, Greenland must have been warmer than 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius) in summer and never colder than one degree F (-17 degrees C) in winter, much warmer than present conditions." This means that Greenland has gone through previous periods of either local or global warming and what it is experiencing today is nothing new and should not be automatically assumed to be a new man-made event.

A climate alarmists article from Skeptical Science tries to state that past climate changes where both CO2 and temperatures were higher than today occurred only in prehistoric times (the Pliocene and Eocene periods) which were many millions of years ago. There is no mention of the recent warm period of Greenland as stated above.

As of 2015/2016 California is experiencing a large drought. Many climate alarmists would suggest this is evidence of man-made climate change. According to a ZME Science article "Between 6,000 and 1,000 B.C.E., during the middle of a period called the Holocene, core samples suggest that California went through a dry period that lasted 5,000 years...Sediment records show the Pacific ocean was in a La Nina-like state which drastically reduced precipitations and made California warm and dry. A similar, albeit much briefer, period was seen between 950 and 1250 C.E, which paleoclimatologists commonly refer to as the medieval climate anomaly." In other words, California's climate changed in the past without AGW so a change today does not automatically mean AGW.

According to a recent Columbia University article about core samples taken nearly 1,000 feet below the Dead Sea there were two major draughts 120,000 years ago and again 10,000 years ago there were greater than any modern day draught. Again, severe draughts existed before AGW.

Polar Bears Doing Fine
Polar Bear Population As Of 2015
Despite some media hype about polar bears dying off because of global warming, their actual numbers seem to indicate otherwise. Polar bears survived the previous global warming where Greenland saw forests growing on it just over 400,000 years ago.


A 2016 article from NASA regarding satellite images of polar bears found that "...in some areas of the Arctic, polar bear numbers are likely declining, but in others, they appear to be stable or possibly growing."
"For example, in some parts of the Arctic, such as the Chukchi Sea, polar bears appear healthy, fat and reproducing well...". The melting ice in the Arctic has changed the habitat for polar bears but so far their overall numbers have been fairly stable. A contradiction to some doom-and-gloom statements and predictions made by the alarmists.

Water Vapour Is The Main Greenhouse Gas, Not CO2
Wikipedia: Water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66% for clear sky conditions and between 66% and 85% when including clouds
NOAA: Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere...yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood.
NASA: Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change.
Based on the information above, water vapour is the number one greenhouse gas yet most climate alarmists omit this from their charts (left). Correctly displaying all greenhouse gases in the second chart shows how much less humans have an influence on these overall gases.

Let's examine CO2 more closely. Pre-industrial CO2 (naturally occurring) was 280 ppm. Current levels are 400 ppm. The human made level is 120 ppm. The left graph below shows this. During this same time period human population increased from around 1 billion to over 7 billion people. Even without industry, humans would still add CO2 to the atmosphere because 1) we all exhale CO2, 2) increased deforestation for cities and farms, 3) billions of more cows and other livestock for our food

Adding the break-down of CO2 back into the overall greenhouse gas chart, we get the following below. Notice that industrial CO2 only accounts for about 4% of all greenhouse gases. This 4% is the only thing that humans can change unless we also reduce our population (which is unlikely).

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization: Livestock a major threat to environment. This report states that livestock produces more CO2 (and methane) than transportation! If livestock populations can do this than so can human population growth.

Antarctic Ice Growing, Not Shrinking
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
A new 2015 NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers. The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

Shortly after this study was published, the climate alarmists panicked and their news reports referred to this as A controversial NASA study. This is a good example of how the climate alarmists will try to invalidate any other scientific research that contradicts what they are trying to promote. The article concludes with, "regard these surprising new findings with a fair dose of skepticism - and to continue worrying about ice losses along the Antarctic coasts." It is ok to be skeptical about science that does not support man made climate change but any scientist that offers other explanations is labelled a climate skeptic or denier. Sounds hypocritical.

Another climate alarmist website, Inside Climate News, that favours AGW also had to admit that Antarctic ice is growing, "Antarctic sea ice has grown somewhat over the past 10 years. Between 2012 to 2014, it reached record-high extents each year during the winter." They further admit that their climate models are wrong, "The climate models do not get it right at this point," Kaleschke said. "The models project a decrease of Antarctic sea ice, which is in contrast with observations."

Antarctic Air Temperatures Cooling Since Late 1990's. Although ocean temperatures have risen in the area "Temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula have reversed course, dropping by an average of about 0.5 degree Celsius per decade since the late 1990s while the rest of the world experienced record heat, 10 researchers from the British Antarctic Survey concluded in an article published in the journal 'Nature' on Wednesday (July 20, 2016)."

Photo: Capt Laurence Oates, Capt Robert Scott, Petty Officer Edgar Evans (standing, left to right), Lt Henry Bowers, Dr Edward Wilson (sitting, left to right). Polar explorers remembered as 'heroic failures' have provided crucial proof that sea ice around Antarctica has barely changed in size - 100 years after their expeditions

A November 2016 Cryosphere article about early Belgium and British explorers of the Antarctic states that their log books recorded ice levels that were comparible to today. This confirms the NASA satellite images from 2015. For over 100 years, the entire time of modern industrialization, there has been no global warming in the Antarctic. This absolutely contradicts the what the IPCC has been stating.

Coldest temperature ever recorded on Earth in Antarctica: -94.7C (-135.8F). A December 2013 article in The Guardian stated "Newly analysed Nasa satellite data from east Antarctica shows Earth has set a new record for coldest temperature ever recorded: -94.7C (-135.8F). It happened in August 2010 when it hit -94.7C (-135.8F). Then on 31 July of this year(2013), it came close again: -92.9C (-135.3F)...Ice scientist Ted Scambos at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre announced the cold facts at the American Geophysical Union scientific meeting in San Francisco..." Ted Scambos however has done work for the IPCC and contributed to the most recent IPCC report, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Scambos appears to be a supporter of AGW.

This article states that CO2 is above 400ppm in the Antarctic yet the area has been experiencing cooling for about 20 years and increased ice mass. This should cast some doubt as to CO2's direct affect on temperature.

Despite evidence to the contrary, David Suzuki still insists on claiming the "Antarctic ice sheet could collapse" to instill fear in people.

Without any scientific evidence, the IPCC states that, ...Antarctic sea-ice volume is predicted to decrease by 25% or more for a doubling of CO2.... A 120+ years of CO2 increase has had no effect on the Antarctic yet they somehow still try to instill fear in the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere.

"Together, the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets contain more than 99 percent of the freshwater ice on Earth. The Antarctic Ice Sheet extends almost 14 million square kilometers...The Greenland Ice Sheet extends about 1.7 million square kilometers..." Source. This means the Antarctic contains 88% of Earth's ice. Since the Antarctic is not affected by "global warming" and there is no large melting of ice there, then the IPCC predictions of the oceans rising and flooding low-lying regions are false.

The IPCC also states that, Changes around the Antarctic Peninsula: This region has experienced spectacular retreat and collapse of ice shelves, which has been related to a southerly migration of the January 0C isotherm resulting from regional warming. . What the IPCC fails to mention that this area has a fault line below the ice and that there are 2 active volcanoes also below the ice of this peninsula. Localized warming from volcanoes and fault lines does not constitute global warming.

List of Antartic volcanoes

Arctic Ice Is Shrinking, Temperature Not The Only Reason

Since 1958 the Danish Meteorological Institute has been studying and measuring the daily mean Arctic temperatures north of 80 degrees north. The above 3 graphs from 1958, 1978 and 2015 show the consistent temperatures of the Arctic. Checking out all 59+ graphs shows the same consistency. This would suggest that there is no global/local warming happening in the Arctic despite the melting ice. The red curve is based on the average 2 m temperatures north of 80 degree North. The green curve is based on ERA40 data for the period 1958 to 2002. The blue line is the melting point, 0 degrees Celsius.

If the Arctic ice is shrinking while the Antarctic is doing fine, are there any local reasons why?

The new study by Dr. Stefanie Lutz, postdoc at the German Research Centre for Geosciences GFZ and at the University of Leeds found that "Cosmopolitan snow algae accelerate the melting of Arctic glaciers". "The role of red pigmented snow algae in melting Arctic glaciers has been strongly underestimated, suggests a study published in NATURE Communications on June 22. White areas covered with snow and ice reflect sunlight; the effect is called albedo. It has been known for quite some time that red pigmented snow algae blooming on icy surfaces darken the surface which in turn leads to less albedo and a higher uptake of heat."

Another study published in National Geographic in 2014 found that soot and dirt can accelerate the melting of snow and ice around the world. "From Greenland's ice sheets to Himalayan glaciers and the snowpacks of western North America, layers of dust and soot are darkening the color of glaciers and snowpacks, causing them to absorb more solar heat and melt more quickly, and earlier in spring."

A 2016 study on ocean currents conducted by Jerry McManus, a paleo-oceanographer at Columbia University`s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory was reported in ScienceMag.org and EurekAlert found that "...ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica show that these sudden shifts - which occurred every 1500 years or so - were out of sync in the two hemispheres: When it got cold in the north, it grew warm in the south, and vice versa." "Those abrupt climate changes wreaked havoc on ecosystems...the ocean's overturning circulation slowed during every one of those temperature plunges - at times almost stopping."

"AMOC slowdowns have long been suspected as the cause of the climate swings during the last ice age, which lasted from 110,000 to 15,000 years ago..."

"Once warming started, it happened very rapidly, with a rise of 3 to 6 degrees Celsius in average sea surface temperature and larger changes over Greenland within a span of decades". The changes seen today could also then be for the same reasons. More research is needed to determine if today`s northern hemishphere warming is caused by CO2 or just another natural phenomenon.

A 2014 report from The Geological Society of America regarding northern Atlantic temperatures found that:
1) "Mounting evidence from proxy records suggests that variations in solar activity have played a significant role in triggering past climate changes. "
2) "...high-resolution SST record indicates that climate in the North Atlantic regions follows solar activity variations on multidecadal to centennial time scales. "
Another compelling reason why Arctic sea ice is currently melting without any significant increases in air temperature.

A 2017 study published in Nature Climate Change found that up to 60% of the sea ice loss may be due to natural events like summertime atmospheric circulation.

These are independant and logical explanations of why the Arctic ice is currently melting while Antarctic ice is growing. CO2 is not the only possible reason as suggested by the IPCC.

Greenland Ice Is Melting, AGW Or Natural?
A 2012 study done by NASA stated Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt. "Measurements from three satellites showed that on July 8, about 40 percent of the ice sheet had undergone thawing at or near the surface. In just a few days, the melting had dramatically accelerated and an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface had thawed by July 12". This would be excellent proof for alarmists to state that AGW is real. However, looking at ice core samples, the same scientists found that, "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time".

A 2016 study published in sciencemage.org found that melting of the basins of the southeast and northwest "...have undergone profound change and have contributed more than 70% of the total ice loss to the ocean". The scientists also found that "The onset of increasing flow of the northeast Greenland ice stream (the largest flow feature of the ice sheet), for example, has been linked to a geothermal hot spot".

"A recent study by Kjeldsen et al. (19) shows that the same three basins contributed 77% of GrIS`s total mass loss over the last century (between 1900 and 1981)". Another scientific study that shows that parts of Greenland have been melting since 1900, long before any significant CO2 increases.

Conclusion: science has found this to be a natural event and not AGW.

Do Other Government/Corporate Agencies Behave Unethically?
Given the IPCC Climategate scandals of 2009 and 2011, here is a small list of scandals from other corporations and governments:

1) Ontario power plant scandal which cost Ontario tax payers over 1.1 billion dollars.
2) Watergate scandal which saw the Nixon administration harass and spy on activist groups and other politicians. Similar to what the IPCC is doing now.
3) Environmentalist David Suzuki wants scientist and politicians jailed who do not agree with his perspective on global warming. These are comments one would expect from communist China or North Korea, not a democracy like Canada.
4) The Canadian Long Gun Registry was supposed to cost $2 million dollars by the implementing government. "In May 2006, the Auditor-General of Canada, Sheila Fraser, reported that the former Liberal government twice misinformed Parliament about tens of millions of dollars of overspending..." The final bill was over $2 billion dollars. This was either gross incompetance or deliberate deceipt by the government.
5) NBC Caught Lying About Chevrolet Trucks Exploding was a NBC news report from the 1980's about GM pickup trucks exploding in side impact accidents. However, NBC fabricated all the evidence and had to eventually appologize for lying. Sadly, not even news agencies have integrity anymore.
6) Sivertimes published an article about ice melt at the Antarctica. However, this article did not mention any scientist names, where they worked or their source data. This article could have been completely fabricated and actually does contradict NASA's findings from 2015.

Why Not Just Go Green Anyway? Wind Turbines And Solar Panels Not That Green
Misconceptions of wind turbines
The Pickering nuclear power station in Ontario occupies about 600 acres and supplies about 14% of Ontario's electricity needs. The Greenfield Energy Centre is a natural gas power plant that produces about 4.6% of Ontario's electricity and occupies about 35 acres.

As of 2015, all wind farms in Ontario occupy 21,000 acre of land yet only produce 4% of our electricity. Not efficient from a land usage perspective nor environmentally friendly if those are trees or farmland that are being destroyed for their existance. Wind turbines also kill thousands of birds each year.

From another perspective, as of 2016, Ontario has 2,465 wind turbines that can produce a maximum of 4,781 MW yet can only supply 5% of Ontario`s electricty. Pickering nuclear has a maximum 3,100 MW yet supplies 14% of Ontario`s electrcity. This means there is about a 75% inefficiency with wind turbines compared to a power plant. The reason, on average there is either not enough wind or too much wind to operate the turbines so 75% sit idle at any given time. This is a disaster both financially and for land usage.

Then there is the cost. Since 2004 Ontario electricity rates have increased 375% and driven many industries out of the province. Even the media shows bias towards green energy and tries to hide its costs. A recent CityNews article had a title about the rising costs of policing in small towns but the actual article was about wind mills affecting their tax base and driving up their fees and therefore the police costs along with that. Ontario MPP Bob Bailey even told the news that communities should be careful before agreeing to any windfarms.

A study published in Science Direct states, "Many people believe renewable energy sources to be capable of substituting fossil or nuclear energy. However there exist very few scientifically sound studies, which apply due diligence to substantiating this impression."

Publications in increasing numbers have started to raise doubts as to whether the commonly promoted, renewable energy sources can replace fossil fuels, providing abundant and affordable energy. Trainer (2014) stated inter alia: `Many reports have claimed to show that it is possible and up to now the academic literature has not questioned the faith. Therefore, it is not surprising that all Green agencies as well as the progressive political movements have endorsed the belief that the replacement of the fossil with the renewable is feasible`. However, experience from more than 20 years of real operation of renewable power plants such as photovoltaic installations and the deficient scientific quality and validity of many studies, specifically aimed at demonstrating the effective sustainability of renewable energy sources, indicate precisely the contrary.

Siemens closes wind turbine plant in Tillsonburg - 340 green energy jobs gone. Despite only producing 5% of Ontario`s electricity, the costs and ineffeciencies of wind turbines prohibits too many more from being built.

Trudeau's carbon caper
"For Trudeau to meet his target of reducing Canada's annual emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, Canada will have to lower them by at least 127 megatonnes (Mt) annually, the equivalent of shutting down all of our electricity sector (85 Mt) plus half of the building sector (43 Mt), in less than five years.

To meet Trudeau's target of reducing emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, Canada will have to lower its annual emissions by at least 241 Mt, the equivalent of shutting down all of Canada's oil and gas sector (179 Mt), plus most of the agriculture sector (75 Mt) in less than 15 years."

Electric Cars - Not Practical Or Affordable Yet

Battery Life In Electric Cars
As of 2016, electric vehicles will have a maximum range of 300 km on a closed curcuit track in ideal weather conditions. Add cold temps, rain, night time and rush hour to the mix and their range drops off dramitically. Not practical for distance commuters.

After about 4 years the batteries will need replacing. The costs range from $3,000 for a compact car to $14,000 for a full size car/SUV. This is a major expense for a vehicle that is now 4 years old and has lost a lot of re-sale value. Don't forget that batteries degrade over time so would lose some of their capacity even before those 4 years were up. This means that a new electric car might have a 300 km range but after a couple of years that range could drop well below that.

Car airbags were invented in 1951 but the technology back then wasn't good enough for production. In the mid 1970's GM and Ford tried airbags in a couple of their cars but again the technology was not practical enough for mass production. It wasn't until the 1990's that airbags went into production.

3D films were invented in 1915 but were not very popular. In the 1950's 3D films became popular for a short period of time then died off again. In 2009, the movie Avatar brought back interest in 3D. This time even televisions were made for 3D but again, the technology was not very practical for home use and within a few years 3D TVs died off.

One day in the future we will likely have electic cars. However, as of 2016 the electric car is not very practical and is more of a novelty for companies like Tesla. Once an electric car has the same range and refueling speed as a gasoline car along with being more affordable without government subsidies, then they might become successful at mass production.

Netherlands on brink of banning sale of petrol-fuelled cars. If this propaganda and mentallity comes to North America too soon then a lot of commuters who have to drive longer distances to work could be in trouble.


As you can see from the 2016 Chevrolet car lineup, their one electric car the Volt, is also their most expensive car at $38,000+. This car compares in size and features to the Cruze but costs more than twice as much. The Volt is actually in the same price range as luxury cars such as Cadillac and BMW, not something that the average person can afford to buy. Perhaps in 7-8 years the electric car will follow in the footsteps of flat screen TVs and become affordable for the working class person.

The typical car battery is referred to as the rechargeable lead-acid battery. It was invented in 1859 and further refined in the 1960`s. It has a lifespan of about 4-7 years, depending on use. The second type of rechargeable battery is the lithium-ion battery which Sony put into production in 1991. This battery is typically used in consumer electronics such as laptops and smartphone. Tesla uses lithium-ion battery packs in its electric vehicles. Lithium-ion batteries have a lifespan of about 500-1,000 cycles of use/charging.

Since battery technology is old and already mass produced, there will be little or no cost savings with time if electric vehicles ever gain in popularity and become somewhat mass produced.

Batteries contain precious metals such as Lithium iron phosphate, Lead acid, Nickel and Cadmium. If electric vehicles ever become mass produced, the mining of these precious metals will likely cause a significant amount of pollution that the alarmist complain about with fossil fuels.

Owning an electric car in 2016 would be like owning a 3D TV, Digital Audio Tape machine, HD DVD player or a Betamax player when these devices first came out.

Is There Anything Good About CO2? Yes!

Most people know that CO2 is not a pollutant but rather a nutrient for plants. It is what they breathe and then give us oxygen in return. For years many scientists have suggested that the recent increased levels of CO2 might actually be good for the planet.

The climate alarmist website article from skepticalscient.com would have us believe that there is a very small chance that increased levels of CO2 would have a global benefit and goes on to list more doom and gloom. Below, you will find several science articles that noticed unexpected benefits from increased CO2 levels along with explanations as to why.

David Suzuki even tried to cast doubt with half-quoted scientific articles. As an exmaple, Suzuki uses a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences to try and say that increased CO2 had minimul benefits to plants. However, article from PNAS states: "...water savings that plants experience under high CO2 conditions compensate for much of the effect of warmer temperatures, keeping the amount of water on land, on average, higher than we would predict with common drought metrics, and with a different spatial pattern. The implications of plants needing less water under high CO2 reaches beyond drought prediction to the assessment of climate change impacts on agriculture, water resources, wildfire risk, and vegetation dynamics."
Below, you will find other scientific articles that contradict Suzuki and the IPCC regarding the benefits to increased CO2 for plant growth.

An April 2016 study by the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions found that "greenhouse gas CO2 produces a 'fertilization effect'... more CO2-rich conditions allow high-latitude forests to recover faster from harvest, fire and insect disturbances".

It would be logical to assume that all trees in the world along with other vegation such as food crops would also benefit from the CO2 increases. Another fact the IPCC always forgets to mention.

Shrub growth helps counteract climate warming, says University of Alberta researcher "Changes to plant life in the arctic may actually help reduce climate warming in some regions, a University of Alberta researcher has discovered."

An April 2016 NASA report states that, "Rising CO2 levels greening earth".

A July 2013 article from Physics.org, states, "High CO2 spurs wetlands to absorb more carbon", according to a 19-year study published in Global Change Biology from the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center in Edgewater, Md

A November 30, 2015 article from Physics.org, states, "High concentration of CO2 protects sorghum against drought and improves seeds", according to the University of Sao Paulo`s Bioscience Institute (IB-USP) in Brazil.
"The rising atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2), chief among the greenhouse gases fueling global warming and climate change, is beneficial for the physiology of sorghum, an economically and nutritionally important crop grown worldwide."

A climate alarmist article from Skeptical Science lists a bunch of doom-and-gloom points but does not source any of these points with science articles. They are all hypothetical points and only gloss over the benefits listed above.

Despite all the IPCC doom and gloom predictions of droughts and starvation because of AGW, Africa in recent years is improving and doing very well with their food production. Africa: Continent of Plenty, a 2013 article from the IEEE,

The Agricultural Department of Manitoba, Canada has an article for farmers on how and why CO2 could be beneficial to their crops. Logically, plants cannot live on CO2 alone, they also require water and good soil conditions. Given plenty of water and good soil, the article states, "The level of 1000 PPM CO2 is very close to the optimum level of CO2 required, given no other limiting factor, 1200 PPM, to allow a plant to photosynthesis at the maximum rate." Yes, 1200 ppm CO2 is the optimum level for plant growth, not the low levels that we are currently at.

This same article warns about CO2 levels that are too low, " At 150 PPM the plants begin to respire, and photosynthesis is stopped...The plant will eventually use all of the CO2 present, photosynthesis will stop and the plant will die.". Pre-industrial CO2 levels ranged from 180-280 ppm. This means that CO2 levels were almost too low for plants to survive properly.

Since 1880 humans have only increased CO2 by about 120 ppm. This is only a modest increase and brings the planet to a healthier CO2 level for plants to grow better. It would take centuries, perhaps up to 500 years before we reach optimum CO2 levels and need to start worrying about any more increases in CO2. By then our energy production would have changed significantly on its own. Today we cannot predict or plan how humans will produce energy in hundreds of years from now anymore than humans hundreds of years ago could have predicted how we make energy today.

Before The IPCC Global Warming Scare There Was The Global Cooling Scare

From the 1940's to the 1970's the earth actually cooled a little. This caused some scientists to suggest that we might be heading into another ice age and that this was man made - Popular Technology summary. An interesting fact that the IPCC seems to gloss over.

A December 10, 1976 Science Magazine article predicts a trend towards another northern hemisphere ice age if anthropogenic effects are ignored. This indirectly suggests that industrialization might have the abilility to save us from another ice age.

There's A New Ice Age Coming - A report in the 1970's from a British scientist.

In 1974 the CIA published a working paper to analyse the effects of climate change on world food production and if that would have any impact on global political stability. Their concern was over the earth cooling and that historical climate changes such as ice ages could happen within a 200 year window. CIA Climate Report 1974




Cyclical warming and cooling periods repeating over thousands of years with no uncontrolled excessive warming, consitant with what many climatogists, meteorologsists and other scientists are saying today.

In the 1970's scientists thought they had "evidence" that we were heading towards an ice age. Now, the trend seems to be "evidence" towards global warming. However, given historical trends, it is possible that the earth may actually move towards another ice age in the future and not what the IPCC is predicting.

If The IPCC Are The Experts On CO2, Is It Even Possible That They Could Be Wrong?
This would not be the first time that experts were wrong with something. For decades, the experts (doctors, scientists, etc) thought that the cholesterol in eggs was bad for us. A recent AMJCN study found this to be incorrect with "no relationship between egg intake and coronary heart disease incidence was found". The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. In fact, cholesterol is a vital nutrient and every cell in our bodies needs cholesterol. All our hormones are derived from cholesterol and a shortage of cholesterol would lead to many health problems.

Ironically, CO2 is also a vital nurtient to the earth. All plants breathe CO2 and rely on it to grow. In prehistoric times CO2 levels were about 20x higher than today (yes, over 8,000 ppm) and the earth was lush and green. Today, the earth is very dry with deserts on almost every continent. Increasing CO2 would benefit plant growth such as trees and food crops. The IPCC has never mentioned the possible benefits of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

In the early 1900's north american governments thought that the consumption of alcohol was bad for society so they banned it. This was called Prohibition. "After several years, prohibition became a failure in North America and elsewhere, as rum-running became widespread and organized crime took control of the distribution of alcohol. Distilleries and breweries in Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean flourished as their products were either consumed by visiting Americans or illegally exported to the United States." The same failures are currently occuring in Europe with carbon cap-and-trade.

Experts Clash on Age of Land Bridge Connecting Americas. This is another example of experts not agreeing on the same data. If one group of experts can be wrong, then it is possible for another group of experts (IPCC) to possibly be wrong.

Prior to the Big Bang theory for the origin of the universe, some scientists believed in the Steady State theory. Even scientists can believe in one theory for a while prior to some new information being discovered that then makes them realize they were wrong. Finally, after discovering three major flaws (The Flatness Problem, The Horizon Problem, The Monopole Problem) with the Big Bang theory, a 3rd theory was developed in the 1980's called Inflation Theory. Will there be a 4th or 5th theory in the future? Since scientists don't have a closed mind on the subject and are willing to discuss other possibilities, then maybe yes.

Renowned cosmologist Stephen Hawking contradicts his own theory on black holes. In 2014 Hawking wrote a paper that contradicts his original paper from 1974 on the properties of black holes.

Recent studies in New Scientist suggest Albert Einstein may have made a few mistakes in some of his theories.

For these reasons no scientist or politician should say that the debate is over with climate change. If scientists were as closed-minded about the universe we would still be believing in the Steady State theory or something even more primitive. If two of the greatest scientists can be wrong, then lesser scientists at the IPCC can also be wrong.

Climate Change - A Tax Revenue Generator For Governments

Ontario's (Canada) Liberal government has released details of its cap-and-trade program, which is expected to increase the price of gas and homeowners' natural gas bills... is projected to generate $1.9 billion in revenue next year. This government behaviour has already hurt the Ontario economy and will likely get worse. A couple of years ago Ontario shut down its last coal energy plant. Globally as of 2016, the US gets 39% of its energy from coal, Germany over 50% and China probably over 80%. Ontario has lost lots of manufacturing jobs to other nations with more affordable energy.

Every national, state and provincial government that has a cap-and-trade program will be making billions of dollars from this global warming scare.

"Cap-and-trade regulations create overly restrictive policies that increase price uncertainty in the marketplace. The market loses efficiency because of cap-and-trade regulations."

"Global warming policies geared toward economizing our use of fossil fuels impose tremendous economic costs, especially when the positive externalities of economic growth and poverty reduction are not given appropriate consideration. Economic growth and pollution are intertwined in complex ways."
"Rigid requirements to force nations and companies to focus exclusively on reducing negative externalities, while politically popular, may cause more harm than necessary. Carbon-based energy -- i.e., coal, natural gas and oil -- supplies the vast majority of global energy needs. " Financial Post - Cap-and-trade fraud.

Cap and Trade: A Gigantic Scam - "According to James Hansen - the world's leading climate scientist fighting against global warming - in a interview on Democracy Now that cap and trade not only won't reduce emissions, it may actually increase them". Even a pro global warming scientist does not believe cap-and-trade is a good idea.

Ontario Chamber of Commerce urges one-year delay on cap-and-trade plan "The Ontario Chamber of Commerce is urging the provincial government to delay the implementation of its cap-and-trade plan for one year, saying key questions remain unanswered." "The purpose for our calling for us to slow down before we hurry up here is to make sure we understand fully the unintended consequence or at least the cost-benefit analysis, and that ' we answer some of the questions that remain outstanding from the business community,' he said."

How much will people in Ontario be taxed with cap-and-trade? We won't know because No cap-and-trade line on natural gas bills. This tax will be hidden from us, buried in with other expenses. The Ontario government also intends to increase this tax on a regular basis but it will be difficult to clearly see by how much. The government will not be open and transparent about this tax.

Climate Change Alarmists State Major Storms Now From Man-Made Climate Change

The Ontario government states, "The effects on infrastructure are equally apparent and costly: roads that buckle in severe heat, water mains that overflow in severe rain, hydro lines coated with heavy ice that snap and leave tens of thousands of Ontario families and businesses without power."

"...significantly more variability in weather, including severe wind, ice and rain with potential effects that include flooding, soil erosion, infrastructure damage and power system outages".

"Ontarians are already paying the price for climate change impacts in terms of damaged homes, businesses, crops and increased insurance costs. The 2013 ice storm in Southern Ontario resulted in $200 million in insurance payments, and severe floods across the Greater Toronto Area caused nearly $1 billion in damages. The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy estimated that the economic costs of climate change in Canada will rise from about $5 billion annually in 2020 to between $21 and $43 billion by 2050."

Severe storms existed long before humans had industry. The mutliple ice ages are examples along with one of the most devestating hurricanes in the 1950's, Hurricane Hazel, which even killed people in Toronto. There has not been a hurricane in Toronto since Hazel; nothing in the past 60 years despite increases in CO2.

The summer of 2016, an El Nino year, has been one of the warmest and driest on record. However, in southern Ontario in the Toronto area 1959 was drier.

According to a 2007 The Telegraph article, 1947 was "One of the worst winters on record was followed by floods in the Spring and the hottest summer in 300 years". A U.K. weather forecaster, Dan Suri, stated that 1947 was "The summer of 1947 is the 6th warmest on record in records dating back to 1659. Only the summers of 1976, 1826, 1995, 1846 and 1983 have been hotter". Weather cycles often repeat themselves over many years, decades and centuries.

A 2014 AMS study An Empirical Relation between U.S. Tornado Activity and Monthly Environmental Parameters found no relationship between tornados and climate change. A 2016 AMS study on recent California droughts found that they have not been caused by long-term climate changes.

Anybody older than 50 years knows that the weather goes through large cycles where some years we have more or less precipitation, storms and other weather patterns. For a young person though, the alarmists are trying to instill fear by suggesting the weather was always calm and predictable prior to human growth.

Are Not Mountains Like The Himalayas Losing Ice Rapidly? Maybe Not

Indian climatologist disputes charges over Himalayan projection. A Science News article that interviewed scientist Murari Lal, who was involved with the research of melting ice in the Himalayas, stated that the IPCC had rushed him to provide data for a climate report and that mistakes were made but not realized until after publication. Although the glaciers are still retreating with the updated data, they are not melting at the rate first thought.

As a result of this Lal states, "However, under the current state of this scenario (the situation has become quite bizarre at the moment and IPCC's credibility is now at stake), I am not interested in being associated with the IPCC process any more or getting involved in political controversy/advocacy."

Don't 97% Of Climate Scientists Believe In Man-Made Global Warming?
Were all scientists on the planet asked for their opinion on the subject? No.
That number comes from an Austalian researcher who looked at just over 10,000 papers discussing climate. He looked for any opinions that stated:
1) Is CO2 is a greenhouse gas that can increase global temperatures?
2) Do humans contribute CO2 to the atmosphere?
If either question was answered "yes" then the paper was considered in favour of man made global warming. However, answering yes to either or both does not mean that human produced CO2 is warming the planet to a dangerous level.
The survey found that 66% of papers did not express an opinion and were excluded. Of the remaining 33%, 97% of those papers answered yes to either or both questions. So, 97% of 33% of scientists think that either CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Not the type of concensus the politicians would have us believe.

Lord Monckton video explaining the source of the 97% misconception.

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider

Authors and experts who submit research to the IPCC must conform to a preconceived expectation that AGW is real, IPCC Authors and Experts, and "...advise Lead Authors on how to handle contentious/controversial issues..." requiring possible ammendments by the authors. Change the research findings to match the expectation, not exactly a consensus.

A climate alarmist article from Skeptical Science states there were several studies done and in each one the concensus was 93% or higher. What we have learned from the two Climate Gates and from former IPCC scientist Judith Curry is that there was a lot of bulling of scientists within the IPCC if they did not agree with their corporate views of global warming. When IPCC scientists who do not agree with these views are stifled how can there possibly be a real consensus?

Is There Anything Else Beyond Humans That Can Affect Climate?

The Sun. A Jan 8, 2013 NASA article looked at the effects the sun and its solar cycles may have on the earth's climate.

"A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), 'The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate,' lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet." The sun's EUV wavelengths can strongly affect the chemistry and thermal structure of the upper atmosphere.

"Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific."

"The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them."

Although the researchers did not confirm that the sun was causing any global warming they did state that the sun is the largest source of heat for the earth and "In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming."

A March 2, 2015 Nature World News article stated "It is known that the Sun plays an important part in controlling the Earth's climate, but now researchers show that solar activity affects climate change more than previously thought, according to recent research."

A climate alarmist article from Skeptical Science completely ignores the above two articles by stating, "In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.". They use the now proven-incorrect hockey-stick-graph as part of their argument.

The Earth's Mantle. A 2016 University of Cambridge article stated that "researchers have compiled the first global set of observations of the movement of the Earth's mantle, the 3000-kilometre-thick layer of hot silicate rocks between the crust and the core, and have found that it looks very different to predictions made by geologists over the past 30 years."

They found that the wave-like movements of the mantle are occurring at a rate that is an order of magnitude faster than had been previously predicted. The results, reported in the journal Nature Geoscience, have ramifications across many disciplines including the study of oceanic circulation and past climate change.

"Considering that the surface is moving much faster than we had previously thought, it could also affect things like the stability of the ice caps and help us to understand past climate change."

El Nino/La Nina. El Nino Has Pushed Our Planet Past a Major Climate Milestone. "The monster El Nino of 2015-2016 is finally gone, but scientists are still coming to terms with its impacts on the planet. Among those impacts: charging up the global carbon cycle and pushing atmospheric CO2 levels above 400 parts per million (ppm)...The previous record rise, of 2.82 ppm, occurred during the 1997-1998 El Nino. In both cases, scientists believe that emissions spiked due to a combination of warming and drying in the tropics, which can accelerate soil carbon decomposition, and large, drought-fueled fires."

The Antarctic. Centennial-scale Holocene climate variations amplified by Antarctic Ice Sheet discharge A recent study found that the Antarctic is capable of affecting climate change and not just the other way around.

This supports what some climate scientists have been stating that temperature can also drive CO2 levels rather than just CO2 affecting temperatures. It is quite possible then that some of the extra CO2 in our atmosphere occurred naturally do to natural changes in temperature.

Green house gases including CO2. The 4% increase in industrial greenhouse gases may also have a subtle affect on the climate but as some of the IPCC scientists have stated their original calculations had errors and "that global warming over the past 20 years is significantly less than that calculated".

Let's Assume Alarmists Are Correct
From 1880 to today CO2 rose from 280 ppm to 400 ppm. Earth's population also rose from just over 1 billion to over 7 billion people. A previous United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report already stated that livestock produces more CO2 than transportation (cars, planes, trains, ships, etc.). Since humans also exhale CO2 like livestock do, then it would be fair to say that human existence also is a large source of CO2.

This gain of 120 ppm of CO2 is perhaps half from living creatures such as our livestock and humans. The only way then to reduce our CO2 production to pre-industrial levels is to also reduce human population to pre 1880 levels. This means getting rid of about 6 billion people. Will these countries implement a one-child-policy the same way that communist China did from 1978 to 2015? Current population trends are still growth, meaning CO2 will continue to rise even if all power plants and factories were shut down today.

Now let's assume that the 120 ppm CO2 increase caused a 1 degree Celsius increase. Using a 1:1 ratio, prehistoric CO2 levels were around 20x higher than today (8,000 ppm). This means ((8000*1)/120)=67) a 67 Celsius increase in average temperatures. If current equatorial temperatures are around 35 Celsius, then adding another 67 would be 102 Celsius for average prehistoric temperatures. Water boils at 100 Celcius so this is not even close, realistic or possible. Therefore, the ratio is not 1:1 but rather a decreasing value with each increase in CO2. Since some IPCC scientists have admitted their computer models are wrong then we have no idea what measurable effect another 120 ppm increase of CO2 would have on temperature (1 degree? 1/2 degree? 1/4 degree? etc). All we can say for sure is that it would be less of an effect with each increase.

Let's Look At Real Satellite Data
The National Space Science & Technology Center conducts climate and weather research. They also provide raw satellite data that anyone can download and analyse for themselves.

Looking at satellite data from 1979 to 2015, one can see that 2015 is not the hottest year on record that so many claim. In fact, 2015 ranks 9th for warmest years. The top 10 warmest years in order are: 2010, 2005, 1998, 2012, 2007, 2014, 2002, 2015, 2009, 2013. 2016 is now the hottest year since satellite data. Note that 2016 is an El Nino year so that naturally drives up temperatures regardless of CO2.

Source Data

How do these recent temperatures compare to prehistoric temperatures?

Source

Source
These graphs show that recent temperatures have been quite stable when compared to our past. Fluctuations in temperatures are normal and from a global perspective there has been no drastic increase or decrease. The 1 degree Celsius that the alarmist worry about is well within these past global parameters.

If the earth's warmest temperatures were on average 14 Celsius higher with 8,000 ppm CO2 than today, then from a linear perspective one can assume a 1 degree increase for every 571 ppm CO2. This is a crude mathematical calculation which does not include any feedback mechanisms or other complexities. It is merely to demonstrate that if CO2 were to be blamed for the sole cause of any modern day warming, that we would need a lot more CO2 before seeing any measurable differences in temperatures.

Ontario Climate Change Plan Could Spike Hydro, Natural Gas Rates, Other Major Industries
On May 16, 2016 a leaked government document: $7-billion plan seeks to phase out natural gas, according to report "The four-year plan, according to the Globe and Mail, would seek to phase out natural gas for residential heating, used in 76 per cent of Ontario homes, to be replaced by electric and geothermal sources. "

"If you`re switching from gas, it`s going to cost you more. There's no way your electricity bill is going to go down," said Brady Yauch, executive director of the Consumer Policy Institute. "They`ve gone up faster here, on a percentage term for residential home owners, than anywhere else. They're going to continue to go up."

Adding solar panels to a home will be subsidized by the Ontario government. The Ontario government will provide up to $30,000 in tax payers` money towards these installations. This alone will already drive up the cost of electricity as the subsidies increase to pay for these installations and electricity buy-back into the grid.

The Ontario government will provide up to $14,000 in tax payers` money towards electric vehicle purchases. Commercial products should be financially viable on their own merit otherwise they might be a bad idea. If a product is a good idea people will buy it and the price will eventually come down (ie. flat screen TVs). If a product is a bad idea then it will not sell and eventually go away (ie. 3D TVs). Had the government funded 3D TVs, we might have a bunch of TVs that nobody really likes or uses.

This is one of the most agressive yet financially and scientifically blind plans that any government plans to implement. Affordable energy will be gone. The government mentions possible subsidies for the poor (unknown if enough to make up for the increase) which will come from more taxes to the middle class who will also be paying more for energy.

This plan if made into legislation would begin to take effect by 2020. They would do this by first creating a new law, The Climate Change Mitigation and Low Carbon Economy Act. This would "Enshrine in law Ontario`s greenhouse gas reduction targets of 15 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, 37 per cent below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050". The new tax will "Formally direct all cap and trade auction proceeds to a new Greenhouse Gas Reduction Account that would fund green projects to reduce emissions".

This plan will also negatively affect other industries such as cement production, copper and nickel production, electricity generation, iron and steel production, magnesium production, aluminum production, pulp and paper production, and many more...

Cap-And-Trade Keeps Poor Ontarians Trapped In Energy Poverty "Seen as regressive, carbon pricing systems such as this cap-and-trade program are more likely to impact poor populations, who in fact use less energy than wealthier households."

Rural Ontario 'in crisis' due to high hydro rates, local United Way head says. The article states "...nearly 60,000 residential customers were disconnected in 2015 from hydro services due to non-payment." The unnecessarily expensive hydro production in Ontario is making poor people even poorer and possibly homeless in the future.

Alberta's oilsands emissions cap will cost $250B but do little to cut greenhouse gas, Fraser Institute says "The report estimates Alberta's proposed cap will cost the national economy more than $250 billion in lost production between 2025 and 2040, while reducing global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by a paltry 0.035 per cent."

Ontario and Britain are two locations that have made a big push to wind farms and solar energy while eliminating affordable energy like clean coal. As a result electricity rates have sky-rocketed in these locations. British energy firms charge most for electricity in Europe - why?. "Expensive projects designed to slash our reliance on fossil fuels are disproportionately driving up bills compared to other countries, experts say." This high increase in energy production has also driven out manufacturing to other locations that have affordable energy without making any positive impacts on global CO2 reduction.

Although British Columbia already has a cap-and-trade tax since 2008, B.C. Premier Christy Clark's climate change plan does not raise carbon tax. The reason given was an "obligation to ensure that family affordability is at the forefront of our minds as well as protecting our economy and job creation." At least one politician has come to realize that artificially increasing the costs of energy will effect the financially vulnerable as well as hurt the economy.

Anyone that has lived in Ontario, Canada for 50 or more years knows that manufacturing has been on the decline for the past couple of decades. Although NAFTA initiated this decline, rising energy costs due to poor government decisions (green energy) has driven this decline since about 2004 with electricity rates increasing by up to 375%.

Toronto company opening U.S. plant because of rising Ontario hydro rates

Environmentalism: Charity Or Business?
Celebrity environmentalists David Suzuki, Al Gore and Elon Musk have actually made millions of dollars in the green energy business.

David Suzuki

As of 2013, David Suzuki privately owns three properties worth 10.31 million dollars in British Columbia along with a a forth property co-owned by several investors including Kootenay Oil Distributors.

David Suzuki has a Ph.D. in zoology and worked in the genetics department at the University of British Columbia. He is an educated and smart person. Although he has a passion for nature he has no formal education or experience as a climate scientist. He is often critical of climate scientists and meteorologists who contradict him on climate issues despite his lack of formal education on the subject.

The David Suzuki Foundation mission is "...is to `protect the diversity of nature and our quality of life, now and for the future" and their vision is "that within a generation, Canadians act on the understanding that we are all interconnected and interdependent with nature`."

"During an interview on the John Oakley Show in Toronto, Suzuki stated that ordinary people fund his foundation and corporations are not as interested in funding it." "President of the conservative Canadian Centre for Policy Studies Joseph C. Ben-Ami, citing this statement in his article "Global Warming Charlatan" notes that the foundation's 2005-2006 annual report [7] lists 52 corporations, including Bell Canada, Toyota, IBM, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Scotia Capital, Warner Bros., Canon and the Bank of Montreal, amongst its 40,000 donors. Many years ago, before the Foundation implemented its Ethical Gift Acceptance Policy, corporate donors included EnCana Corporation, a world leader in natural gas production and oil sands development, and ATCO Gas, Alberta's principal distributor of natural gas, and OPG which is one of the largest suppliers of electricity in the world operating five fossil fuel-burning generation plants and three nuclear plants". "Between 2000 and 2010, the David Suzuki Foundation has received $44 Million from tax receipted donations".

According to their website, they state "Our understanding of climate change is largely the result of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world's most authoritative voice on the topic.". We know from the previous Climate Gate scandals and what some of the IPCC scientists have said about their errors in their climate models that this is no longer true. They go on to state, "The debate is over about whether or not [man made] climate change is real; it is now time to act to solve the problem." They say this despite all the independant scientific reports stating other causes for climate change including IPCC scientists who stated that their climate models were wrong.

David Suzuki and his foundation have made millions of dollars from their environmental businesses.

Al Gore


Pictured above are one of the famous speaking poses of Al Gore along with two of his mansions. One in Nashville, Tenn, the other in Montecito, California.

A 2013 news article found that, "Al Gore grew his net worth by more than $200 million (mostly from Apple Inc. stock) in the last decade making him almost as wealthy as Mitt Romney". "However, the 'Inconvenient Truth' documentary has been pivotal in helping him earn speaking fees averaging $175,000 for an appearance". "Gore recently inherited an undisclosed number of shares of Occidental Petroleum Corp., which are valued at between $500,000 and $1 million".

Al Gore often preaches conservation in the name of the environment but then does not hesitate to live a life of luxury himself.

Al Gore enrolled in Harvard College in 1965, initially planning to major in English and write novels but later deciding to major in government.
Although he was an avid reader who fell in love with scientific and mathematical theories,[18] he did not do well in science classes in college and avoided taking math.[17] His grades during his first two years put him in the lower one-fifth of the class. During his sophomore year, he reportedly spent much of his time watching television, shooting pool, and occasionally smoking marijuana.[17][18] In his junior and senior years, he became more involved with his studies, earning As and Bs.[17] In his senior year, he took a class with oceanographer and global warming theorist Roger Revelle, who sparked Gore's interest in global warming and other environmental issues.

Although Gore has a passion for the environment he too lacks a formal education and training in climate issues. Many climate scientists and meteorologists have found problems with his statements in the Inconvenient Truth movie as noted above. Getting paid about $175,000 per appearance for the climate alarmists and politicians would be hard to give up or admit that he is wrong in any way.

Elon Musk

Elon Musk is a business magnate, engineer and inventor.

He is the founder, CEO and CTO of SpaceX; co-founder, CEO and product architect of Tesla Motors; co-founder and chairman of SolarCity, co-chairman of OpenAI; co-founder of Zip2; and founder of X.com which merge with PayPal of Confinity. As of June 2016, he has an estimated net worth of US$12.7 billion, making him the 83rd wealthiest person in the world. Education: Bachelor of Science degree in physics, Bachelor of Science degree in economics.

In the following video in Paris just before the 2015 Paris Climate Conference, Elon Musk spoke to a group of students about climate change and the need for a green house tax known as cap-and-trade.

Some of his key points were:

1. He referred to CO2 only as carbon.
2. Shows a CO2 graph starting at 250 and ending at 500 ppm.
3. Refers to this increase as an extreme threat.
4. Some coastal cities would be completely under water in a climate crisis.
5. The Goal: Exit the fossil fuels era as soon as possible.
6. We will eventually run out of fossil fuels
7. Worst case scenario - more displacement and destruction than all the wars in history combined.
8. 97% of scientists believe in the worst case scenario.
9. 35 gigatons of carbon per year into the atmosphere.
10. This is analogous to not paying for garbage collection.
11. We need to go from having untaxed negative externailty...and have a carbon tax.
12. Compares climate scientist who do not agree with AGW to the tobacco industry.
13. This would be a case of increasing taxes on carbon then reducing taxes in other places.

1. Carbon is a molecule on the periodic table that some people remember as black soot from chimney stacks. CO2 is a molecule, a nutrient that plants breathe. They are chemically very different. Elon is smart enough to know the difference.
2. Starting the graph at 250 makes it appear as though CO2 started near zero which just amplifies the appearance of the CO2 increase.
3. Past CO2 levels were as high as 8,000 ppm and life flourished on earth at that time.
4. Potentially yes so they should begin planning for this now.
5. Eventually humans may replace fossil fuels when we have a viable alternative. Much like when we switched from burning wood to burning coal hundreds of years ago.
6. There is an estimated 200+ years of fossil fuel left at current consumption levels.
7. Worst case scenario - a guess to create the most fear.
8. The IPCC edits all research papers to appear more pro AGW, giving the illusion of 97% agreement.
9. 35 gigatons of CO2, not carbon. Plants breathe CO2, not carbon. Big difference.
10. CO2 is more like compost than garbage. Both CO2 and compost can feed a garden.
11. Another tax is not needed. Legislation to make industry cleaner with the use of filters, catalytic converters, emissions controls, etc. has worked to make machines much cleaner today.
12. Scientists who express concern over the IPCC Climate Gate email scandals and minipulation of climate data have an obligation to speak up.
13. Tesla Motors downsized by 10% in 2007. In 2008 Musk fired another 25% of his employees due to financial problems. SolarCity slashing costs due to lagging sales. Tesla and SolarCity need the cap-and-trade tax to survive.

Elon's comments are deceptive. His opinions are not unbiased as Tesla Motors would likely not survive without the varios governments' tax incentives to buy electric vehicles. Cap-and-trade will artifically support an industry that is not ready to survive on its own yet. Additionally, Elon is a billionaire and will not be personally affected by the increases in energy costs. Only the poor people will feel that as we have to heat our homes with either natural gas or expensive electrity and drive long distances to work with gas powered cars.

David Suzuki and Al Gore are millionares due to their political position on the climate. Their opinions are not impartial, they have a financial interest in their message. As electricity and other energy costs increase due to this misguided green energy strategy, David and Al won`t be affected by this due to their wealth where as the middle class and poor will feel it the most.

The Government Will Use Propaganda and Fear To Make Citizens Docile and Non-resistant To This Change.
The Ontario Government has partnered with David Suzuki and Al Gore and all their propaganda.


In this video the girl on the left and other kids state that trees and other vegetation will not grow well and that the earth is sick, which we know is not true from a Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions study. It is a video to instill fear.

Some propaganda quotes from the Ontario Government:

The rate of global warming over the last 50 years is almost double the rate of warming over the last 100 years. Worldwide, 14 of the last 15 years have been the warmest on record. A false claim as shown above with the satellite data and eventually from some of the IPCC scientists like Michael Mann.

Melting ice at the poles has caused global sea levels to rise. They say that both poles are melting but 2015 NASA satellite data shows that the south pole is growing rather than shrinking.

Climate change also affects Indigenous communities, jeopardizing First Nations and Metis ways of life, health, territories and resources. These communities depend on natural ecosystems for food supplies, and on activities such as fishing, hunting, harvesting and trapping for economic opportunities that are now being threatened by a changing climate. No details are provided here but it is to cause general fear and panic anyway. The details are left up to your imagination.

In 2015 - amid increasing evidence of climate change impacts - the global community has concluded that we`ve reached a critical point. Science tells us that greenhouse gas emissions must be drastically reduced to avoid a 2 C rise in average global temperatures. If the world does not take strong action within the next decade, we are on track to see a 4 C rise, at which point the damage from climate change would be irreversible. From about 1880 to 2015 we saw a 0.8 Celsius increase. This is a fact. Assuming temperatures were to continue to rise, it would take hundreds of years to increase by 4 degrees Celsius. The last 20 years have actually slowed to 0.1 Celsius as stated by some IPCC scientists.

There is no room for denial: we either act now to reduce carbon emissions and manage the risks posed by the impacts of climate change, or we all lose. The government does not want to discuss this scientifically despite all the scientists that don`t agree with them. They want uninhibited tax revenue from their cap-and-trade scheme through fear of not doing anything. We must do as Big Brother tells us or else...

New Republic: A World At War. "We`re under attack from climate change - and our only hope is to mobilize like we did in WWII." This article equates current energy production to fighting the Nazis and Japanese during WWII. Current energy is affordable and has allowed the working middle class to live in a comfortable home and for the poor to at least have a roof over their heads.

UK Citizens First To Fight Back "Many climate sceptics around the world will have been encouraged by the Brexit vote, as there is so much overlap between the two camps, and environmental and carbon goals under the EU were a key target of the Leave campaigners." Many people are waking up to the propaganda from our governments and the IPCC and are willing to fight back given the chance.

Professor Says College Students Are Learning 'Advocacy, Not Climate Science'. "What I have observed is that students are increasingly being fed climate change advocacy as a surrogate for becoming climate science literate," David Legates, a professor of geography at the University of Delaware

Portland Bans Anti-Climate Change Materials In Schools. "The Portland Public School Board voted earlier this year to ban any classroom materials, including textbooks and other material purchased by the district, that cast doubt on the existence of (AGW) climate change". In other words, any science literature that discusses other possible reasons for climate change will be banned. This is a form of book burning that was seen in Nazi Germany during WWII and information suppression currently seen in communist China.

New York City Council calls for climate change education. This could also lead to the banning of certain science books that don`t agree with the IPCC. New York City Council quoted the National Center for Science Education, an organization that claims to defend science against idealogical inteference, in their report. This means that any science article that conflicts with the ideas of the NCSE will be banned by them.

Image to the right was taken during WWII when the Nazi's burned books that opposed their idealogies, much like some science books being banned from some schools today

Kerry: Climate change as dangerous as terrorism. "WASHINGTON - U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Friday that climate change is as dangerous as, if not more, than the threats posed by the Islamic State and other extremist groups."

IPCC Predicts AGW Will Cause Massive Droughts

Another climate alarmist article stating that there will be large spread drought due to AGW. Often Africa gets mentioned as one of the poor nations to be hit the hardest.

Despite all the IPCC doom and gloom predictions of droughts and starvation because of AGW, Africa in recent years is improving and doing very well with their food production. Africa: Continent of Plenty, a 2013 Article from the IEEE,

According to a recent PNAS article Plant responses to increasing CO2 reduce estimates of climate impacts on drought severity. This means that the increases in CO2 will help plants better survive any droughts that may come along.

IPCC Scientists Admit There Were Mistakes

Climatologist Murari Lal of India who studied the Himalayan ice melt for the IPCC stated that, "...However, under the current state of this scenario (the situation has become quite bizarre at the moment and IPCC's credibility is now at stake), I am not interested in being associated with the IPCC process any more or getting involved in political controversy/advocacy."

In February 2016, a Nature Climate Change article published by IPCC scientists stated, "Fyfe et al.1 showed that global warming over the past 20 years is significantly less than that calculated from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 models pArcticipating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). This might be due to some combination of errors..."

Former IPCC scientist Dr Judith Curry explains the problems that exist within the IPCC and why the supposed scientific consensus on AGW might be fictional.

These are three quick examples of scientists directly involved with IPCC research and found that there were problems with their results. Although each article briefly made the news our governments never like to talk about this and refer to any scientist that discusses this as a climate science denier.

History Proves CO2 Is Not The Only Driver Of Temperature

The Keeling Curve is the world`s longest unbroken record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. For the past 800,000 years prior to human industrialization, CO2 levels were fairly stable between 200 and 280 ppm. However, during this same time period we know that there have been huge temperature changes with several ice ages, Greenland experiencing forests growing inland, the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Something else drove all these temperature changes if CO2 was stable during this time period.

According to the IPCC, CO2 levels have been rising since about 1880 with an acceleration starting around 1998. However, during this same time period global temperatures nearly plateaued which is often referred to as "the pause".

Here we have two examples where temperature changed despite stable CO2 levels and then temperature remained stable during steep CO2 increases. Although CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it is not likely the only cause of the earth experiencing any increases or decreases in temperature.

Food Production Produces More CO2 Than Industry

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization: Livestock a major threat to environment. This report states that livestock produces more CO2 and possibly methane than transportation!

One-third of our greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture

Even if we eliminated all industry and transportation, we would still produce more CO2 than prior to 1880. Any attempts to tax industry will likely just hurt citizens without making any measurable impact on CO2 production.

Do Carbon Taxes Work? Not Likely.

British Columbia

Source

British Columbia carbon tax was implemented July 1, 2008. Many alarmists will state that the tax works as CO2 emisions fell from 66,000+ ktCO2e to 64,000+ by 2014. What they fail to mention is that CO2 levels began falling already in 2004 from 70,000 ktCO2e, 4 years before the carbon tax came into effect. Ironically, from 2011 to 2014 CO2 levels actually increased by about 40% from what it dropped from 2008. British Columbia is also one of the most expensive provinces in Canada to live in.

Sweden

Source

Sweden's carbon tax was implemented 1991. From 1991 to 2012 CO2 did fall, but after first increasing from 1992 to 1998. Also, CO2 overall was dropping since 1970, long before any carbon tax.

United Kingdom

Source

UK's fuel duty tax was implemented 1993. In 2001 they implemented the Climate Change Levy tax. Although the general trend in CO2 emissions has been declining, this decline began around 1979, 14 years before the first carbon tax. During this same time period, the cost of energy in the UK has risen enough that many manufacturing jobs have left for more affordable countries.

Costa Rica

Source

Costa Rica`s carbon tax was implemented 1997. Despite the tax, CO2 emissions have been rising steadily since at least 1970 with little change after 1997.

These four regions demonstrate that a carbon tax has little or even no effect on any climate/CO2 trends but has made the cost of living more expensive and difficult for many citizens while driving away many businesses. Example: Toronto company opening U.S. plant because of rising Ontario hydro rates

Is Atmospheric CO2 Acidfiying The Oceans?

This image from NOAA shows the large amount of CO2 produced naturally from the environment along with the small amount produced from industrialization. Even without industrial CO2, large amounts of CO2 transfer between the atmosphere and either land vegitation or the oceans. Human contribution is about 4% annually.

A 2006 Institute of Science in Society study found that cool turbulent ocean water absorbs CO2 while warmer less turbelent oceans release CO2. The study focused on data from 1991-2000 in the subtropical NE Atlantic, stating, "...respiration rate was far in excess of photosynthesis.". If the tropical NE Atlantic is releasing CO2 then warmer equitorial oceans are likely releasing CO2 as well and not absorbing it.

In 2011, Dr.Murry Salby (a climate scientist) gave a presentation on the relationship between temperature and CO2. His findings were that temperature drove CO2 levels and not the other way around. A 2013 study by Dr. Pehr Bjornbom of Sweden verified Dr. Salby's findings.

There has been much hype that this CO2 is responsible for the recent bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef around Australia. However, CO2 likely had nothing to do with it and rather it was the warm waters caused by the 2015/2016 El Nino. Despite the bleaching in those years the reef is doing much better than the alarmists state.
1) A recent UNESCO report, The List in Danger did not include the Great Barrier Reef. Now that the El Nino is over the reef will likely recover from this natural bleaching.
2) An interview of local Australian residents and tour operators found, "Reports of its demise have been exaggerated claim locals". When one physically examines the reef and asks locals about it health, it can be seen that the reef is doing much better than the alarmists claim.

What these independent studies/reports conclude is that currently CO2 is being released from the oceans at a greater rate than being obsorbed. This means that atmospheric CO2 is not being absorbed and added to oceanic CO2 and acidifying the oceans. The source of any CO2 in the oceans is coming from within. From 1940 to about 1975 global temperatures dropped, allowing for the possibility of CO2 absorbtion into the oceans. From 1998 to 2015 atmospheric temperatures almost plateaued and depending on what the oceans were doing at the time there may or may not have been some CO2 absorbtion. So, at times the oceans are actually releasing CO2 and not absorbing it.

Is CO2 A Pollutant?

Many alarmists` websites and news articles frequently refer to CO2 as pollution. If you read this specific article from Sceptical Science you will see that they do a fairly convincing job by stretching the truth and trying to convince us that it is harmful to humans. They state, "greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare". Well, let`s continue reading below to see if CO2 meets that criteria.

First, let`s look at the definition of pollution.
Dictionary.com: the introduction of harmful substances or products into the environment.
Oxforddictionaries.com: The presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance which has harmful or poisonous effects.
Cambridge.org: damage caused to water, air, etc. by harmful substances or waste.

CO2 Characteristics
Manitoba Government Agriculture: ... CO2 supplementation will enhance the productivity of the greenhouse...
NASA.gov: Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
The above two links explain that CO2 is a vital nutrient for plant growth. If CO2 levels were to ever drop to 150 ppm or lower, photosynthesis would stop and most plants would begin to die, followed by humans. Optimum levels of CO2 for plant growth are 1200 ppm. With our current levels around 410, more would be better, not worse.
CO2 Contributes To The Greenhouse Effect: CO2 along with other greenhouse gases such as water vapor help regulate and balance the earth`s temperature. Without green house gases (O2 is not one), the earth would be extremely cold and likely not able to support life. Without CO2, the earth could be almost as barren as Mars.
Medical science states "Asthma patients reduce symptoms, improve lung function with shallow breaths, more carbon dioxide". How can a pollutant help asthma patients breathe easier? Only if it is not.

CO2 does not meet the definition of a pollutant. CO2 is a natually occurring molecule that is benficial to plant growth because it is a plant nutrient. It is also essential to keeping the planet from freezing up. CO2 does not cause any breathing problems in humans and can actually help asthma sufferers. CO2 is no more a pollutant than H2O (water vapor) is. Any website or news article that refers to CO2 as pollution is misleading and deceiving. Water vapor (H2O) is also a greenhouse gas. Will the alarmists one day refer to water as a pollutant too?

What Does NASA Say?

NASA has a dedicated section to Climate Change on their website at climate.nasa.gov. This section is very pro AGW but they also contradict themselves on almost every point in other parts of their website.

Pro AGW	Contradiction
...Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Shrinking ice sheets	A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers. The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change`s (IPCC) 2013 report. NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. CO2	Water vapor is known to be Earth`s most abundant greenhouse gas, but the extent of its contribution to global warming has been debated. Using recent NASA satellite data, researchers have estimated more precisely than ever the heat-trapping effect of water in the air, validating the role of the gas as a critical component of climate change. Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change
Summer temperatures are projected to continue rising, and a reduction of soil moisture, which exacerbates heat waves... More droughts and heat waves	From a quarter to half of Earth`s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide... Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
...So the sun doesn't appear to be responsible for the warming trend observed over the past several decades. Is the sun to blame?	There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), "The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth's Climate," lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet. The solar cycle signals are so strong in the Pacific, that Meehl and colleagues have begun to wonder if something in the Pacific climate system is acting to amplify them. "One of the mysteries regarding Earth's climate system ... is how the relatively small fluctuations of the 11-year solar cycle can produce the magnitude of the observed climate signals in the tropical Pacific." Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate

The first 4 sections of their climate website: Evidence, Causes, Effects, Scientific Consensus all reference the IPCC. This would help explain why this part of their website contradicts other parts of their website where they do their own research.

It would appear that NASA has two opinions on AGW. The official opinion where the IPCC has a heavy influence on what to say and then the less politically correct opinion where they question the IPCC data but has to be hidden in other parts of their large website.

President Obama

Barack Obama was the president of the USA for 8 years. This is one of the most influential positions in the world. During his tenure he had a website set up in his name www.barackobama.com. However, this link now redirects to www.ofa.us. A section of this website is dedicated to his version of climate change.

Part of the title, "Climate change is real, man-made, and happening now". This comes from the presumptions of the IPCC however they have never proven that natural climate stopped 120 years ago. History has proven that climate change has been ongoing for thousands of years right up to now.

The first paragraph on his website states, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree: Man-made climate change is a reality." The articles above have already shown that there is no 97% consensus.

Second paragraph, "Every region of the United States is already experiencing the effects of climate change". Of course, since the climate has always changed and is likely still changing then this sentence is redundant other than to cause fear and make people accept new taxes without protest.

Third paragraph: Carbon pollution causing climate change is responsible for air that can be unhealthy to breathe, contributing to health risks for many children. Over the past three decades, the percentage of Americans with asthma has more than doubled and climate change is putting those Americans at greater risk of landing in the hospital. This would have people believe that CO2 is a pollutant that can harm people. What does actual medical science say? "Asthma patients reduce symptoms, improve lung function with shallow breaths, more carbon dioxide"
Their study concluded with:
Among the study`s 120 patients who used the brief, four-week biofeedback therapy to boost their CO2, the researchers found that of 21 clinical indices of pathology more than 80 percent resulted in significant reductions. The researchers saw improvement in asthma symptoms and control, better lung function, reduced oversensitivity of the airways and less use of reliever medication, as well as improvement in physiology and the pathology of the airways.
Further more, a recent medical study found that "Over 33 percent of patients diagnosed with asthma did not have it". This means that the doubling of Americans with asthma is false and the claims made by the Obama/OFA website are completely inaccurate.
This is the difference between what a politician says and real scientific research.

Fourth paragraph, "More than 130 members of Congress still refuse to acknowledge the scientific reality of climate change...". No one denies natual climate change, just most educated people question how much humans can control and affect the climate. Using the term "climate change denier" is just a distraction and lie to cover alarmists` inability to demonstrate AGW from natural climate change. The mere existance of climate change does not prove it is AGW.

Fith paragraph, "OFA supporters aren't letting deniers try to continue a settled debate..." Science is never settled, it is just the best understanding we have of something at that moment but is always subject to new research that can discover a new explanation. Great scientists like Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking have both demonstrated that science is never settled.

Subsection Don`t let deniers stand in the way, second paragraph, "...despite overwhelming scientific consensus (even 85 percent of eighth graders accept the science at this point)". Given that some american schools are now banning scientific materials that don`t agree with the IPCC it is no surprise that children don`t know any better. Any science article from NASA, National Geographic, Physics.org, Pnas.org, etc. that could suggest another reason for climate change will be banned, "Additionally, materials must make it clear that human activity is responsible for the rapid climate change occurring on our planet".

It is unimaginable that in a democratic society scientific reports that don`t agree with certain people`s views are being banned. This is something that used to only happen in communist countries like China or during WWII with the Nazis.

Image to the right was taken during WWII when the Nazi's burned books that opposed their idealogies, much like some science books being banned from some schools today

Citizen Environmentalists, The Dangers Of

Many self-proclaimed environmentalists often state their opinions as facts. They state statistics, scientific measurements or other general knowledge as scientific fact but never provide a source for their "information". This "information" often has some half-truth to it making it somewhat believable but also misleading. Since these opinion articles are often published in news websites some readers might take this information as fact without ever questioning it. The example that this article will use is from a citizen environmentalist in Courtice Ontario, John Peate.

John Peate has had several articles published in some local papers/websites. This article will look at two of those, the first being McNaughton is wrong on wind. He states that, "More than 60 countries now have wind power as a commercial part of their power source..." and "Spain, in particular, is heavily invested in wind and, in all, the growth is exponential". This implies that wind power must be good because so many countries are investing in it. Maybe yes, maybe no. Decades ago many countries also invested in unfiltered coal power plants which spewed dozens of toxins into the air. What seems like a good idea at the time might turn out to be a bad idea in the future.

Fourth paragraph, "...the costs to the electric system in Ontario are not a result of wind,...". Since 2004 Ontario electricity rates have increased 375%, around the same time that Ontario started building wind turbines and cancelling natural gas and clean coal powerplants. Just a coincidence?

Sixth paragraph, "The actual cost of power in Ontario is still quite low,...". If you are wealthy enough to afford the increases and have little concern for poor people, then you can arrogantly say this. Rural Ontario 'in crisis' due to high hydro rates, local United Way head says. The article states "...nearly 60,000 residential customers were disconnected in 2015 from hydro services due to non-payment." The unnecessarily expensive hydro production in Ontario is making poor people even poorer and possibly homeless in the future.

Seventh paragraph, "Wind...is now the cheapest form of power with solar likely to soon be similar. It is reliable and stable and does provide base load power without backup..." Wikipedia states, "By year end 2015 Spain was the world`s fifth biggest producer of wind power... providing 48,118 GWh of power and 19% of the country's total electricity production in that year" "On 21 November 2015 at 4:50 am, 70.4% of the electricity consumed on the Spanish Peninsula was covered with wind power energy" Unlike power stations such as fossil-fuel, nuclear and hydro, there are large fluctuations in electricity production during a day and week. This makes for a rather unpredicatable and somewhat unrealiable source of steady electricity. As a result, wind and solar still require powerstations as back-up to fill in the deficits otherwise there could be blackouts. This alone would already increase the cost of wind/solar energy as two sources of power must be built.

In 2014, the Spanish news company El Pais published an article about The shocking price of Spanish electricity. Contrary to John Peate`s opinion, Spanish electricity costs are actually quite high and renewables are not helping with that cost. The article is actually quite neutral blaming both mismanagement of power stations along with the push for wind/solar. It states, "Spain's electricity bills are among the highest in Europe, having risen 60 percent between 2006 and 2012...". This rise in cost is parallel to Ontario.
Some quotes:
A huge digital map of Spain showing all its power sources dominates its center of operations: wind farms in Galicia, solar plants in Murcia... Its technicians monitor Spain's REE national grid round the clock, ready to respond to the needs of the system. The timing has to be perfect, because if electricity does not enter and leave the grid at the same time, the REE's turbines could slow down, leading to blackouts.

• Matters worsened in 2008 with new premiums on renewables.
• Spain has a capacity of 25,000 megawatts, of which 6,000 megawatts are surplus to requirements. Some combined cycle plants are only operational four hours a day.
• And this surplus, along with the penetration of generously subsidized renewables, has led to loss of competitiveness.
• The problem is perhaps best illustrated by the renewables sector. The Zapatero government created a series of premiums and subsidies to give solar, wind and biomass technologies a start. But even producers accept that this approach has hindered rather than helped.
• Private, small-scale investors were encouraged to buy into solar energy parks, although speculators looking to move their money out of construction also moved in. The result was a surplus of very expensive energy.
• ...while others exercise considerable influence over the renewables sector, for which they are paid handsomely...
• We have created huge amounts of expensive energy, through pushing ahead with renewables, which should have been gradually introduced as the technology improved over time.

The article does not solely blame renewables for the high electricity costs but clearly they are not as affordable as the IPCC would have us think. In fact they are still very expensive.

Eighth paragraph, "Wind produces a stable and predictable cost. After the capital costs are met, all the 'fuel' is free and remains so for the life of the turbine..." This is a common but misleading argument. Yes, wind and sunlight are free but that is not the cost of wind. Rather, it is the aquisition of thousands of acres of land, the construction of these wind mills (which materials must be mined and manufactured) and the integration into the electric grid. That is the cost. Using their same distorted logic, oil, gas and coal are also free. They pre-exist in the ground for free. The cost is the extraction of these resources. Once you tap an oil or gas well, the resource flows "freely" for decades until that well runs dry, and so far this has been the most economical way to provide electricity.

The Galileo Effect

For hundreds of years up to the early 1600`s people, politicians and scientists all believed that the Earth was the center of the universe. They believed that the stars and other planets revolved around the Earth. A scientist named Galileo studied astronomy and through his observations concluded that the Earth was not the center and that it revolved around the sun like all the other planets. This was known as Controversy over heliocentrism.

Despite considerable preasure from policitians and the church to denounce his claims and not contradict their beliefs, Galileo stood fast. In 1633 Galileo was ultimately imprisoned for his scientific work.

The moral of this story relates to modern-day climate scientists and meteorologists that are trying to show scientific research that contradicts the teachings of the IPCC and all their followers. 400+ years later and humans are still making the same mistakes of not having an open mind to all science.

A Little Perspective

This chart shows the different milestone ranges of CO2 in ppm. They are:

• Minimum (150): This is where photosynthesis stops and plants begin to die. This would then likely cause life on earth to die.
• Pre-industrial (180-280, avg 230): Before industry. When considering the full range of CO2, this range is dangerously close to 150.
• Current (410): Man-made. This has resulted in plants growing bigger and faster in the last 30+ years.
• Optimum (1200): Plants require water, soil and CO2 to grow. 1,200 ppm CO2 is the optimum level for plant growth. Anything below that and plants begin to starve until death at 150.
• Prehistoric (4000+): CO2 levels used to be much higher than today and the earth was lush and green. Life thrived.

Farmers and horticulturists know that their plants grow best with CO2 levels around 1200 ppm. NASA and other scientists have observed through satellite images that the earth has been greening in the past 30+ years as a result of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

There is nothing in farming, horticulture or palaeontology to suggest that increases in CO2 are bad. All life does better with increased levels of CO2. Our current levels of CO2 are well below the optimum level for plant growth and we should actually consider increasing this level to support the increasing world population. Trying to lower CO2 levels would likely hinder plant growth and put poor people`s lives at risk.

Human population on the other hand has grown exponentially during the same time period as industrialization. CO2 has grown by about 25% where as human population has grown by about 750%. It would appear that population is the far greater threat to the environment than CO2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Paris Mentallity

Paris recently made the news for The Paris Agreement signed by over 100 nations. This unified many countries in one mentality regarding climate and economics. With Britain`s recent Brexit vote, the mentality of Paris is showing a darker side. A leaked memo states, "French bankers are plotting to 'actively disrupt' the City (London)..." and "France has boasted to City of London chiefs that it will use Brexit to sabotage the British economy, according to a bombshell leaked memo."

This is how hostile the IPCC followers are when it comes to not co-operating with them. This leaked memo is reminiscent of the leaked IPCC emails of 2009 and 2011, known as the Climate Gate scandals. Is this a group of people that citizens can truly trust?

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: "...one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world`s wealth...". In other words, climate change and carbon taxes are about creating a global economy controlled by the U.N. through the IPCC, neither of which is a democratically elected body. Note: the original source could not be located, instead a reference to a Forbes news article was used.

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking at the Berlin Energy Transition Dialogue in 2017 basically stated that carbon pricing is needed to discourage carbon fuel use (because it is currently better and more affordable than renewables) and to finance renewables research because currently renewable technology is not good enough to be effecient or affordable. This somewhat confirms the above quote.

Given that climate change is more about controlling economies than the environment, one can see how bulling could form out of this.

Why would citizens of democratic countries ever want to give up control of what energy sources they can use or to pay taxes to finance other countries outside of their own? Carbon taxes/credits can be traded amongst countries thereby sending one country`s tax money to another country with either more wind turbines or solar panels. If renewables were better than fossil fuels, countries would have already switched. This means that countries are forced to continue using fossil fuels out of necessity for transporation and industry so the carbon taxes they pay other countries is just to finance inefficient energy sources and create a global redistribution of wealth. In other words, global welfare.

Is Industrialization Bad?

Many environmentalists would have you believe that industrialization is bad. There is some truth to this but it has also done a lot of good. Prior to industrialization (before the 1800`s), the average human only lived to about 45-50 years. Now, the average is closer to 80 years with many living past 100 years. Industry has made hard labour jobs easier and dangerous jobs safer. Also, we can live almost anywhere on the planet (north/south poles, deserts, jungles, etc.) in relative comfort. We can also grow food or transport food to where we live.

The caveat is poisonous chemicals. When we began industrialization we dumped chemicals into the air, land and water without any thought or restraint. We have now learned from these mistakes and in at least the industrial nations we have implemented significant pollution controls and recycling. Even the cars today run much cleaner than just 30 years ago.

As long as we continue to improve our capture and treatment of industrial by-products and waste, then industrialization is a good thing that makes our lives significantly better. Without it, we wouldn`t have our homes, modern medicine or the ability to communicate around the world.

Green Energy Mining

A Lithium mine in Chile as seen from Google maps.

A Lithium mine in Bolivia as seen from Google maps.

These are just 2 examples of what Lithium mines look like and how they may impact the environment. These mines are usually found in mountainous regions and therefore hidden from most peoples` eyes.

The Tesla Model S battery weighs 1,200 lbs (540 kg).
Laptop batteries weigh on average about 0.615 lbs.
Smartphone batteries weigh on average about 0.3 lbs

There are already many Lithiums mines around the world just to supply the consumer electronics that we have so far. Since electric vehicle batteries can weigh 2,000 x to 4,000 x more than consumer electronic batteries, the need for new Lithium mines will be astronomically higher. This calculation does not include all the batteries that will need to be retrofitted to wind turbines to help with lack of supply during poor weather conditions.

The above graph taken from MiningFeeds.com. This graph shows that about 90% of the world`s Lithium mines are controlled by three companies. These three companies specialize in other resources as their main source of revenue and Lithium is just a small part of that.

Even if everyone on the planet decided tomorrow that they wanted to buy an electric car, no mining companies are set up yet to handle that demand. It would first have to be determined if the current mines could handle a 1,000+% increase in production and if not, then new exploration would have to take place. It could take decades to find new locations and begin mining.

Why Is There Still Controversy?

First, let`s look at what everyone (alarmists and skeptics) agrees on:

• Climate change is real
• CO2 is a greenhouse gas
• Greenhouse gases can warm the earth
• CO2 levels started increasing in the late 1800`s after thousands of years of stability (Keeling Curve)
• Other natural factors have driven past climate changes

The fundamental issue is whether natural climate change that has been ongoing for thousands of years suddenly stopped in the 1880`s and whether the current climate change is man-made or just another natural ongoing change in the climate. Whether the increase in man-made CO2 is enough to drive climate change or just have a slight influence in an otherwise natural cycle. The mere existence of climate change does not prove that humans are the cause of it since there are many natural things that also affect climate. Human production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases likely have an effect on the climate but not necessarily 100%. No studies were located that looked at a percentage contribution such as 50%, 25%, 10%, etc..

The second issue is whether climate change is bad or not. There are always advantages and disadvanteges to anything that changes. The advantages of a greener earth might outway any minor changes in our weather pattern.

If it turns out that AGW only accounts for 10% or 5% of climate change then it would be more important to focus on adaptability versus trying to stop something that we cannot.

Below is a list of websites referenced in this website. Given the list of science and news articles that question and even contradict the IPCC regarding AGW, why do so many people still insist that AGW is the sole cause of climate change?

Science	AGW Pro Or Con	News
ajcn.nutrition.org cam.ac.uk envirotech-online.com fao.org gfz-potsdam.de livescience.com longrangeweather.com nasa.gov nationalgeographic.com nature.com natureworldnews.com ncdc.noaa.gov nsidc.org nsstc.uah.edu ocean.dmi.dk phys.org pnas.org polarbearscience.com populartechnology.net sciencedirect.com scientificamerican.com the-grayline.com uvic.ca	climatemonitor.it davidsuzuki.org globalresearch.ca insideclimatenews.org ipcc.ch newrepublic.com ontario.ca opg.com skepticalscience.com wikipedia.org windontario.ca	bloomberg.com cbc.ca citynews.ca dailycaller.com forbes.com gizmodo.com huffingtonpost.ca independent.co.uk metronews.ca mintpressnews.com nationalpost.com nugget.ca sivertimes.com telegraph.co.uk theguardian.com torontosun.com windsorstar.com

To answer why, we must break them down into groups as each group has its own motivation.

Environmentalists
An environmentalist broadly supports the goals of the environmental movement, "a political and ethical movement that seeks to improve and protect the quality of the natural environment through changes to environmentally harmful human activities". Human existance does nothing good for the environment. With a human population that went from 1.5 billion around 1880 to 7.5 billion in 2016, our consumption of resources and our production of pollution has been quite high. The earth would be much better off with fewer people. For this reason Environmentalists will support any program that reduces human population and since affordable energy is what allowed such tremendous human growth in the past 100+ years then making energy less affordable would be a logical desire. Supporting AGW cap-and-trade taxes will help drive up the cost of energy.

Politicians
Governments are aware that any major changes in the climate could potentially disrupt food production. This would destabilize countries and the global economy. In the early 70's various governments were concerned about potential global cooling. In the 80's temperatures swung back up and they set up the IPCC in 1989 to monitor possible global warming. Initial studies done by the IPCC, Dr. Michael Mann and his team, along with early computer models suggested that the earth was heating up at an ever increasing amount. This initiated the 1992 Kyoto Protocol. Governments committed billions of dollars to infrastructure and technology changes to support wind and solar power. In Ontario alone, the provincial government cancelled two natural gas power plants and a clean coal plant, costing the tax payer billions of dollars, all in the name of green energy. Governments have committed so much money to AGW that they now need the cap-and-trade tax to pay those bills. Governments are too financially committed to turn back now, regardless of what the science says. The debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. - President Obama - if you are a climate scientist that has research that contradicts AGW they do not want to hear from you. You might as well go away and find a new career.

General Population
Given our governments' debt into AGW and green energy, they have put a lot of effort into propaganda to convince people that AGW is still real and that any scientist that contradicts AGW is not credible. Since people don't have the time to conduct their own research into AGW, they just accept what our governments are saying as the truth. If people don't know the truth, how can they protest AGW?

Brexit, the 2016 Scarborough bi-election in Toronto and the US election are all recent statements by citizens around the world who are tired of uncontrolled rising energy costs that are driving away good jobs and making basic living very expensive for the middle class and poor people. 2016 might be the beginning where average people begin to fight back. Perhaps in the next several years the contorversy will finally be over.

This website has sections that reference many reputable scientific articles that contradict the IPCC and AGW. If this isn't proof that the science is not settled then people are being deliberately blind to the truth.

What To Do Now?

First, don`t let any politician or group of people tell you what to think or when. Do your own research. There is enough scientific literature on the web to give you a good understanding of climate change.

Second, stop government funding and subsidies to wind and solar projects. This is costing the tax payer an enormous amount of money. If people want to install solar panels on their roofs let them pay for it in full. Currently in Ontario, the government subsidizes solar panel installations on private property and makes the tax payer pay this, driving up electricity rates. The government has never paid for gas stations to be built, that was something energy companies did, therefore the government should not be paying for the installation of charging stations for electric vehicles. Tax payers should never have to pay for something that the private sector is responsible for.

Third, if the government wants to spend money on something then they should improve public transit so people don`t have to drive so much. Toronto has one of the worst subway systems in the world for a large city. Residents have no choice but to drive as the buses can be too slow. In the GTA, there is only one highway, the 401, and one railway line (along the lake shore) for commuters. The 407 is a toll highway for rich people and there is no other railway lines for the northern part of the GTA. Transit into Toronto takes almost 2 hours so is not practicle for most people. Having more and better transit would allow people to leave their cars at home thereby reducing all air pollution and not just CO2 emissions.

Fourth, removing tolls from the 407 would help alleviate congestion on the 401 thereby reducing the amount of time cars sit idle on the 401. A 30 minute commute on the 407 vs a 60 minute commute on the 401 could cut emissions in half for some people.

We have about 200-300 years of fossil fuels left. Any wind turbines or solar panels we build today will be obsolete and gone in 200 years. We cannot predict today what technology will exist in 200+ years for generating electricity any better than people from the 1700`s could have predicted nuclear, gas and other technologies today. We should do what we are good at now and let technology evolve until it is ready to replace what we are doing today. Government subsidies might be motivating bad ideas/technologies simply because there is free (tax payer) money being handed out. Right now, one energy plant could replace all wind turbines in Ontario and produce more electricity for less cost and have a smaller footprint on the land.

If there is an actual demand for wind/solar energy then the private sector will find a way to make it viable and profitable without government funding using tax payers` money. Energy companies in the past such as Enbridge (Consumers` Gas) and Shell have done their own research and development without tax payers having to pay for this. The same should apply now.