Earth Hour – Whatevs

On March 25th, everyone was encouraged to turn off the lights for Earth Hour.

We were told that we were doing the earth a favour. Turn off those bad electric lights, and light a candle to inspire others to do the same next year.

What a crock.

We were told to replace highly efficient and super clean hydro-generated electricity with sooty candles. Now, not all the countries in the world are as fortunate as we are (here in Canada) to have access to hydro-electric power, but even a gas-powered lawnmower engine is more efficient than an open flame burning a cotton wick. Cotton is made of carbon, after all, and burning it… well, you can guess the rest.

I’m not saying that carbon is bad for the planet – a better word might be ‘essential’ – but even if carbon were the GHG global-warming environment-killing enemy we are being told it is, should burning more of it be a symbol of our collective will to reduce its abundance in our atmosphere?

No wonder less and less people are paying attention to this mass-shaming claptrap.

“Fewer Torontonians shut off the lights for Earth Hour this year, Toronto Hydro reveals, but the city did see a 2.8 per cent drop in electricity demand.”

When people don’t even understand the very basic principles which underpin their most vehement beliefs, it’s probably time to pack it in. Carbon taxes, indeed. Sheesh!

 

The Grass Farmers

People tend to build next to rivers in order to facilitate trade. The best agricultural land tends to be near rivers. For decades, suburban centres have been making the switch from zoning for agricultural land to zoning for residential. Some residents are even being fined for growing food on their property because some municipal bylaws prohibit it.

We’ve replaced our farmland with lawns. We’ve gone from planting seed for food to planting grass for nothing. We’ve gone from tending our crops to watering our lawns. We’ve gone from harvesting our own winter stores and declaring our independence to cutting the grass on one of our two days off just to keep up appearances. Tending a well-landscaped lawn, flower beds, shrubs and hedges, non-fruit-bearing trees, can be as much work as farming, but the yield is zero. In fact, it turns out to be an enormous time sink, much like entertainment, socializing, and child-rearing. It also turns out be be a circular exercise in recycling compost for no benefit outside the aesthetic.

As a response to this long-term trend, big-agri is developing GMO’s in order to feed the ever growing population. They’re actually making quite a big deal of it, too. There is such a shortage of good farmland, we now need to engineer our food like we should have engineered our spaces.

Even a fruit tree every so often would make an impact on the ever-growing problem of ‘food islands.’ Why should I drive past unused farmland to go buy synthetic vegetables trucked into the tiled mall?

So with the scare-mongering of over-population and the fear-porn of climate change, the two things we can do to increase global yield in food supplies and prevent starvation are: home gardens; and increased atmospheric levels of CO2, but both have fallen into dis-favour. (A solar panel on some rooftops here and there wouldn’t hurt either.) The point is that population is controlled by the availability or scarcity of resources, and it is not the majority poor who control that.

Is there a systemic problem looming? Sterility has needlessly become a very large industry. A very large and damaging industry. See Morgan Spurlock’s “The Truth Behind Toxins“. CNN doesn’t even mention that it is about chemicals, addressing only ‘food’ in the introduction. The common thread throughout most of the show is sterility and cancer. The show starts off with what is probably the most persistent danger, flame-retardants. An honest examination, dis-honestly portrayed. There are many earlier examples of journalism on the topic; most were not widely viewed.

Birth rates are down almost everywhere in the western-world, as cancer rates skyrocket. GMOs are said to have negative effects on fertility and also may ‘transform cells.’ Cleaning products and beauty products also, as it turns out.

Deranged monarchs re-incarnated as merciful diseases do not a sensible solution make.

With food independence comes a better use of our time, money, resources, and health. Perhaps, we should rather think about saving a buck than making one.

 

Trickle-Up Carbon Taxes

Here are some points about carbon taxes which may have passed under the radar gleaned from Canada’s Ecofiscal Commision (a Canadian think-tank.)

The commission had what they refered to as a debate today between Chris Ragan, chair of Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission and Merran Smith, Executive Director or Clean Energy Canada moderated by the Globe and Mail’s Editorial Page Editor Tony Keller. It wasn’t much of a debate, it was more like publicity. The live event was aimed at corporate oil sector executives.

The participants mostly echoed each others’ comments. Even pre-recorded clips and guest questions simply regurgitated the day’s talking points. They were few, but seemed to encourage oil companies to accept the incentivization programs aimed directly at them. The public, and its concerns, were for the most part, ignored.

The one point which kept coming up was that carbon taxes should be revenue-neutral. What this means is that while companies would be taxed for their share of carbon emissions (again, there was no distinction between CO, CO2, and CH4) at about $30/tonne, the money would then come back to the company through special programs, tax breaks in other areas, or subsidies. BC’s cement industry was cited saying that some $25M had already been given in order to reduce GHG emissions. So is the government trying to get some of its money back, or is it trying to get corporations to pay for their own subsidies?

BC uses a revenue-neutral system whereas the system in Quebec is cap and trade (Quebec carbon is taxed at about $14/tonne.) The problem here is the perception of oil companies; if they feel the taxes are not revenue-neutral, the ‘debators’ conceded, there would be an exodus of mostly manufacturing jobs towards cheaper emerging markets. In other words, ‘the working man’ suffers.

They then pointed out that manufacturing jobs were being replaced with other jobs (in Ontario total hires went up.) If those jobs are being replaced with better jobs (R&D,) (re)education will cost more for the workers and saddle them with more debt – if Canadians are even qualified to do these jobs – which is doubtful. But if the jobs (as is more probably the case) are being replaced with lesser jobs (service sector) as is the current trend, again it is ‘the working man’ who suffers.

Emerging market countries have been quick to point out that most of this ‘pollution’ was made by developed market countries who then counter that the pollution from the next fifty years will be mostly EM, and much worse. We got it on credit, but you have to pay up front.

Finally, the ‘leftover’ taxes would be used to help subsidize public transport. Since less people will be able to afford cars, this seems reasonable. Again it is ‘the working man’ who suffers. Those who can afford it will be encouraged to buy newer cleaner cars. More money being spent by the public which already owes a tremendous amount of new car debt in favour of the car companies who produce the pollution in the first place. This is all getting rather circular. Who suffers? You guessed it.

All this is based upon the notion that this entire carbon market will not be a free market, but a highly manipulated one; one in which the price of carbon can never be high enough, much like the already carbon-tax-laden airline ticket. Prices will be set, because if the market were left to its own devices, and it turns out that CO2 does nothing to raise global temperatures, the >$1T market would collapse taking everything out with it.

Canada’s Ecofiscal Commision has no literature referencing sources for CO2 harm, cites no peer-reviewed papers backing up its claims, will not provide any references, and says the science is settled which negates the need for any pesky proof.

The commission has also indicated that all forms of carbon emissions should be subject to taxation. Get ready for a breathing tax, Canada.

 

Can We Both Be Right?

I had an exchange with a climate alarmist the other day, an exchange for which I felt the need to apologize. I sent him an email today. The subject line read: “Apology”.

Yesterday, we had exchanged opinions and facts about climate change and couldn’t agree about any of it. Today, the day after our exchange, I found myself bothered by it. I wondered why we couldn’t get along? He is a damn good researcher; how could he be so wrong. Maybe he thought the same of me.

I was going through an article I had recently written, looking at a graph which showed temperature and CO2 levels over the past several hundred million years. I saw that both CO2 levels and global temperatures had very rarely ever been this low, and I thought that surely this would lead to desertification. After all, the tundra is a desert, despite its low temperature. How could he think that this natural uptrend after near-record cold was anything but normal, anything to be worried about, anything unexpected? It had since leveled-off, so no problem, right? Why did he look at it as record highs when it was clearly (near) record lows?

My short answer was that he must only have been looking at the local US surface temperature record over a very short time span, and I was looking at satellite data as well as long term data covering more of the history of the earth, and this is what led to his distorted view. If the charts start in the sixties, it’s been getting warmer. If the charts start six-hundred million years ago, brrr. On a planetary level, however, no big deal. This seemed to explain away the problem as well as all the sub-problems like sea-level rise, Arctic ice extent, storm activity, etc. etc. etc. He was the American alarmist who took the ‘nothing outside our borders matters’ and the ‘we have the best equipment so everyone else is wrong’ view, and I was the voice of reason with a view to the world. Typical US-Canada relations.

I went for a walk to clear my head. Why was this still bothering me? I had figured out the problem; I had my answer. But there was more to it than that. There was something missing. As I walked around my neighbourhood, I thought about power structures and relationships, I thought about hegemony and what it can do to one’s perspective, I thought about the philosophy behind the situation when it hit me: Hegel – Mondrian – binary code. What if we were both right?

Continue reading “Can We Both Be Right?”

Climate Change – Conservancy Or Governance?


Margaret Thatcher    “Nothing is more obstinate than a fashionable consensus.”

“Consensus: “The process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner: ‘I stand for consensus?”


Before getting into details, some very basic questions on the topic answered briefly:

1- Who are the chief actors?

  • Pro AGW actors will herein be known as ‘alarmists.’
  • Con AGW actors will herein be known as ‘doubters.’ ‘Deniers’ is seen as derogatory and has been replaced in the mainstream media (MSM.) Skeptics is still prefered by some.

2- Is the global climate changing?

Yes. It always has and it will continue to do so. This is why there have been ice ages.

3- Is this change due to human activity?

No. (see question 4, below) The sun is the primary determinant of climate as this is where the planet gets almost all its energy.

4- Does human activity contribute to warming or cooling trends?

Otherwise stated, is anthropogenic global warming or anthropogenic climate change (AGW or AGCC) a legitimate concept? On the face of it, probably not, but if it is, the effect is truly minimal. The rub here is whether or not we consider geo-engineering (besides a slight mention, geo-engineering is not a substantial part of this article) as part of this equation? If so, the effect would be to increase the amount of influence man has on his environment, although very slightly. In which direction, though, is still not known.

5- Is CO2 pollution or plant food?

CO2 is most definitely not pollution by any definition of the word. Conflation between carbon monoxide (CO – which is pollution) and carbon dioxide (CO2 – which is plant food) and basic scientific ignorance seem to be at fault here. See this article for disambiguation.

6- Does the economy have an effect on the science?

Just as with politics, when money is introduced into a problem, it tends to aggravate the situation by bringing up new problems. The economy affects everything. Governments need revenue to fund research and address issues. Corporations need investors in order to continue doing business. Universities and think-tanks need government (and private) money to continue their research. Magazines, journals, and publishing houses need advertising revenue to continue to publish. Scientists need money to support their families. There are many points along this chain in which to introduce money as a corruptive factor. Money can indeed influence science, and has.

7- Does politics control policy, or do the facts?

It would seem that there is an agenda at work behind the question. The IPCC (the UN’s main deliberative body on climate change) was, at its inception, created with a mandate. The IPCC is a political body and not a scientific one and was created with specific goals and objectives to attain. Their own literature attests to this fact. Scientists who participate with the IPCC do so as consultants and advisors only. Motions put forth by the UN are written by lawyers, bureaucrats, translators, and policy-makers, not scientists.

8- Is there bias in the debate?

Both sides of this question are subject to biases (scroll down to the comments section where professor Brown references these biases) when reporting on the data. Everybody who works in this field has a horse in the race, so to speak, and everybody wants their horse to come out ahead. However, there are several documented instances of outright fraud concerning manipulated data which all seem to come from one side of the table in particular – the alarmist side. (More on this later) And yes, many people on the internet lie or are mis-informed, on both sides.

9- How much carbon dioxide is there in our atmosphere?

400 ppm = 0.04% That is to say that four one-hundredths of one percent of our atmosphere is composed of carbon dioxide.

Some basic facts about CO2 concentrations:

  • 70,000-100,000 ppm (unconsciousness within an hour)
  • 7000-8000 ppm (earth’s historic high)
  • 5000 ppm (US Occupational CO2 exposure limits – 8 hrs.)
  • 3000-4000 ppm (poorly ventilated indoor spaces)
  • 2000-2500 ppm (well ventilated indoor spaces)
  • 2000-2500 ppm (Jurassic era levels)
  • 800-4000 ppm (optimal greenhouse targets)
  • 360 – 410 ppm (earth’s atmosphere today)
  • 250 ppm (earth’s historic low)
  • 200 ppm (IPCC target level)
  • 150 ppm (level under which plants start to die)
  • 0 ppm (where Bill Gates wants it)

If you only click one link in this entire article, make it the following:

Chistopher Monckton Keynote – ICCC9 July 9, 2014 (47:11)

Start at the 20:00 mark if you don’t have much time. In this video, Lord Christopher Monckton lays bare the language of the agreements reached at several climate summits demonstrating the true intent behind these schemes. He then goes on to suggest some very positive actions which we all can take in order to guarantee legitimacy and transparency in these international tribunals governed by non-elected bodies accountable only to their own interests. With the COP-21 United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Paris quickly upon us (November 30 to December 11, 2015) there is precious little time to act.

Let’s put an end to global warming.

Continue reading “Climate Change – Conservancy Or Governance?”

CO2 Poll

This poll is now closed. Recent attempts to troll the results are to blame.

The final tally was not surprising.

Those who thought that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere should remain the same or be higher than they are today outnumbered those who thought they should be lower by a 2 to 1 margin.

The question read: Given that the current level of atmospheric CO2 is 400 ppm, what would the ideal level be?

1500 ppm = 33%

400 ppm = 33%

200 ppm = 25%

0 ppm = 9%

Thank you to the hundreds of people who participated.

See here for an article to explain the climate situation, and how it relates [or doesn’t] to the current level of atmospheric CO2.

Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2): Do You Know the Difference?

Probably not, and that is exactly what they’re counting on.

CO (carbon monoxide – lighter than air) is formed as a result of oxygen-poor combustion (as in combustion engines,) it is used as a coloring agent in US meat production (illegal in EU and Japan,) and has potential in the medical field as a biological regulator. It is widely used in chemical manufacturing. It may even be used, one day, as a fuel source on Mars. CO is toxic to humans in very low concentrations (35ppm.) Atmospheric concentrations are approximately 0.1ppm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide

CO2 (carbon dioxide – heavier than air) “is a colorless, odorless gas vital to life on Earth.” Plants use it to photosynthesize sugars from CO2 and water (with oxygen produced as a byproduct.) CO2 is produced by the respiration of animals and fish, organic decay, fermentation, and combustion of wood and fossil fuels. It is used throughout many industries for decaffeinating coffee, adding sparkle to carbonated beverages (soda, beer, champagne) and when frozen becomes ‘dry ice’. CO2 is only toxic in extremely high concentrations (>70,000ppm.) Atmospheric concentrations are between 360 – 410ppm depending on location.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

The above article contradicts itself in several places and also claims that CO2 is directly responsible for ‘global warming’, but more on that later.

In a sentence, CO is poison and CO2 is plant food necessary for all life on Earth. Both are so-called greenhouse gases (GHG.) CO2 is truly a greenhouse gas in the sense that farmers enrich their greenhouse environments with it in order to stimulate plant growth and increase yield.

Without CO2, breads wouldn’t rise, sparkling wine wouldn’t sparkle, beer would be flat, and compressed-air tools (not actually air, but CO2) would cost a lot more to run. Oh and by the way, all green plants (on land and in the seas) would die causing mass starvation for herbivores and humans alike.

Continue reading “Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2): Do You Know the Difference?”

Wonky+…

The true state of the environment is nothing particularly abnormal as can very clearly be seen in the following chart.

image157

On the other hand, this next chart is the kind of pseudo-science which is all-pervasive these days. Note the dotted line and that the next forty year rise is equal to the previous 60,000 year decline. The graph itself is speculative even displaying a question mark, but this is the kind of thing that passes for science in this debate.

Last 100 million years

Despite the fact that both vaccines and chem-trails contain some of the same neuro-toxins, vaccines are safe and chem-trails don’t exist.

As stated in a recent article by Mother Jones, “People who have measles are more susceptible to starvation through climate change… In its landmark report last year, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that global warming poses a range of health threats… Kirk Smith—an environmental health expert at UC, Berkeley, and a lead author of the IPCC chapter on health impacts—points out that “a child weakened by measles is more likely to die from the malnutrition caused by climate change.” In other words, anything we can do to reduce the impact of existing health problems will be even more important in a warming world. And vaccinating children, he says, is one of the most cost-effective public health tools we have.

I would also like to mention that if you are susceptible to starvation, measles and climate change are not your biggest problems. Kirk Smith points out that “one of the most cost-effective public health tools we have” is vaccines. I would like to point out that THE most cost-effective public health tool we have is better nutrition. Warmer temperatures, increased rainfall, and increased levels of CO2 would only increase crop yields.

Continue reading “Wonky+…”

Conspi-Racist

People with wealth, power, and influence say many things. Of those things, some seem to come up more often than others, namely:

1- Overpopulation is our biggest problem

2- CO2 is pollution, and climate change is bad

3- GMO’s are safe and can feed more people

4- Vaccines will make you healthy

5- Wireless radiation isn’t harmful

6- Nuclear energy is green energy

7- There are no conspiracies

8- Did I mention overpopulation?

Based on the initial premise that there are too many people on the planet; do you think that the powers that be would suggest doing anything which would make that problem worse? Why implement plans that make the biggest problem bigger? So the rest of the things on that list should not help increase the population, should they? In fact, all of those things will actually reduce the population, as they should; given that over-population is such a problem.

It would be akin to saying that despite the fact that nuclear weapons are the biggest threat to mankind and must be eradicated, we need more nuclear weapons to keep us safe. No, wait, that’s a bad example. It would be like saying that we must find a cure for cancer, and then spend most of the money to research treatment options. Scratch that, another bad example. Like self-regulating financial industries… no. Like we need more debt to pay our debts… no. Oh, like more security means less freedom… no, no, no. Ok, so these aren’t the best examples; but you get the gist, right?

Well, the truth of the matter is that the narratives are becoming hopelessly intertwined.

Continue reading “Conspi-Racist”

From Death Comes Life (And Other Justifications)

Let’s begin by assuming two things, (1) that you can influence massive amounts of capital flow (and have friends in many industries who can do the same) and, (2) that you genuinely think there are far too many people on Earth. In the immortal words of Keanu Reeves, “What do you do?” There are three courses of action you could take: decrease the birth rate; increase the death rate; or both. Let’s break this down.

In order to decrease the birth rate, there are several options available, namely: reduce the amount of available food; sterilize a certain segment of the population; convince people to stop reproducing (by ‘education’ or by mandate.)

Reducing food supplies in a global way would necessitate impeding the forces of nature from supplying energy to plants. Decreasing CO2 concentrations, preventing sunlight from reaching the earth, acidification of soil, make private ownership of seed illegal, environmental manipulation (more/less rain, hail, pesticide resistance,) re-zoning agricultural land (Bundy ranch.)

Sterilization in humans can occur through several mechanisms. Some known causes: ELF, VLF, LF radiation (microwaves, cell-phones, wi-fi, Bluetooth, SMART meters, RFID;) other radiation (depleted uranium, Fukushima, x-ray, chemo-therapy;) GMOs (which also cause allergies;) certain vaccines; certain reproductive diseases and conditions, STDs; mercury and other neurotoxin contamination; castration (enforced up until 1967 in Britain for ‘treatment’ of homosexuality.) There are many other ways in which humans can be sterilized; these will be examined in future posts.

As an added bonus, if you can reduce the ability of people to think, there would be far less resistance to your movement, should the ‘truth’ or parts of it begin to leak out. So distractions (sports, celebrities, activities, make the important stuff boring,) lowering the level of education (teach by wrote not by reason, don’t teach about money,) and drug-induced dementia could be useful tools, as well.

Another tack is to promote the gay agenda (gay people don’t reproduce,) and yet another is to limit births to a certain number per family by mandate (as was done in China.) A less overt way might be to indoctrinate people in school that less people is a good thing (read a modern social studies textbook.)

Increasing the death rate could be brought about by killing lots of people outright either through war or starvation or disease.

Some of the many ways to start a war (civil or otherwise*) are: political movements can be subverted (Nicaragua, Venezuela, Syria, Ukraine;) economies can be crashed (Greece, EU, US, Japan;) food could be made scarce (California drought, honey-bee die-off, lower nutrition content, increased price of oil;) access to water could be limited (privatization of resources, pollution of natural sources;) increase poverty (wealth gap;) invade foreign sovereign states (the post-WWII list is prohibitively long;) start wars by proxy and religious belligerence – bring about ‘Armageddon’; and limit access to energy (by quashing new technologies.)

*(For the purposes of this article, war and revolt are considered synonymous.)

Starvation could be achieved by reducing plant size thereby reducing crop yields (decreasing plant nutrients like CO2, limiting solar radiation needed for photosynthesis by increasing the earth’s albedo,) limiting the nutrition in foods (fast foods, GMOs, poor soil conditions/pH balance,) regulating nutrients (codex alimentarius,) increasing the cost of producing food (regulations, seed cost, oil price,) killing pollinating insects (like honey-bees,) and by introducing droughts and floods and hail (geo-engineering projects in Calgary started by the insurance companies transport bad weather [hail] from the metropolitan area over to the prairies. Better to destroy a crop than dent some luxury automobiles. Through derivatives trading espoused by ‘disaster capitalists,’ a profit can be gleaned by crop failure, but insurance claims divert cash in the wrong direction in the economy: downwards.)

Disease is easy enough to spread. Many diseases could be custom-made in a lab to target certain segments of the population (weaponized anthrax, mad-cow disease, ebola, AIDS) and could be spread either by injection through vaccination programs or other medical interventions (gonorrhoea in South America, sterilization in Kenya, MKUltra in Canada) or by giving them an infectious component such that they can spread on their own (HIV/AIDS.) Blood and vaccines can easily be infected (Bayer.) Birth defects can also be introduced (thalidomide,) the environment can be polluted (cancers,) and voluntary disease can be cultivated (lung cancers through smoking, liver disease from drinking, heart disease through inactivity.)

So far, so good. Through these measures, we have effectively reduced the world’s population by fifty percent and have lowered the birth rate into negative territory. The projected population by the year 2050 is now two billion people. This number can still be tweaked, but we now have the time to be more selective about who to keep and who to discard. Eugenics is back!

The only thing one needs in order to be considered a VIP is money. You don’t even need to be important, just rich. But let’s just assume that these two words (rich and important) are synonymous. Now, who are you going to save? Are you going to allow masses of uneducated labourers to run the world as they see fit, or are you going to save the important people? The question answers itself, doesn’t it?

Now all you need is an excuse to go about doing all these things. “Pollution caused by man-made CO2 emissions is destroying the planet and we need to put an end to it before it is too late.” Whether or not the basic premise is flawed, and if this is what you believe, then your course of action becomes limited to lowering the global population or facing death (real or imagined.) The CO2 issue is central to the question of depopulation. Now, to re-state, “What do you do?”

There you have it. CO2, vaccines, GMOs, and the rush towards global depopulation; that, in a nutshell (or in a nuthouse) is all you need to know about the New World Order. Oh… that, and that there are actually a large number of VIPs who are in just that position and who really do believe it.

Sleep tight.

*UPDATE*

As if it weren’t already obvious enough, Mother Jones just published this article which states in black and white, and as clear as day that “Vaccines Are One of Our Best Weapons Against Global Warming.” Well, if humans are to blame for global warming, then vaccines are our best weapons against people?!?

From the article:

“A child weakened by measles is more likely to die from the malnutrition caused by climate change.”

This goes to show just how intertwined these narratives have become. The unwind is going to be a lot of fun to watch. This MJ article is full of nonsense, but it does show to what extent these political pseudo-pundits will go to drive their drivel home.

And consider this article from the Toronto Star.

“While this study evaluates climate, social and economic data and consequently its impact on Syria, it is not the first to suggest that extreme weather events — especially droughts, water scarcity and consequently food insecurity — could lead to violence.”

Turkey’s control on the flow of the Euphrates is doing just that. That’s anthropogenic, I guess.

“In 2013, the Centre for American Progress and the Centre for Climate and Security in Washington released a series of essays that argued climate change played a significant role in the Arab Spring.”

Another stunningly short-sighted article by Raveena Aulakh.

More twisted logic, more non-sequitur arguments, and a complete lack of any science in these articles go to show just how important these themes have become to the ‘de-population is more urgent now than ever’ crowd.