The Liberals are dogmatists, not experts when it comes to climate change
Catherine McKenna, the Minister for the Environment and Climate Change, held an event at St. George Catholic Church in February 2017 dedicated to caring for “our common home,” otherwise known as the environment.
The Green Churches Network hosted the event, whose mission it is to involve the Catholic church in the
Several guests representing the church spoke in support of environmental activism, with McKenna’s statements reflecting a rather unusual approach to tackling climate change.
Mckenna started her speech by towing the party lines; feeding into Liberal talking points.
McKenna is playing cynical games with Canadians
She discussed Alberta’s economic downturn, but in typical-McKenna fashion deflected the issue back to climate change, without considering the ramifications on its resource industry.
Claiming to understand the struggles of Albertans yet exacerbating the said troubles through policy and divisive vitriol is not helpful.
McKenna seems to acknowledge other’s perspectives but is quick to dismiss their views in the same breath.
It would appear her hypocrisy knows no bounds either.
“We cannot merely phase out the oil sands,” she states, only to then endorse the Liberal government’s closing of the coal industry while constantly pushing back target dates.
If I recall, Minister McKenna implied her opponents were climate change deniers for even questioning the viability of the carbon tax. Even the CTV host called her out for her divisive rhetoric.
The economic ramifications of a $50/tonne carbon tax, let alone a carbon tax in the range of $135 to $5,500 per ton per UN estimates, shows her plan is out of touch with the typical Canadian family. The costs incurred by them would be far too high, especially at the pumps and when it came to heating their homes.
Suffice to say, six in ten Canadians believe we face a crisis on pipeline capacity, yet little has been done to reflect the will of the majority.
Purchasing the Trans Mountain pipeline using $4.5 billion in taxpayer funds, to create no measurable gains in the industry, only further drives the point. It would be appropriate to say most seek to reconcile environmental concerns with our economic realities.
A “Green New Deal” or rhetoric espousing radical views is not the answer. But, in typical Liberal fashion, an elitist lens is used to identify and draft solutions to problems that affect us all. U
In Alberta alone, the typical family would fork out $1111 in federal carbon taxes by 2022.
Naturally, we’d look to the big energy companies to incur more of the costs, casting blame for not doing enough to combat climate change.
For the record, though, that couldn’t be further from the truth.
Energy giants have significantly reduced their GHG emissions to the tune of 28% per barrel of oil over the past two decades, employing carbon capture technologies that reduce the harm incurred by the environment.
Shell and Suncor have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in its efforts to facilitate the transition for the industry to reflect today’s claim to responsible resource development.
For example, Shell’s carbon capture facilities store four million tonnes of CO2 emissions across Canada, equivalent to the output of one million cars.
Suncor, on the other hand, spent $1.4 billion to replace its coke-fired boilers with cogeneration units.
And while environmentalists will quickly deflect to our increased overall GHG emissions since 2000, which is due to increased global demand that will continue until at least 2040, private enterprise has taken some much-needed measures in developing its resources more responsibly.
And it’s high time we recognized that.
Climate change as a means to espouse social justice
Following a rather ineffective attempt to lure Albertans into her climate trap, she delves into its effects on Inuit Canadians only to reverberate her sympathies as white guilt.
Maintaining the hunter-gather traditions of the Inuit is hard enough as it is, citing starvation, illiteracy and disease as the main contributors for embracing a mixed economy.
McKenna states, “The connection they have [to the land, reflects] who they are as a people.”
And while true, that statement lacks insight into the evolution of Government-Inuit Relations, misleads on climate action, and attempts to monopolize the views of all Inuit Canadians.
A Canadian reduction in carbon emissions can’t stop the warming of the north. Only the world’s largest polluters, like China and India, could make meaningful contributions.
Is Catherine McKenna of the belief that the Inuit are just hunters? She acts as if they have not adjusted to the times that, in part and as needed they must rely solely on hunting in the Arctic or risk losing their identity altogether.
It is as if McKenna sees the Inuit as a museum exhibit for the government to maintain and gawk at in a place of cultural stasis. As if someone cannot be both Inuit and an accountant.
Sort of smells a lot like eco-colonialism.
Ditto to the Liberal “consultation efforts” with First Nations and Metis groups on TMX. Ultimately, they proved misleading, as only those against the project were adequately consulted.
Later on in the speech, McKenna proposes that “We have to think about [climate change] the way First Nations think about it,” just further driving home the fact that McKenna thinks all Indigenous people hold the same values and are to be used as props.
Claiming or insinuating any group is a political monolith in an attempt to monopolize morality irks many, myself included.
Of course, it would be great to protect the environment of the north, but the way McKenna frames issues is insulting to the intelligence of different groups.
What happened to their promise of improving relations between the government and Canada’s Indigenous peoples?
What happened to their promise of a new “nation-to-nation” relationship that fosters healthy debate on reconciliation and bringing all Canadians together?
Through the same patronizing lens, McKenna claims that the effects of climate change are worse for women without substantiation. Instead, she uses anecdotal evidence in place of statistics, reports, or anything else credible.
She states, “Something that I sometimes tweet out, that gets a very visceral reaction, is the disproportionate impact of climate change on women. Not so many women here, although it would extend to Indigenous people when you look at what’s happening with the droughts in many countries.”
“Women are often the ones who are out getting the water, so they have to walk further and further. I mean, it’s why fewer girls are going to school because they are going further and further.”
While dehydration and limited access to education for girls remain an issue, even in the 21st century, her remarks paint
Let’s examine the case of Bangladesh. Sea levels are projected to rise 1.5m along its coastline, leaving it at three to fifteen times the risk in 2100 of extreme seasonal fluctuations in sea levels.
Questions remain over how this impacts the way of life of many Bangladeshis, especially for the rural locals.
Notably, Bangladesh also faced a humanitarian crisis along the border with Myanmar, following the mass exodus of over 750,000 Rohingya Muslims fleeing religious persecution.
As well, it’s poverty reduction strategy has had no tangible impacts in the western half of the country, with one-in-four living impoverished, according to the World Bank.
McKenna fails to grasp that the problems of the third-world are far more profound and complex than just climate change, but it’s politically advantageous for her to believe it is.
To McKenna, climate change is a platform to espouse social justice advocacy—the way she talks about it makes it overt. Climate change appears to matter based on the groups it affects, not the actual universal challenges it poses globally.
It isn’t meant to combat climate change. It’s about making sacrifices in the name of social justice.
Cathrine McKenna’s climate predictions are equally meaningless to the actions she proposes as a possible solution. The vitriol she espouses is not calculated or accurate. It’s used to scare Canadians into granting them a social licence that explicitly attacks our energy industry and its outputs.
According to an Abacus poll, 42
Considering the federal government deleted observed weather data, spanning from 1850-1949, misleading Canadians creates unhealthy narratives that leave younger demographics anxious. Reverting to doomsday scenarios instead of a pragmatic approach to combating climate change.
McKenna claims that “we used to spend 400 million dollars ten years ago on extreme weather events. [Now] we are up to one billion dollars per year.”
“20 years down the road [it will be] 40 billion dollars…If you’re worried about debt, ya know the government running up too much debt, think about that debt.”
Her 40 billion dollar prediction lacks substantiation, coming across as fantastical in light of no corroborating evidence.
If we are to assume federal funding matches the severity of the problem, McKenna is claiming that in 20 years, the issue of extreme weather events will be 40 times as great as it was back in 2017.
McKenna’s campaign of climate panic is sadly par for the course for her throughout her term as the Environment and Climate Minister.
Canadians deserve better than a paternalistic climate activist. Her oddly prejudicial views of people she claims to work for does not serve the best interests of Canada.
Greta Thunberg has left North America and is traveling back to Europe with the use of a catamaran. Thunberg will now head to Europe where she will attend the UN climate summit, according to the Daily Mail.
Thankfully for Thunberg, an Australian couple offered to sail her back from Virginia in the United States. It will take her two to three weeks to get to Portugal, depending on the Atlantic Ocean’s temperament.
During her time in North America, Thunberg met with world leaders, famous actors, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The Swedish activist even took time to visit Alberta where she received a cooler reception than other stops on her tour.
Earlier this week, press organizations worldwide, The Post Millennial included, reported thousands of scientists had signed a letter declaring a climate emergency.
Time is running out, the scientists say: “The climate crisis has arrived and is accelerating faster than most scientists expected. It is more severe than anticipated, threatening natural ecosystems and the fate of humanity.”
The original statement published in the journal BioScience on the 40th anniversary of the first world climate conference involved collaborative work by dozens of scientists and was endorsed by the roughly 11,258 from 153 nations.
That number of endorsers has now been reduced, after a public outcry regarding fake names, including Micky Mouse and Albus Dumbledore appearing on the list.
While fake names are worrying, the list didn’t stop there, it also included a naturopath, a hypnotist, a commercial business analyst, a psychologist, and an industrial designer, all individuals who wouldn’t normally be categorized as scientists.
The original report has since been updated to remove a total of 34 “invalid” names.
11,0000 scientists from around the world have co-signed a letter declaring a “global climate emergency.”
They have warned of “untold human suffering” if we don’t make huge shifts in the way we live.
“Despite 40 years of major global negotiations, we have continued to conduct business as usual and have failed to address this crisis,” said William Ripple, professor of ecology at Oregon State University, who lead the letter signing.
“Climate change has arrived and is accelerating faster than many scientists expected,” according to the letter published in BioScience.
The scientists claim they have a moral obligation to “clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat” and “tell it like it is.”
According to the Independent, rising meat consumption, more air travel, excessive deforestation and an increase in global carbon dioxide emissions are making the situation worse.
Scientists say a huge systemic change is needed, which they outline with six points in their letter: replacing fossil fuels; cutting pollutants like methane and soot; restoring and protecting ecosystems; eating less meat; converting the economy to one that is carbon-free and stabilizing population growth.
The scientists say that despite the dark outlook there is room for hope.
“We are encouraged by a recent surge of concern. Governmental bodies are making climate emergency declarations,” they write.
In 2011, London’s National Theatre mounted a play, The Heretic, by Richard Bean, that had the hot topic of climate change as its driving theme. His protagonist is a respected academic in the earth sciences department of a Yorkshire university, Dr. Diane Cassell. Her specialty is the measurement of sea levels in the Maldives.
Can you already see where this is going? Bet you can, and you’re right. Her scientific objectivity compels her to report the truth (and it is the truth): that in violation of all alarmist predictions that the Maldives would be completely underwater, sea levels in the Maldives have not in fact risen by more than the annual norm of a few millimetres in 20 years. In fact, new seaside resorts are being built in the Maldives as I write.
All hell breaks loose. Dr. Cassell receives death threats from eco-activists, and she is suspended by her faculty boss. Such are the perils of the heterodox thinker in a world gripped by climate-change apocalypticism.
Canada’s own version of Dr. Haskell is real-life zoologist Susan Crockford, a specialist in polar bears and dog domestication, as well as a widely-respected expert in animal bone identification who has helped catalogue museum collections and assisted police in their forensic investigations. Crockford’s academic work is of a high enough standard that she has been published in the prestigious journal Science.
She was for 15 years an adjunct assistant professor at the University of Victoria (an unpaid position that allowed her to further her research), until—without explanation—her May renewal application was rejected by UVic’s Anthropology Department. The lack of a university affiliation will put paid to her ability to apply for research grants, so basically this could mean the end of her scholarly career.
Crockford announced the non-renewal along with background information attesting to what had up to then been a stellar career in research, on her Polar Bear Science blog, accusing officials at the university of bowing to “outside pressure” in their decision. According to journalist Donna Laframboise, who wrote an article on the story for the National Post, her diligent pursuit of explanations was stonewalled by UVic. A UVic spokesman declined to say, for example, how many people were on the rejection committee or how many of them were zoologists who could make an informed decision on her competency.
The UVic expulsion follows on the heels of Crockford’s previous expulsion from the UVic Speakers Bureau, which sends out volunteer speakers drawn from faculty, graduate students and retirees. They speak on diverse topics, including climate change. For almost a decade, the Bureau had arranged for her to give unpaid talks to elementary and high school students, as well as adult community groups. One of her talks was titled Polar Bears: Outstanding Survivors of Climate Change.
But in 2017, she was told that from then on, a policy change required that the Anthropology Department chair needed to confirm that Crockford was “able to represent the university” when discussing her topics, a requirement that up to then had never before been brought up as a speaker’s obligation. (Hang on to that phrase, I’ll be returning to it in my wrap-up.)
There seems to be little doubt that Crockford’s apparent crime is climate heresy of the kind that scuppered the fictitious Dr. Haskell’s career. She shattered a myth that is deeply beloved by the Gaia religion’s climate-alarmist clerisy, in reporting the truthful information that polar bear populations are not plummeting as a result of shrinking Arctic ice. In fact, polar bear numbers are stable and even rising. As Greta Thunberg might say to Dr. Crockford, How Dare You? How dare Crockford tell this inconvenient truth, and render useless what has been the darling poster child for Doomsday-inclined warmists.
Really, dying polar bears have had a formidable grip on the public’s imagination. They are awesome creatures, in actuality capable of great ferocity, so not the cuddly creatures suggested by Coke ads, but since they are powerful symbols of extreme-cold endurance, and unique in their coloration and habitat, they are justifiably beloved national symbols. It would truly be a great tragedy if they were at risk of extinction. So one can see why they are catnip to climate-change warriors, and why the sky is the limit to the eco-warrior imagination in exploiting them for their political agenda.
Speaking of the sky being the limit, in 2009, a pollution activism group called Plane Stupid launched a graphic cinema campaign to illuminate the impact of carbon emissions, in which dozens of extremely realistic-looking CGI polar bears fall from the sky to their death, spurting “blood” as they careen off buildings and smash into car roofs with a great wincemaking thump, as an airplane whines ominously overhead. Plane Stupid said the ad was inspired by the fact the 400kg of carbon produced by the average European flight is the same weight as the average polar bear. England’s advertising regulator was not amused.
In 2011, polar bears were referenced in the above-mentioned play, The Heretic. Dr. Cassell says at one point: “This generation are disaster junkies. … Every day they wake craving a narrative fix. When they see a photograph of a polar bear, hitching a lift on a passing ice floe, they cannot see an animal at ease in its natural habitat. What they see is the last five minutes of Titanic!”
Well put. When Crockford was delivering her truthful polar bear shpiels to elementary school students, she says she was repeatedly “astonished to learn that every single teacher believed that only a few hundred to a few thousand polar bears were left.” Such widespread indoctrination-fuelled ignorance gave Crockford additional motivation as a scientist to speak up and inform both students and teachers that the global population of polar bears is estimated as 22,000 to 31,000 and may even be quite a bit higher.
Polar bears are adaptive and well able to withstand changes in their Arctic environment, she tells her audiences. The ability to “adapt” to changing climatic conditions is of course very triggering to the alarmist clerisy, who know that any comforting truth offered to hoi polloi that takes the edge off climate-change panic makes their task of terror-mongering that much harder.
It’s one thing to cut loose an academic who doesn’t toe the party line on climate change predictions—let’s say someone on the faculty who is convinced we’re going to enter a cooling cycle very soon, and we should be preparing for adaptation to a colder world. It would still be wrong to censure that researcher if he or she was working from a reasonable hypothesis that could neither be proved nor disproved, it would be somewhat understandable that the university wanted to present a united face to the world on what it considers the received wisdom, even though projections of drastic warming due to anthropogenic forcing is also a hypothesis, not a fact. But never mind. Let’s stipulate that the latter hypothesis is what “represents the university.”
But Dr. Crockford is not disputing the hypothesis of global warming nor the role of humans in causing it. All she is saying is that even if the Arctic is getting warmer, the prediction that warming would have a disastrous effect on polar bears was not borne out. The polar bears are there and doing fine. We are way beyond hypothesis territory here and into bloody factual reality. The polar bears are there. You can go up north and see them if you want. Nevertheless, UVic is by all appearances saying to an honest authority on her subject, your bloody facts don’t interest us, because they don’t “represent the university.”
If a UVic can claim that demonstrable reality uncovered by bona fide methodology does not “represent” it, then UVic has effectively declared itself a religious institution, no different in principle than the Jehovah’s Witnesses that “shun” members of their faith who challenge a core doctrine. They are prepared—no, they apparently actually want—to have little kids sobbing into their pillows at night over the allegedly disappearing polar bears, and they want elementary school teachers to keep on drilling that myth into their vulnerable little heads, for ideological reasons alone. The conclusion they are chivvying us toward is that the prohibition of proven truth and the promotion of faith-driven lies is in fact what “represents the university.”
The shunning of Susan Crockford has all the earmarks of an intellectual scandal and an institutional disgrace. Unless they have some hitherto suppressed information proving that Crockford is morally unfit to continue as a member of the UVic community, UVic should reinstate her forthwith as adjunct professor, and as a member in good standing of its Speakers Bureau, along with an apology for their error of judgment.
Then they should publicly state that they understand the polar bears are doing well—and that’s okay. Then they should go about their business and let all their academics go about theirs—free from surveillance by the Thought Police—to uncover the facts as they find them and to share them with the world, a process that is—when not impeded by popular delusions and the madness of crowds—the scientific norm.