52 Replies to “The Phoney Statistics of Climate Change Sheeple”

  2. We’re approaching what I’m guessing will be one heck of a cold winter. The 97% settled science media brigade in Toronto will be having touble just getting their non-electric cars to work. Electric cars will be left in their garages. Meanwhile Ontario will be buying some very expensive power from their neighbours to make up their shortfalls on the extreme cold days when the wind doesn’t blow enough for their stupidly expensive wind farms to generate enough power to heat a toaster. Reality will be a bitter pill for the Canadian AGW Religion crowd in about 6 months.

  3. I hope they don’t forget their energy review when forced to sell their homes.

  4. Gracie! It feels like it’s hotter now than we were younger.
    George! I think you’re just as hot now as you were then.
    Good night Gracie! He says with a wicked smile holding his cigar high.
    Good night George!

  5. In fact, electric cars will almost certainly create higher CO2 emissions simply due to number of tow trucks that will be required to tow them off the highway in the hundreds when their batteries run out in -20 degrees.

  6. He is right, AGW does not claim a scientific theory that specifies falsifiable facts..
    It is Voodoo science that means nothing and everything..Jello all the way down

  7. Electric cars will be left in their garages.
    …along with motorcycles, ATVs and other seasonal vehicles some people like to enjoy.

  8. Once one recognizes AGW-CC as a cult religion then it all makes sense. Religious fanatics are nothing new, AGW-CC is just another example. Some people need a religion to justify their lives, it’s only a problem when it’s no longer harmless.
    “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.” — George Carlin

  9. Multiple studies, using various methodologies, have confirmed the existence of a consensus concerning anthropogenic climate change. However, the point raised about balancing benefits and costs is an important one.
    Global warming is a long-term problem. In the short-term, fossil fuels are essential to developed and emerging economies. The energy infrastructure took a century to build, and will probably take a generation or more to update. Most infrastructure has to be cycled out every few decades anyway, so it just requires planning a cycle ahead. Those countries that develop more efficient, green technologies will have a competitive advantage over the long run.

  10. When are stats from the left not phoney?
    from muslim terrorism, white cops shooting “””innocent””” blacks to domestic violence, the left lies about all of that.
    Without lies there would be no liberal/left.

  11. “…have confirmed the existence of a consensus concerning anthropogenic climate change.”
    There is no doubt a consensus concerning it exists. But a consensus doesn’t mean climate change is actually caused by human activity.
    Reality doesn’t care what you believe. It doesn’t even care that you exist.

  12. Hollywood twat Leonardo DiCaprio big time hypotcrite going all over the world tell everybody how live as one with the earth whie he still lives is pampered lifestyle a a tylpcal Hollywood spoiled brat and in case he did’nt know the Titanic was run on Coal

  13. Good editorial. He’s a sharp guy.
    Today, I sent the letter below to all MLAs in Alberta. Interesting result so far … previously, I’ve sent two letters to Ministers Bilous and Phillips with no acknowledgement. In May, I was told by Bilous’ office that they would give my letter to the minister. Phillips’ office never responded. Today, I rec’d responses from both ministerial offices.
    Out leftist politicians are liars and will do and say anything to to promote and justify their green ideology.
    ============== starts here ===============
    TO: All Alberta MLAs
    CC: Hon. Shannon Phillips
    BBC: MLAs and others
    Dear MLA:
    RE: False claims in the Climate Leadership Plan about coal power plants and health of Albertans
    The Climate Leadership Plan (CLP) “coal phase out” program will cost between $30 and $50 billion that everyday Albertans will pay for directly or indirectly. The real crime is that these tens of billions will be diverted from two areas of deep concern to Albertans: health care and environmental protection.
    Every billion dollars Albertans are forced to pay for the effete and ideological CLP (regarding coal plants and renewables) is a billion dollars taken out of our pockets that could better be spent on health care and real environmental protection.
    Not-so-common sense tells us that Alberta’s coal plants are not contributing to the negative health of Albertans and the actual air-quality data show the government’s claims that coal plants affect the health of Albertans are false. The vast majority of Albertans live nowhere near coal plants and the coal plants are invariably downwind from most. The false statements on the government’s websites and media advertisements should be removed.
    I am writing to you as an MLA to see if you can:
    1) Get answers to my questions that Hon. Shannon Phillips and Hon. Deron Bilous will not answer—they will not even acknowledge my request.
    2) Encourage the government to delete the false claims about coal and health on their website and in media advertisements.
    In March and again in May, I wrote to Hon. Shannon Phillips, Minister, Environment and Parks and to Hon. Deron Bilous, Minister, Economic Development and Trade. The May letter is attached and much of it repeated here. My letters were not even acknowledged, let alone answered. Why no answers? Simply, because there are no data to support the claims that coal generation plants affect the health of Albertans. The claims they make were based on a discredited Pembina Institute (anti fossil fuels) report.
    Hon. Bilous is on record as stating:
    Pollution from coal-burning power plants is harmful to our health and it’s costing Albertans hundreds of millions in additional health care costs and lost productivity.
    http://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?xID=40400064C4850-E326-56B9-4ED21CDD882F3960
    I also refer to information on this webpage:
    http://www.alberta.ca/climate-coal-electricity.cfm
    Specifically:
    Health effects of coal pollution
    This has an effect on the health of Albertans. Poor air quality has been linked to a number of health conditions, including:
    • chronic and acute respiratory diseases, including asthma, chronic bronchitis, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
    • heart disease, including chest pain and congestive heart failure
    • stroke and diabetes
    The only Albertans that live near coal generation plants are those in Edmonton and coal emissions do not affect air-quality there—the vast majority of air pollutants in Edmonton are from industry and transportation—and air quality is relatively good in that region. In November 2015, the University of Alberta, Department of Public Health (Kindzierski and Bari. Investigation of Fine Particulate Matter Characteristics and Sources in Edmonton, Alberta) found that most emissions from coal plants west of Edmonton bypass that city. They could find no significant negative contribution to air quality from coal plants west of Edmonton.
    The Edmonton area is the only obvious region of Alberta where coal electricity plants might contribute to air pollution, yet they do not. Over one million Calgarians live 150 or 200 km upwind from the two closest coal plants at Forestberg and Sheerness. It defies logic that our government can boldly claim that Calgarians (and all Albertans) are threatened by coal plants.
    Environment Canada data (National Air Pollution Surveillance Program [NAPS]) show that air quality in Edmonton has steadily improved in the past three decades. In the past thirty years, levels of carbon monoxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, oxide of nitrogen, sulphur dioxide and particulate matter have all declined in Edmonton. Air pollution levels (National Air Pollution Surveillance Program–NAPS) for Edmonton and Calgary are here: [Links removed on SDA to prevent mods/filters from blocking my post]
    If electricity generation using fossil fuels (coal and gas) was eliminated in Alberta, the amount of air pollutant reduction would not be detectable.
    As an MLA I would hope you can encourage Hon. Phillips and Premier Notley to either prove their claims or change their website and advertisements.
    My requests to the government in May 2016 of Alberta were:
    • Please provide me with air-quality data and actual hospital medical and mortality records that support your claims that “Pollution from coal-burning power plants is harmful to our health” and “Health effects of coal pollution: This has an effect on the health of Albertans”.
    • Please present air-quality data that can link emissions from coal plants to air quality and human health in the following cities: Edmonton, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Brooks, Calgary, Red Deer and Grand Prairie.
    • Please provide data that show and compare emissions (particulate matter and compounds such as oxides of nitrogen, sulphur dioxide, ammonia and volatile organic compounds) from coal-fired generation plants compared to other sources of particulate matter and emissions such as industry, transportation, industrial and residential heating, agriculture, construction, road dusts and wildfires.
    If we spend up to $50 billion what will change?
    • Air quality and health will not change because coal plant emissions are extremely low.
    • Cost of electricity by 2030 (based on CLP) will be many times what it is today and we can expect electricity to cost $0.40/KWh—or much more.
    • Natural gas will be the ONLY baseload when wind fails (as it does two to four times every week) and gas prices will soar which will cause huge increases in home heating and electricity costs.
    • The electricity grid could be potentially unstable because of unreliable wind and solar.
    • The NDP plan will hurt poor Albertans the most because they will be forced to spend a greater percentage of their incomes on electricity than the wealthy. The CLP is a recipe for energy poverty.
    • Subsidies for renewables (like rooftop PV panels) raise the price of electricity and transfer money from poor people without solar panels to rich people with them—PVs are no more than fashion statements.
    • Carbon dioxide might be reduced 3% (or not at all)
    • Local and global climate will not change one iota compared to natural variation.
    There will be no positive results from the CLP: just pain and suffering and environmental degradation as money is diverted away from real problems faced by Albertans.
    If Albertans are going to spend up to $50 billion in the next 14 years, we’d expect policy to be based on sound science not on rabid ideology as it is now.
    I look forward to your assistance to help Albertans get the truth about the CLP.
    Sincerely,
    CAS
    DISCLAIMER: I have no vested interests in fossil fuels. I am a retired agricultural specialist who is only interested in truth in politics and advertising.

  14. no mister BS, there have been NO reputable studies that present any evidence that there a CCAGW problem. And as far as the 97% consensus, the study was done by and Australian idiot named Cooke, who’s methodology is par for the course of these Climate religious wackjobs.

  18. There is this useful internet tool called Google. A search for
    Pollution from coal-burning power plants is harmful to our health
    found about 7,680,000 results in (1.22 seconds).
    Can you find even one credible study that proves that Pollution from coal-burning power plants is NOT harmful to our health?

  20. Really?
    Like Germany, which is abandoning green power, due it to its excessive costs? Or Spain, that was well on its way to bankruptcy, thanks to greentard policies, which it has since stopped?
    Just tell us, which country out there, out of ALL the greentardy friendly ones, have adopted greentard energy, greater than 10%, RELIABLE energy, without going bankrupt?
    ………………crickets…………………….
    You’re just another green ecotard that repeats your religious mantra, the gospel according to Mann, hoping that one day, you can convince yourself that its really, really, really, really true.

  21. If that’s the case then state it and defend it clearly and concisely, instead of running-off with a mind-numbing rant that won’t convince anyone, and will likely turn them off.

  22. You know who the real Climate Change sheeple are? The ones who know it’s bullshit but say nothing…except maybe on blogs…anonymously, of course.

  23. Right! You can say elbow or the part of your arm below you shoulder that bends from 180 degrees up to 5 degrees and also move laterally in both directions. Blah Blah Hovering Hovering. Zzzzzzz

  24. I’m probably more familiar with the politics of the climate and weather community than most here. What I’ve observed is that the 97% support statistic refers to a narrow band of the broader spectrum, namely, those who are defined to be climate scientists in the public sector (national agencies, universities mainly).
    Their “support” is probably real enough although I suspect that about half just go along to get along. However, even within that group, you can easily find shades of opinion about how severe the change has been, how much of it is anthropogenic and how much natural variability, and what the best measurements now are really predicting over ten to fifty years.
    Now if you go just a bit outside that narrow band to include all meteorologists, and the larger group of educated laypersons who have taken an interest in weather and climate, then you can easily verify by reading through discussion threads that opinions are much more divided, and really the most typical opinion is something like this — climate change always happens, at the moment we are a bit past the peak of a warming episode, and probably the causes of that were about 50-50 anthropogenic and natural variability.
    So even before you hit the larger still “general public opinion” you can find informed, knowledgeable people with a grasp of the statistics concerned, who are at the very friendliest to AGW-CC description, lukewarm or mild skeptics.
    The real Achilles heel of climate change is the new focus they have decided to place on an accelerated pace of severe weather events. This is actually easily disprovable and should serve as the final hurrah of this increasingly discredited theory. It is relatively easy to demonstrate in sound scientific terms that severe weather events are either steady-state or recently decreasing in frequency and severity. This is the opposite of what is taught by the zealots, who are basically just making stuff up to get grants.
    If that puts me in jail retroactively, so be it. There was always going to be something, might as well be this (or the million communist march, or was that september?).

  25. How does anyone know you are really “Jamie MacMaster” and not just someone posting anonymously on a blog using a name you found in the phone book? Your ‘anonymous’ criticism sounds like CBCs.
    It doesn’t matter who says something, it’s the coherence and validity of what they say.

  26. You are full of it. BS that is. I do talk about it with my friends and family. But I do not want some guy throwing rocks in my window because he is a progy with little comprehension and knowledge of history just like you. I guess you are not watching the crap your friends are perpetrating in the US streets right now.

  27. “It doesn’t matter who says something, it’s the coherence and validity of what they say.”
    Bullshit. Lincoln`s and Churchill`s and Lech Walesa`s quotes mean something because THEY said it.
    Oh, and if you want verification, drop in any time. I`m at 19230 Highway 43, North Glengarry, Ontario.

  30. Honorable men
    All honorable men I agree and respect. We live in different times. Did you follow up what happened to them after the fact. John Wilkes Booth comes to mind. Play Joan of Arc, go ahead

  31. “Those countries that develop more efficient, green technologies will have a competitive advantage over the long run. ”
    Bullsh!t.
    80 years from now hydrocarbons will be used for 80% of power generation because they are cheap, portable and dense. Renewables are expensive at any scale, non portable, unreliable and not very dense – a lot of real estate is needed to get any kind of scale AND conventional backup is required. So why pay for the power twice DUH!!!!
    There is no such thing as efficient green tech, it’s being proven in many countries to be a disaster. Open your eyes for crying out loud.

  32. Where the 97% BS came from.

    We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming], 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. [Emphasis added.]

    IOW, 97.1% of a minority of abstracts reviewed by one warmist clown turned into 97% of all scientists.
    Utter rubbish.

  33. Yup. But you can stand up and take your chances, or be led like a sheep to your inevitable fate:fleeced and slaughtered.

  34. You might want to educate yourself on these things called hydroelectric dams. They invalidate your whole argument against renewables.

  35. I agree with Nicholas. I say the same things to friends, family, and people I meet, that I would say here on the SDA blog.

  36. I have stood on many pulpits in my day helped get rid of a socialist mayor and worked countless hours to irradicate Saskatchewan of Socialism at the sacrifice of profits to my business ans my income. Go away.Idiot

  39. The other day Peter Pebble wrote an article in the Star Phoenix. What a complete bunch of BS. He claims global warming and 97 percent of scientists and Bla bla bla. Pebble is a nut job. He gets around to blaming Brad Wall in the end. Just like a good NDP POS.

  41. Actually, you might be in need of a little education, that is if you are implying that hydro has no detrimental environmental effects. Destruction of the boreal forest is hardly a cause for celebration. We all know that Alberta oil sands is bad, but Quebec’s destruction of the environment is totally acceptable because. ..Quebec.

  42. Yup. But you can stand up and take your chances, or be led like a sheep to your inevitable fate: fleeced and slaughtered.

  43. No, I was not implying that hydro has no detrimental environmental effects. I was specifically responding to the spurious comments @bobd06 was making about renewables.
    I do not consider the Alberta oil sands as ‘bad’. The footprint of environmental destruction and pollution emitted by any major city is far greater. The footprint of environmental destruction from any city is there for almost ‘forever’, whereas the oil sands site is being reclaimed to a natural condition. That region of Alberta has been naturally ‘polluted’ by oil seeps for thousands of years. The reclaimed areas are actually cleaner than they were before the mining operation. The Alberta oil sands mining is cleaning up one of nature’s biggest oil spills.
    “Destruction of the boreal forest” is a deceptive and misleading overstatement. Not all hydro dams cause widespread destruction of the boreal forest. Natural geologic processes have flooded areas just as large. The hydro dam that powers our community grid didn’t destroy a forest, it raised the water level in a river canyon and a few trees along the shoreline died. The shoreline ecosystem simply moved to higher ground.

  45. 97% of workers agree that a large and expanding government is good.
    (From a peer reviewed survey of public “servants”).
    Good comments about the derivation of the phony figure.
    Unfortunately, usually forgotten in these responses is that consensus is not science, not proof. Not even 100% of 100% of scientists is proof, per se.
    When we engage in debate about the derivation of the consensus % we are subtly validating the notion that consensus is scientific.
    The word “settled” is anti-science.
    The word “consensus” is anti-science.
    Both are mere politics.

  46. There may well be a “consensus”…but that simply don’t mean jACK….just means theres a large portion of the population that are gullible and naive along with a large portion of public servants whose livelihood is based on saying there is Climate Change and that man is the main cause….if your 120,000 Annual salary was based on that, you too would parrot the BS.

  47. When you use the word pollution are you referring to CO2?
    Of course not.
    CO2 makes plants grow. It’s absolutely essential for life on earth.
    As a scientist I consider pollution as something that poisons life on the planet.

  48. Consensus is for picking prom queens and presidents, it has no validity in science.
    Most of the significant advancements in science have actually gone against the consensus at that time.

  49. The way in which CO2 controls the Ice age cycles is quite interesting.
    …when CO2 concentrations reach a minimum in the depths of the ice age, the world warms. And when CO2 concentrations reach a maximum during the warm interglacial period, the world cools. And yet this is the very opposite of what should happen if CO2 was the most powerful warming feedback agent.
    As the ice sheets grow and the seas cool, CO2 also reduces. The concentration finally reaches the critical 190 ppm level where world flora begins to die, especially at higher altitude, and the Gobi steppe-lands turn into a true sand desert. This turns northern China into the equivalent of 1930s Dust Bowl America, and the ensuing dust storms dump thousands of tons of dust onto the northern ice sheets each year.
    …when the next Great Summer comes along, the dusty polar ice sheets can warm and melt and the next interglacial is born. So CO2 can indeed cause global warming, but its effect is much more pronounced at low rather than high concentrations.
    http://www.ancient-origins.net/opinion-guest-authors/why-do-ice-ages-occur-new-paradigm-shift-prehistoric-problem-005683?nopaging=1

  50. thanks for clarifying Jean – because leftist governments are waging war on coal due to CO2 emissions which the EPA has conveniently classified as “pollution” which it is not.
    updating old coal fired plants with new scrubber technology solves a lot of the sulfer and nitrogen emission issues, and Alberta is a good source of low sulfer coal to boot.
    Sadly the public think the “pollution” coming from coal plants is CO2

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation