As we watched the theatre of the absurd unfold on Parliament Hill this week with the Prime Minister doing everything possible to avoid answering questions in the burgeoning SNC-Lavalin scandal, a few hundred energy workers drove up Wellington Street in front of the Hill blasting their horns in protest of the Trudeau government’s energy policies which have decimated the oil and gas sector with the loss of thousands of jobs and an exodus of investment to friendlier economic climes in the U.S.
The protestors who drove across the country in a convoy dubbed United We Roll, picked up more support in every town and city along the way. Indeed, they were even joined by supporters making their way to Ottawa from the Maritimes. Yet the Toronto-centric CBC managed to disparage them as “angry Albertans.”
For the entire term of the Trudeau government, he has been preaching about climate change and shifting energy policies to ensure Alberta oil was land-locked.
His announced strategy to combat climate change is to force a carbon tax down Canadians’ throats. Trudeau is getting pushback from several provinces most notably the government of the most populous province, Ontario.
For the purposes of this discussion, I will leave the efficacy of this approach alone. But as Environment Minister Catherine McKenna jets all over the world with her entourage and personal photographer, many of us are stunned by the tone-deaf hypocrisy. Central to her argument is the “science is settled.” It isn’t and not by a long shot.
I will leave the explanations of the technical stuff to experts like Anthony Watts, Joe Bastardi, Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace who left that organization in the mid 80s because of the political polarization of that movement and organization.
Now, I make no claim to being a climate expert. I’m a former police officer and have spent a career as an investigator. When we do investigations we rely on something called evidence to reach conclusions.
For the past 20 or so years we’ve been bludgeoned with the paranoia of so-called experts yet we see things like manipulated data to try and reach the conclusions they want. Well, that’s not evidence.
In fact, every single climate computer model produced in the past 20 years seems to have proven wrong. Every one.
So from an evidentiary perspective there doesn’t seem to be any reason based on that to gut the economy with a punitive tax that will achieve nothing.
But more to the point, the climate fraudsters like McKenna and Trudeau keep saying things like 97% of climate scientists agree. If that’s the case, who are we common folks to argue?
Well, let’s look at that claim.
In April 2008 University of Illinois grad student Margaret Zimmerman sent a 2 question survey on global warming to 10,257 earth scientists of whom 3146 responded. Of these about half did not agree with the statements made.
So, she selected 77 of the ones that did agree and sent them a further third ambiguous question about whether they believed human activity contributed to climate change. Of those two answered to the negative and 75 were in favour of the statement albeit with many caveats. Such as “You should have asked to what extent.” The conclusion she therefore drew was 97.4% of those agreed and with that the 97% lie was born.
It is of course, pure nonsense and certainly not in any real sense evidence that “97% of climate scientists agree” with where to go for coffee at their climate conferences let alone that man-made activity is contributing to anything relating to the climate.
So, it is with “evidence” like that the Liberals are imposing an unwanted tax on the country that will accomplish absolutely nothing and with its pipeline policies ensured that Alberta economy was brought to its knees.
SNC Lavalin may well be a scandal most folks can understand, but this is a much bigger scandal and is much more dangerous to the economic health and future prosperity of the country.
