The Truth about “Government-Induced Climaphobia”!

Tens of Thousands Of Scientists Declare Climate Change A Hoax

Submitted by IWB, on September 2nd, 2016

30,000 scientists declare man-made climate change a hoax

A staggering 30,000 scientists have come forward confirming that man-made climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the elite in order to make money. 

One of the experts is weather channel founder, John Coleman, who warns that huge fortunes are being made by man-made climate change proponents such as Al Gore.

Natural News reports:

In a recent interview with Climate Depot, Coleman said:

“Al Gore may emerge from the shadows to declare victory in the ‘global warming’ debate if Hillary Clinton moves into the White House. Yes, if that happens and the new climate regulations become the law of the land, they will be next to impossible to overturn for four to eight years.”


Climate change proponents remain undeterred in their mission, ignoring numerous recent scientific findings indicating that there has been no warming trend at all for nearly two decades.

Al Gore’s dire predictions of the melting of polar ice on a massive scale have proved to be completely false. In fact, in 2014 – a year that was touted as being “the hottest ever” in the Earth’s history – there were record amounts of ice reported in Antarctica, an increase in Arctic ice, and record snowfalls across the globe.

Debunking the “97 percent” lie

On top of those “inconvenient truths,” the White House’s assertion that 97 percent of scientists agree that global warming is real has been completely debunked. Several independently-researched examinations of the literature used to support the “97 percent” statement found that the conclusions were cherry-picked and misleading.

More objective surveys have revealed that there is a far greater diversity of opinion among scientists than the global warming crowd would like for you to believe.

From the National Review:

“A 2008 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased.”

Other mainstream news sources besides the National Review have also been courageous enough to speak out against the global warming propaganda – even the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed piece in 2015 challenging the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) pseudoscience being promulgated by global warming proponents.

And, of course, there are the more than 31,000 American scientists (to date) who have signed a petition challenging the climate change narrative and 9,029 of them hold PhDs in their respective fields. But hey, Al Gore and his cronies have also ignored that inconvenient truth, as well.

Many of those scientists who signed the petition were likely encouraged to speak out in favor of the truth after retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist John L. Casey revealed that solar cycles are largely responsible for warming periods on Earth – not human activity.

Al Gore and cronies continue getting richer from the global warming hoax

But the global warming crowd continues to push their agenda on the public while lining their pockets in the process. If you’re still inclined to believe what Al Gore has to say about global warming, please consider the fact that since he embarked on his crusade, his wealth has grown from $2 million in 2001 to $100 million in 2016 – largely due to investments in fake “green tech” companies and the effective embezzlement of numerous grants and loans.

(American people:  You might want to take all of this information into serious consideration before casting your vote in the November election.)

More About the “Climate Change Scam”…

Climate Change Won’t Kill The Grandkids – Having No Energy Will

Written by Tom D. Tamarkin

Anthropogenic warming (AGW)  or climate change is not the BIG problem its advocates make it out to be. Even if it could be proved that man is creating it through his use of hydro-carbon fossil fuels, it is not the truly BIG problem.

Climate change has always been a part of the Earth’s dynamic atmospheric system. During the last 2 billion years the Earth’s climate has alternated between a frigid “Ice House” climate, today’s moderate climate, , and a steaming “Hot House” climate, as in the time of the dinosaurs.

Principal contributing factors to the variability of the Earth’s median temperature and climate are the Earth’s complex orbit in the solar system as defined by the Milankovitch cycles, the sun’s variable radiated energy output, and geological factors on Earth such as undersea volcanic activity leading to inconsistent temperature gradients in the oceans.

This chart shows how global climate has changed over geological time.

geologic climate

Unfortunately, the potential threat of predicted future climate change has been used to transfer enormous amounts of money from wealthy nations to poor nations [1]. This has enabled the survival instinct mechanisms of the climate change community. That includes governments, consultants, and scientific researchers who simply study the perceived problem and generate academic journal articles and reports. The ineffective green energy solutions manufacturing and service industry also owes their life…and government subsidies…to the climate change scare. No serious money raised by the “climate scare” has been spent on solving the BIG problem.

The BIG problem is the fact that man was provided with about 400 years’ worth of hydrocarbon based fossil fuels which took several hundred million years to be created on Earth. The energy came from the Sun [2]. Integrated over large amounts of geological time, daily Sun energy was converted into chemicals through plant photosynthesis. These chemicals can, in-turn, be ignited to release the stored energy through an oxidation reduction reaction with oxygen [3]. Once they are gone they are gone in human life cycle terms.

What is energy? A physicists will answer by saying “the ability to perform work.” They will elaborate by saying: “energy is a property of objects which can be transferred to other objects or converted into different forms, but cannot be created or destroyed.”

A housewife will say energy is what moves our cars, powers our airplanes, cooks our food, and keeps us warm in the winter – cool in the summer.

You cannot power a world estimated to have 9 billion people by 2060 on energy produced from solar cells and wind turbines.

They are not sustainable meaning they cannot create enough energy quickly enough to reproduce themselves (build more) and provide energy to man. The reason is that the amount of energy received from the Sun is far “too dilute” meaning a very small amount of energy is received per square unit of surface area for relatively short periods of time given the day-night cycle and weather conditions [4].

Wind energy is a secondary effect of solar energy because wind is created by the atmosphere’s absorption of the Sun’s thermal energy in combination with the Coriolis force effect [5]. This is based on the rotation of the Earth coupled with atmospheric pressure differences relating to elevation, mountains, and the like [6].

Hydro power from dammed rives is also a secondary effect of solar energy. The movement of water in the Earth’s vast system of rivers occurs because of solar energy. This happens as seawater is evaporated, forms clouds, and ultimately water is released as rain and snow keeping our rivers full and flowing out to sea from higher elevations propelled by gravity. Unlike solar and wind, hydropower can consistently produce material but limited amounts of energy.

fuel graph

The above illustration shows energy flux density in million Joules per litter on the left hand vertical axis with a scale spanning 10 to the 16th power in scientific notation. The horizontal axis depicts time on the top row from 0 years Common Era to 2200. The bottom row depicts worldwide population which is directly controlled by available energy to produce food, potable water and to provide for man’s comfort. As can be seen, once fossil hydro-carbon fuels are no longer available in quantity, fusion energy must be developed or worldwide population will contract to that of the preindustrial age in the 1600s. Energy flux density refers to how much energy is contained per unit volume of an energy source. Appendix 1 below provides tabulation for various energy sources.

We must begin to turn to what Dr. Steve Cowley in the UK calls “energy from knowledge;” the conversion of mass into energy [7]. Albert Einstein formulated the relationship between energy and mas (matter) in his famous equation E = mc2. This means that a very small amount of mass is equal to a very large amount of energy as explained by Dr. Einstein in his own voice [8].

We must solve energy for the long term through the conversion of matter into energy. No other energy source has a suitable energy flux density to provide our electricity, transportation, potable water and agricultural needs once fossil hydro-carbon fuels are no longer economically viable to recover due to depletion [9].

We must begin now because it will take several decades to master the science. We began this journey when we developed nuclear fission power. However nuclear fission is not a long term solution for several reasons; most notably the long-term radioactive waste it produces. As an example, in the U.S. today, nuclear energy accounts for approximately 20% of input energy to create America’s baseload power. To produce all baseload power we would have to increase the number of active nuclear plants by five times. Baseload power generation in the U.S. consumes roughly 40% of all energy resources. Thus, approximately 600 additional 1 GWH plants would have to be built and operated to provide 100% of all input energy currently consumed in the production of consumable energy in the United States. Scale this worldwide based on population and an equivalent per capita energy and it becomes overwhelming in terms of waste issues.

The next step is the development of nuclear fusion. Fusion is much different than fission[101112]. It uses light elements in the fuel cycle, is fail safe, and can do no environmental harm. It has the highest flux density of any energy source short of matter anti-matter annihilation.

It will take several more years of pure experimental scientific research to demonstrate a sustained fusion reaction in the laboratory producing a net energy gain meaning more energy is produced than was “pumped in” to start the energy production [13]. Once controlled fusion is proven in a controlled environment, regardless of how expensive and complicated the reactor mechanism and facility is, man’s ingenuity will take over in the private sector. The complexities and costs will be driven down just as turn of the 20th century vacuum tubes gave way to transistors and later microcomputers-on-a-chip.

That is the BIG problem. If we do not solve this, in 50 to 100 years our coal, oil, and natural gas resources will no longer beeconomically and environmentally recoverable [14]. Then mankind reverts back to life in the 16th century. If we do not solve energy the entire argument of being good environmental stewards of the Earth is moot. Why? Because in less than 100 years we will no longer be burning fossil hydro-carbon fuels. Global warming and climate change caused by man is no longer an issue. The problem takes care of itself. In a few thousand years the processes of nature…geological and geo-chemical…will erase most signs of our past industrialized existence.

If there are not sizable numbers of cognitively intelligent humans capable of thinking and distinguishing beauty, it is a nonconsequential point as aliens are not flocking to our planet. No one or no thing will ever know the difference. Which begs the question: “Is there intelligent life on Earth?” This author believes so. As Bill & Melinda Gates recently stated in their recentfoundation’s annual open letter, our youth needs to be challenged to produce what they called an “energy miracle” [15].

This is the biggest problem man faces. Climate change…if caused by man…automatically reverses itself over the next 100 years. But if we do not solve energy mankind’s population will contract by a factor greater than 10 over the course of the following 100 years. Collectively, we as a species must recognize this reality and begin the energy race today.

[1] Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare, Investor’s Business Daily, March 29, 2016.
[2] Tamarkin, Tom D., Energy Basics; Where does energy on our planet come from?, Fusion 4 Freedom.
[3] Heats of Combustion, UC Davis Chemistry Wiki.
[4] Lawson, Barrie & Tamarkin, Tom D., Going Solar-System Requirements For Solar Generated Utility Baseload Power, Fusion 4 Freedom.
[5] Consequences of Rotation for Weather; Coriolis Forces, Universe of Tennessee Knoxville.
[6] Atmospheric Pressure at Different Altitudes, AVS Science & Technology of Materials, Interfaces, & Processing,
[7] Fusion energy with Professor Steven Cowley, Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, UK.
[8] William Tucker, Ph.D., Understanding E = MC2, Dr. Albert Einstein in his own voice & explanation,
[9] Tamarkin, Tom D., Energy Basics, Comparison of fuel energy flux densities, Fusion 4 Freedom.
[10] Duke Energy Nuclear Information Center, Fission vs. Fusion – What’s the Difference?
[11] Lawson, Barrie, Nuclear Fission Theory, Fusion 4 Freedom.
[12] Lawson, Barrie, Nuclear Fusion-The Theory, Fusion 4 Freedom.
[13] Tamarkin, Tom D., Fusion Energy; Too Important to Fail – Too Big To Hoard, Fusion 4 Freedom.
[14] Tamarkin, Tom D. 2060 And Lights Out: How Will America Survive Without Oil?, Inquisitir Special Report,
[15] Gates, Bill & Melinda, Gates Foundation Annual Open Letter, James, Murray, Guardian, February 24, 2016.

Appendix 1

Energy Flux Density Comparisons
Energy density is the amount of energy stored in a given system or region of space per unit volume. Specific energy is the amount of energy stored per unit mass (weight.) Only the useful or extractable energy is measured. It is useful to compare the energy densities of various energy sources. At the top of the list is fusion followed by nuclear fission and then hydrocarbon fuels derived from petroleum, coal and natural gas. At the bottom of the list are batteries which either generate energy or store energy as well as “renewable energy” such as solar.

1 Kg of Deuterium fused with 1.5 Kg of Tritium can produce 87.4 GWH of electricity

Here are the underlying calculations supporting the statement above:
The energy released by fusion of 1 atom of Deuterium with 1 atom of Tritium is 17.6 Mev = 2.8 X 10-12 Joules.

The energy liberated by the fusion of 1 Kg of Deuterium with 1.5 Kg of Tritium is 2.8 X 10-12X 2.99 X 1026 = 8.3 X 1014 Joules = (8.3 X 1014 ) / (3.6 X 10-12 ) = 230 GWHours.

This energy is released as heat. A conventional steam turbine power plant with an efficiency of 38%, would produce 87.4GWH of electricity

1 Deuterium is a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen readily available from sea water.
2 Tritium is produced in the fusion reactor from Lithium as part of the fuel cycle and energy exchange process. Lithium is an abundant naturally occurring element.

Comparison of “renewable” energy density


1 How much solar power per cubic meter is there? The volume of the space between a one-meter-square patch on Earth and the center of our orbit around the sun is 50 billion cubic meters (the earth is 150 billion meters from the sun, or 4,000 earth circumferences). Dividing the usable 100 watts per square meter by this volume, yields two-billionths of a watt per cubic meter. Sunlight takes about eight minutes(499 seconds) to reach the earth. Multiplying 499 seconds by twenty-six billionths of a W/m3 reveals that solar radiation has an energy density of 1.5 microjoules per cubic meter (1.5 x 10-6 J/m3).

2 The only way to extract thermal energy from the atmosphere is to construct an insulated pipe between it and a reservoir at lower temperature (preferably a much lower one). This is how geothermal heat pumps work. Typical ground temperature is 52F (284 K). On a 90F day, such a system has a peak efficiency of 7%, and a power density of only 0.05 mW/m3 (Stopa and Wojnarowski 2006): typical surface power fluxes for geothermal wells are on the order of 50 mW/m2 and have typical depths of 1 km. To find the energy density, a characteristic time must be included. The time used should be that of the time required for water being pumped into the ground to circulate through the system once. This number is on the order of ten days (Sanjuan et al. 2006). The resulting energy density is 0.05 J/m3, or roughly two to three orders of magnitude lower than wind or waves.

3 Wind is driven by changes in weather patterns, which in turn are driven by thermal gradients. Tides are driven by fluctuations in gravity caused by lunar revolutions. The energy densities of wind and water systems are proportional to the mass, m, moving through them, and the square of the speed, v, of this mass, or ½mv2. At sea level, air with a density of about one kilogram per cubic meter moving at five meters per second (ten miles per hour) has a kinetic energy of 12.5 joules per cubic meter. Applying Betz’s Law, which limits efficiency to 59% (Betz 1926), yields about seven joules per cubic meter. Thus, wind energy on a moderately windy day is over a million times more energy-dense than solar energy.

There are two prevalent mechanisms for extracting tidal energy. In one system, barrages move up and down, extracting energy with the rise and fall of the tides. On the second type strategy, tidal stream systems act more like underwater wind turbines, extracting energy from tidal waters as they move past. As with wind, the energy of a moving volume of water is also ½mv2. Tidal systems have the advantage over wind systems in that water is approximately one thousand times denser than air. Their disadvantage lies in generally low tidal velocities of only ten centimeters per second to one meter per second. Thus, a cubic meter of water, with a mass of about 1000 kg, yields an energy density of about five joules per cubic meter for slow water1and five hundred joules per cubic meter for fast water2. These are also subject to Betz’s law and represent only peak values, so the average energy densities are closer to one-half of a joule per cubic meter to fifty joules per cubic meter, or about the same as wind.

1 kinetic energy (tidal low velocity) = ½ mv2 = ½ · 1000 kg · (0.1 m/s)2 = 5 joules.
2 kinetic energy (tidal high velocity) = ½ mv2 = ½ · 1000 kg · (1 m/s)2 = 500 joules.

More on “Government-Induced Climaphobia”…

Many People Think What Few Dare To Say

Written by Dr Klaus L E Kaiser

From climate doomsters to media politicos, the world is being bombarded with mis-constructs, unfounded claims and outright lies. Some listeners and readers may fall for such deceits but many others are thinking to themselves and quietly walking away. unhappy

Time and again, I have experienced that phenomenon after giving a talk to (mostly) retired professionals from a variety of disciplines. They approach me in private with statements like “fully agree with you but am afraid to speak out.” Too few speak up in public – though they may voice their views indirectly at the ballot box.

However, times are slowly changing. Many people have become dissatisfied with main stream media reports and become more willing to stand up against misleading advertising, destructive policies and rapidly rising costs. In my perception, the recent Brexit vote is a harbinger of more of such “rebellions” to come, some likely to be equally surprising.

Bureaucratic overreach is just one aspect of widespread dissatisfaction; waste and falsehoods are others.

Waste and Lies

The waste of taxpayers’ funds on alternative energy plans pales in relation to the real costs of totally misguided energy policies that one can find in a variety of jurisdictions, both here and abroad. Most of these wasteful projects center around one (and WRONG !) idea, namely of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) being a driver of the climate on earth.

That CO2-climate idea came about nearly two-hundred years ago (a hypothesis at the time) and was shown to be incorrect one hundred years ago. However, it is still “making the rounds” for three simple reasons:

  • For many scientists applying to agencies to obtain any research funds is rather futile if the grant proposal does not pretend to show how “bad” CO2 is.
  • Many “politicians” (real or wanna-be’s alike) simply go “with the flow,” following the path of least resistance and, consequently, blow the same CO2-climate horn.
  • There is next to no accountability for bureaucrats or politicians that do so.

Waste – who cares; independent thought – who needs that anyway and, in any event, the voters are expected to have forgotten all bad deeds by the time the next election rolls around.

But it is not just money and resources that have been lost to the futile pursuit of CO2 and air conditioners as the proclaimed global evils extraordinaire. There are even greater costs to mankind; one is the time lost to really advance mankind’s wellbeing.

Lost Time

Time lost is gone for good. No space age technology or pokemons found can bring back time. The estimated trillion dollars spent over the last few decades, on “alternative” energy sources like wind, solar, and biofuels have had next to no impact on global fossil fuel (coal, oil, and natural gas) consumption in the world. At the same time and despite the (entirely avoidable) disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima, new nuclear power plants are now being built in many countries around the world, for example even in hydro (water) power-rich Switzerland.

Even in Japan many of the nuclear power plants that were all shut down following the Fukushima tsunami-caused disaster have been or are being restarted as well. China, India and Russia are all in the process of massive expansions of their nuclear power generation capabilities as well. While these countries may pay lip service to the Paris 2015 Climate Agreement, these projects having absolutely nothing to do with any perceived climate threats from CO2 that have been proclaimed by the United Nations IPCC or U.S. President Obama. They are simply wise diversification among energy resources.

In contrast, Germany is on the way to becoming a “green” energy pauper, all because of the CO2-climate hoax.

Green” Germany

One of the most blatant examples of wasting time and resources must be Germany. That country had many great developments to its credit in the period of roughly 1960 to 1990. That was the time of the German “Wirtschaftswunder” when science, engineering and technology grew by leaps and bounds, energy was affordable for consumers and industry alike. Coal and nuclear power plants provided ample electricity and government regulations were fostering competition and efficiency throughout the land.

However, instead of building on its developed expertise and teaching new generations of scientists and engineers to learn the trade, “green power” activists and politicians persuaded people that biofuels, sun and wind were all that was needed. By now, the generation of people capable of designing, building and operating the complex nuclear facilities have mostly retired, emigrated or died. It would likely take another generation just to get to the state of expertise available there in 1975.

For example, the newest nuclear power plant that’s still in operation in Germany was built around 1985. Since then not a single new plant has even been considered. In fact, the opposite is going to take place in a few years. All remaining operating nuclear plants are going to be shut down by government decree, the last ones in 2022. Similar actions are planned for the remaining coal and natural gas fired power plants. From then on, German households and industries are largely expected to live by the whims of sunshine, wind and imports from nearby countries like Czechia and France — if available then. That ideology has been decreed as “energy-change” (“Energiewende”).

Availability of Power

Availability of electric power when needed is rapidly becoming less guaranteed as well. That’s why the latest German government schemes are encouraging local, i.e. community level power generation cooperatives that push the responsibility down the line towards the end consumer. And oh, it’s all going to work with “smart” systems that, presumably, work along the principle of the biblical supply of wine at the wedding at Canaan.

Actually, when I read news items on the touted “smart” electricity grid and kitchen technology (e.g. in new fridges), it seems the “smart” part is less to guarantee that they run with less power but to turn them off when the sun doesn’t shine, the wind doesn’t blow, or someone wants to cut your power off altogether. It could foster politically correct thinking too and you will be happy to know that you will still be charged for “delivery” during such times of brownouts or blackouts to come.

In this context, an interesting email (copy) I recently received from overseas, written to a well-known proponent of solar power there reads (paraphrased) as follows:

“As energy expert you made the interesting discovery that the sun does not send a bill. I did not entirely understand why, despite that, several hundred thousand households are unable to pay their electricity bills and entire types of industries are emigrating due to the high electricity costs. Why are electricity costs much lower in countries that use less sun energy?”

Benefits – What Benefits?

Indeed, where or what are the benefits and who is benefiting from this alternative energy development? It couldn’t be the consumers whose hydro bills are rising much faster than governments’ inflation numbers. It probably is not even the operators of wind and solar power farms – despite their high feed-in tariffs and other prescribed “goodies.” That only leaves the producers of such equipment and, who could have guessed, the governments themselves. That’s also evident from recent moves by some jurisdictions to tax people on their own solar photovoltaic panel-produced electricity for their own consumption.

With the world swamped by cheap natural gas, crude oil, and coal (with the mines in western countries are being relegated to heritage status), who, really needs expensive and intermittent electricity from the wind and sun?

If you have the answer, drop me a line.

Government Agenda Won’t Stop at Wind Turbines! Next…Private Property!

Gilmor vs. Goliath: Conservation groups seek to overturn precedent-setting court decision allowing family to build home

Buttrey Ditch

Graeme Frisque — The Banner

Buttrey drain, a drainage ditch located on the Gilmor’s property is the reason the lot was deemed part of a floodplain in the first place. It is also the source of safety concerns alleged by the Nottawasaga Conservation Authority.

Orangeville Banner

By Graeme Frisque

A precedent-setting court decision that could affect anyone in the province owning property in environmentally protected areas is currently making its way through the Ontario Court of Appeals.

It all started in 2009 when Alex and Tania Gilmor began the permit process to build a home on their property in Amaranth, a small community of roughly 4,000 residents about 15 minutes northwest of Orangeville.

The Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority denied that application and a proceeding appeal, and for the last seven years the Gilmors have been fighting for permission to build on their land.

After another appeal to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) was denied via tribunal in July 2013, the Gilmors appealed that decision in Ontario Superior Court, finally winning the right to build their home in September 2015.

But the story doesn’t end there. The respondents — NVCA and the Township of Amaranth — have decided to appeal the court’s decision through an intervener.

Conservation Ontario, a not-for-profit lobby group that represents all 36 of Ontario’s conservation authorities, was approved as intervener by the court and a leave for appeal from the NVCA and Conservation Ontario was granted in February 2016, sending the matter back to the courts.

A portion of the Gilmor’s lot, located at 555106 Mono-Amaranth Townline Road, is part of a designated floodplain and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the NVCA.

According to court records, the area was designated an environmentally protected area many years after it was originally subdivided into 10-acre lots in the 1960s, and very few lots in the area remain vacant. There are existing houses on either side of the Gilmor’s property and across the road.

The area was deemed an environmentally protected area due to a small drainage ditch called “Buttrey Drain”, which crosses the Gilmor’s lot behind the proposed build site.

The drainage ditch also passes through a neighbour’s property — where a house already exists — and then proceeds to a culvert under the public road, eventually connecting to a creek, part of the Nottawasaga River system.

When they first purchased the land there was an existing driveway, shed and garden on the property and neighbours had been allowed to build houses prior to their application to do so.

Despite the proposed house being in an area on the property where flooding poses no risk, the Gilmor’s application to build was denied on the basis of flooding and safety concerns.

“Unfortunately, we cannot provide any detail about the NVCA’s position as this matter is before the courts, other than we are confident the NVCA has upheld its responsibilities as required by the Conservation Authorities Act,” said Doug Lougheed, NVCA Chair and Innisfil town councillor.

Justice Sean F. Dunphy disagreed after hearing the Gilmor’s appeal, overturning the NVCA and tribunal decisions on the matter to refuse the appropriate permits.

In his decision, Justice Dunphy pointed out an expert analysis undertaken as part of the permit process showed little-to-no flood or safety risk, even in the event of a “hypothetical extreme event” such as the “Timmins Storm” — a standard comparable used by the NVCA when assessing risk in the event of a worst-case scenario regional storm.

“(The Gilmors) provided extensive expert evidence establishing the lack of any adverse effects impact (on) their proposed building on flood control,” said Justice Dunphy.

“The methodology and quality of their expert evidence has not been challenged. Indeed, the NVCA utilized the data produced by the Gilmors’ experts in preparing their own studies,” he added.

Furthermore, the judge ruled the tribunal who originally upheld the NVCA’s decision erred by judging the case on the basis of a general ban on development in environmentally protected areas, which is not the case.

Conservation authorities routinely allow construction and development in floodplains and other environmentally sensitive areas they oversee, as long as additional mandated steps are taken to address any environmental concerns.

However, the concerns the NVCA had with Gilmor’s application is not of an environmental nature, but of public safety — namely, flood safety — and the judge found those concerns to be baseless.

The NVCA appears to have no problem with construction on the site, as their proposed resolution was to have the Gilmors build a 600-metre driveway to the back of the property outside of the flood plain. Something Justice Dunphy called “ironic”.

“The proposed driveway would be approximately 600 metres long and proceed over the existing drainage ditch and across wetlands to the rear of the Gilmor’s property to higher land,” he said.

“Further, the fill necessary to build up the required road that distance would have a much more significant impact on the ability of the land to handle a flood and thus create still more regulatory approval challenges,” added Justice Dunphy.

Justice Dunphy concluded the NVCA acted outside of its legislated powers by denying the Gilmor’s permit application and interpreted its own internal standards as matters of law.

“A general prohibition on developments without consideration of the impact, if any, of such developments on flood control in the particular circumstances of each case, would have been beyond the jurisdiction of the NVCA to enact … and it cannot acquire such jurisdiction by misinterpreting its own regulation,” he said.

And it appears it is on this basis — and not the Gilmor’s safety or right to build on their land — that the NVCA and the now intervening Conservation Ontario have chosen to so vigorously oppose the court’s decision.

“As this matter deals with a provincial priority for flood protection, NVCA has vigorously pursued leave to appeal before the Ontario Court of Appeal,” said NCVA Chair Lougheed.

“Conservation Ontario has sought intervener status as this appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal has implications for all of Ontario’s 36 Conservation Authorities, as it may affect how certain provisions of the Conservation Authorities Act are interpreted,” added Lougheed.

As for the Gilmors, according to Elizabeth Marshall of the Ontario Landowners Association (OLA), after seven years of wrangling and legal fees, the family is giving up the fight.

“They aren’t speaking to anyone anymore. They have chosen not to get a lawyer for the appeal. They are at the point where they are ready to throw themselves at the mercy of the court,” she said.

As a result, OLA president Tom Black said the group sought intervener status on the Gilmors’ behalf in order to keep up the fight — which was denied.

“The win was rather historic and we thought it should be defended,” said Black, who added the group continues to seek an intervener they would support willing to pick up the mantle.

In the meantime — at least in the opinion of one Ontario Superior Court Justice — the Gilmors continue to have their rights trampled.

Donald Trump….Too Smart to Fall for the Wind/Climate Scam!

Donald Trump Would Unleash Energy Sector

Say what you want about Donald Trump, but he has said two things recently that more profoundly diagnose America’s true problems than anything Hillary Clinton has even come close to thinking about in her entire lifetime.

Donald Trump Would Unleash Energy Sector
By Steve Milloy, August 9, 2016

Say what you want about Donald Trump, but he has said two things recently that more profoundly diagnose America’s true problems than anything Hillary Clinton has even come close to thinking about in her entire lifetime
The first thing he said — that political correctness “cripples our ability to talk and think and act clearly” — is not the subject of this column. The second — that “It is time to remove the anchor that is dragging us down” — is.

The “anchor” he was talking about is the government and, especially the Obama administration and any extension thereof through Hillary Clinton.

We have a government that is choking us to death with regulations and economy killing policies. As Trump pointed out:

The Federal Register is now over 80,000 pages long. As the Wall Street Journal noted, President Obama has issued close to four hundred new major regulations since taking office, each with a cost to the American economy of $100 million or more.

In 2015 alone, the Obama Administration unilaterally issued more than 2,000 new regulations – each a hidden tax on American consumers, and a massive lead weight on the American economy.

Nowhere is this truer than in the energy sector Trump spotlighted in his speech in Detroit. But to appreciate Trump’s prescription for the energy sector and the rest of the economy, it’s first necessary to understand how the Obama administration has sabotaged both.

Probably the least talked about effect of Obama’s anti-economic policies has been the destruction of the economic model for the electric power industry. Electric utilities used to make money the old fashioned way — by selling more electricity. For a variety of reasons, that has not been possible in the moribund Obama economy.

Instead utilities have been forced to engage in various government-mandated energy efficiency and green power schemes where utilities can only make more money by selling less electricity at higher prices. Flattened electricity production by utilities has then had downstream effects on fuel production industries.

Lower fuel needs has forced down coal prices and caused overproduction in a coal industry that has become increasingly efficient over the years at producing coal.

The Obama administration then compounded this problem for the coal industry by commencing its infamous war on coal. This has had the effect of forcing utilities to choose either to endure high regulatory compliance costs and political disfavor by sticking with coal or to switch to alternatives like natural gas, wind and solar. While the Obama administration favored the later two energy sources, the markets tossed a monkey wrench in these plans.

A glut of cheap natural gas produced by hydrofracturing technology (fracking) eased the coal-switching problem for utilities. Making progressive lemonade out of lemons, at this point the Obama administration then decided to finish off the coal industry by making the permanent the glut of cheap natural gas. It did this by slow-walking if not just simply preventing natural gas from being exported to a global market hungry for it.

The effect was two-fold. First, it forced most of the coal industry into bankruptcy. Second, it kept gas prices depressed. If an oil and gas firm is not struggling today, it’s probably only because it has gone into bankruptcy, too. And it you’re thinking that cheap fuel prices must have been good for electric utilities, think again. Midwestern utilities were hoping that the cheap fuel glut would lead to a renaissance of manufacturing in the Rust Belt, facilities to which they could sell more electricity. But regulatory uncertainty brought about overzealous and arbitrary Obama administration agencies and actions has prevented any such renaissance.

A President Trump would remove the government boot from the energy industry. Natural gas could be exported to a gas-hungry world. This would relieve pressure on what’s left of the coal industry. Then, unburdening utilities of regulatory and political pressure to use politically correct fuels and allowing utilities to sell more electricity to a growing economy would restore health to the ailing energy sector and help create millions of good-paying, wealth producing jobs.

All this is complex and difficult to explain in a brief column, let alone a policy speech by a candidate who is more of a business-doer than a political-talker. But Trump gets the big picture. Overregulation is killing our economy. The energy sector is living (on life support) proof.

Steve Milloy publishes and is a former coal executive.

Global Warming Scam….Unraveling at the seams!


770 papers questioning AGW “consensus” since 2014


Since January 2014, the last 2 and half years, 770 peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published in scholarly journals that call into question just how settled the “consensus” science is that says anthropogenic or CO2 forcing dominates weather and climate changes, or that non-anthropogenic factors play only a relatively minor and inconsequential role. (LINK)

Just a paragraph from a post on Pierre Gosselin’s great blog NoTricksZone.

It was written by Kenneth Richard who goes on to say:

Instead of supporting the “consensus” science, these 770 papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties apparent in climate modeling and the predictions of future climate catastrophes. Furthermore, these scientific papers strongly suggest that natural factors (the Sun, multi-decadal ocean oscillations [AMO/PDO, ENSO], cloud and aerosol albedo variations, etc.) have both in the past and present exerted a significant influence on weather and climate, which means an anthropogenic signal may be much more difficult to detect or distinguish as an “extremely likely” cause relative to natural variation.  Papers questioning the “common-knowledge” viewpoints on ocean acidification, glacier melt and advance, sea level rise, extreme weather events, past climate forcing mechanisms, the “danger” of high CO2 concentrations, etc., have also been included in this volume of 770 papers.

Mr Richard points out also that there are 240 papers supporting a Skeptical-of-the-Consensus Position for 2016 (here.)

Now, Question for Mainstream Media (MSM):

Will you still promote the Great Global Warming hoax? The hypothesis HAS been falsified. (seelink) (see Scientific Method Falsified) AND Pauline Hanson’s One Nation No2 Queensland candidate Malcolm Roberts looks like gaining an Australian Senate Seat.

Malcolm Roberts, with empirical evidence, can destroy the MSM’s support of the hoax.

Wind Turbines Do NOT Reduce CO2….

Trillion Dollar Irony: Europe’s Wind Rush Sends CO2 Emissions Soaring


If “saving” the planet is – as we are repeatedly told – all about reducing man-made emissions of an odourless, colourless, naturally occurring trace gas, essential for all life on earth – then European energy/environmental policy has manifestly failed. And what an expensive failure it is.

In the following piece, the delicious term ‘irony’ springs to mind: a situation in which something which was intended to have a particular result has the opposite or a very different result.

The wind cult’s defence for crushing entire industries and whole economies, driving thousands insane with incessant turbine generatedlow-frequency noise and infrasound, and for the slaughter of millions ofbirds and bats has run out of puff: CO2 emissions are rising fastest in those places, like Europe, that have literally thrown $billions to the wind.

Europe’s CO2 Emissions INCREASE While America’s Fall
Andrew Follett
Daily Caller
21 May 2016

The EU’s 2015 CO2 emissions increased by 0.7 percent relative to 2014, while U.S. emissions fell to its lowest level in two decades. The EU has spent an estimated $1.2 trillion financially supporting wind, solar and bio-energy and an incalculable amount on a cap-and-trade scheme to specifically lower CO2 emissions.

The DCNF analyzed the increased CO2 emissions data from the the European Commission through Eurostat and CO2 emissions from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the last full year of state-level data. The use of older U.S. data predates much of the fracking boom, meaning an updated result would likely be even more significant.

The DCNF’s findings are displayed on the maps below.


The biggest CO2 percent increases in Europe occurred in Slovakia and Portugal, where emissions rose by 9.5 and 8.6 percent respectively. Other big CO2 increases came from the EU’s capital country of Belgium, where emissions rose by 4.7 percent. Emissions from Germany, the EU’s largest economy, remained mostly flat.

The largest CO2 percent decrease in the EU came from the tiny country of Malta, where emissions fell by about 27 percent.


The DCNF’s analysis found that a majority of U.S. states, especially on the East Coast, saw CO2 emissions fall by more than 10 percent.

America’s overall CO2 emissions have fallen by 12 percent since their peak in 2000, according to the EIA. The U.S. has reduced greenhouse gas emissions more than any other country, a fact even The Sierra Club acknowledges.

EU emissions are increasing even though it implemented a cap-and-trade system called the European Union Emission Trading Scheme. The program directly cost the European countries $287 billion to implement in 2011 and likely caused trillions of dollars in lost economic output.

Even worse, the scheme is widely acknowledge to have not worked, as CO2 emissions actually increased, according to a study by the Swiss banking firm UBS.

A similar scheme planned for America would have destroyed 2.5 million jobs and lost $9.4 trillion of economic output by 2035 if implemented,according to analysis by The Heritage Foundation.

Rising European CO2 emissions are likely due to failed EU policies, which actually increased emissions.

A study last month by environmental group Transport & Environment (T&E) determined the EU’s plans to fight global warming with biofuel actually ended up increasing CO2 emissions.

The U.S. spends far less than the EU supporting green energy, discounting the cap-and-trade schemes, but American CO2 emissions are falling thanks to the development of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which the EU has repeatedly slowed with regulations.

The EU has spent $1.2 trillion subsidizing green energy. EU regulations, financial support for green energy and taxes cause the average European to spend 26.9 cents per kilowatt-hour on electricity, according to calculations performed earlier this month by The DCNF. The average American only spends 10.4 cents.

The DCNF’s analysis concurs with a report published in early May by the EIA, which found the primary reason for the decline in CO2 emissions is increased natural gas production from fracking.

Fracked natural gas supplies much of the power in East Coast states, which saw CO2 emissions most rapidly fall. Previous analysis by TheDCNFfound a statistically significant correlation between the dependence of a state’s economy on natural gas and large reductions in CO2 emissions.

Natural gas emits about half the CO2 of coal power and is already cheaper than coal in many locations due to fracking. The EIA estimates roughly 68 percent of the falling CO2 emissions are due to the switch from coal to natural gas.

Fracking has cut more American CO2 emissions than solar or wind power, according to a study published last November by the Manhattan Institute. The study shows solar power is responsible for a mere one percent of the decline in American CO2 emissions, while natural gas is responsible for nearly 20 percent. For every ton of CO2 cut by solar power, fracking has cut 13 tons.
Daily Caller


Tom Harris Accurately Describes the Gov’t’s Behavior, Re: Climate Agenda!

Climate Debate Dominated by ‘Duckspeakers’


by Tom Harris, Executive Director, ICSC, ©2016

(May 28, 2016) — In Oceania, the dystopian society of George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, a new language was created by the government to control the thinking patterns of the populace.  Officially labeled ‘Newspeak’, it was the first language that, when fully adopted, was meant to limit the range of human thought. Concepts such as freedom, skepticism, and debate would be virtually unthinkable since no words existed to describe them, aside from the generic term ‘thoughtcrime.’

Perhaps most insidious was ‘duckspeak,’ a form of speech consisting entirely of words and phrases sanctioned by the party, language that conveyed politically correct messaging only. Someone who had mastered duckspeak could fire off ideologically pure assertions like bullets from a machine gun without thinking at all. Their words merely emanated from the larynx like the quacking of a duck.

Being called a ‘duckspeaker’ was considered a sincere compliment since it indicated that you were well-versed in the official language and views of the state.

More than ever before, we are now in an era of climate change duckspeak. Rather than being merely ridiculous or social satire, the apparent underlying purpose of climate duckspeak is ominous: to convince opinion leaders and the public to think about climate change only as the government wants. To consider alternative points of view is ‘climate change denial,’ today’s version of thoughtcrime, punishable by excommunication from responsible citizenry. If AGs United for Clean Power, a coalition of sixteen Democratic state Attorneys General (AG), has their way, speaking out on the other side of the climate debate could soon result in civil or criminal charges.

President Barack Obama sets the stage for climate change duckspeakers, often reassuring us that “the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.”

But, as Carleton University Earth Sciences Professor Tim Patterson points out, “Climate is and always has been variable. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually.” So Obama’s claim, and that of other opinion leaders who say the same, appears to be a self-evident, but trivial, truth like ‘sunrise is real’.

But it is much more than that. Intentionally or otherwise, the President is using a strategy right out of Nineteen Eighty-Four. His statements imply that experts have concluded that unusual climatic events are happening, and that government must save us.

Obama strengthens this perception with dramatic assertions such as that in the “Cutting Carbon Pollution in America” section of the White House web site: “I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s beyond fixing.”

Referring to greenhouse gases (GHG) as “carbon pollution,” as the White House does twelve times on their climate change Web page, is pure duckspeak. This conjures up subconscious images of dark and dangerous emissions of soot, which really is carbon.

What Obama and others are actually referring to is carbon dioxide (CO2). But were they to call it that, most people would be unconcerned, remembering from grade school that the trace gas is essential for plant photosynthesis. So climate campaigners mislabel it ‘carbon’ to frighten the public and to discourage further thinking, closely following ‘Big Brother’s’ strategy in Orwell’s classic.

Similarly, referring to low CO2 emitting energy sources as clean or green is a mistake since the gas is in no way unclean. But the label promotes an image of environmental wholesomeness, hiding the true ineffective and damaging nature of many alternative energy sources.

Finally, the “97% of experts agree” phrase is, using Oceania’s vernacular, ‘doubleplusgood’ duckspeak, designed to suppress debate and boost the party line. After all, who would dare contest experts about such a complicated issue?

But ‘appeal to authority,’ and ‘appeal to consensus’ are logical fallacies that prove nothing about nature. And, even if such surveys were taken seriously, one would have to ask: Do these experts study the causes of climate change? What did they agree to?

In fact, none of the surveys that are used to back up the consensus argument are convincing. They either asked the wrong questions, asked the wrong people, or polled mostly those who would obviously agree with the government’s position.

Independent reports such as those of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change show that the science is highly immature with wide-ranging opinions about the future of climate change.

Although first published 67 years ago, Nineteen Eighty-Four is now more relevant than ever. University of Florida linguist M. J. Hardman summed up the important role language plays in societal control when she wrote in her paper Language and War (2002), “language is inseparable from humanity and follows us in all our works. Language is the instrument with which we form thought and feeling, mood, aspiration, will and act[ion], the instrument by whose means we influence and are influenced.”

It is not surprising, then, that language tricks like Orwell’s duckspeak are being used to justify the unjustifiable in the war of words over global warming.


Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (

Print Friendly

Tom Harris of ICSC Explains Damage Done by “Climaphobia”!


May 16, 2016: “Ontario’s Green Energy Fiasco — A Cautionary Tale For The United States,” by Tom Harris, published in The Daily Caller, Washington D.C. The Daily Caller writes, “The Daily Caller readership has grown to more than 16.5 million unique visitors per month and draws more than 59 million monthly pageviews.”

“For an increasing fraction of the world’s population, the real climate crisis is not the possibility that dangerous human-caused global warming may someday occur. It is the damage being caused today by government policies to supposedly mitigate climate change.

“Ontario provides a tragic example.”

“Climate change activists might argue that it would be worthwhile to let millions of people suffer today to save billions in the future from climate change catastrophe they claim is right around the corner if we do not change the way we generate energy. But then they would be faced with providing convincing evidence that scientists are able to meaningfully forecast future climate states. They would have to show why the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was wrong when, in their 2001 Assessment Report, they wrote, “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

Read whole article.


Click here to see map of regions in Ontario that have come out opposed to the installation of industrial wind turbines (IWTs).

Click here to visit Mothers Against Wind Turbines, the Web site of Shellie Correia, the mother of 15 year old Joey who took the picture to the right.

Click here to watch a protest against IWTs in Toronto.

Click here to visit Save the Eagles International, “an organization regrouping bird lovers, ornithologists and associations from 14 countries, who think that we cannot count on mainstream ornithologists and bird societies to save bird life from the windfarm threat.”

Click on image above to enlarge!


Those with “Nothing to hide, hide nothing….Climate alarmists hide it all!

Court Orders Release of White House Climate Documents


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has won a case against the White House, forcing the release of documents pertaining a climate video created by White House Science AdvisorJohn Holdren. When the content of Holdren’s climate video challenged under the federal Information Quality Act, the White House claimed the video was the “personal opinion” of John Holdren, not an official communication, and therefore not subject to the Act. The newly released emails allegedly cast doubt on this assertion.

On January 8, 2014, the White House posted a controversial video claiming that global warming causes more severe winter cold. Called “The Polar Vortex Explained in 2 Minutes,” it featured the director of the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP), John Holdren, claiming that a “growing body of evidence” showed that the “extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States” at the time was “a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues.”

This claim was questioned by many scientists and commentators. (See, e.g., Jason Samenow, Scientists: Don’t make “extreme cold” centerpiece of global warming argument, Washington Post, Feb. 20, 2014 (linking to objection by five well-known climate scientists in the Feb. 14, 2014 issue of Science magazine); Patrick J. Michaels, Hot Air About Cold Air, Jan. 16, 2014 (former state climatologist of Virginia rejected Holdren’s claim.))

In April 2014, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) sent a request for correction of this statement under the federal Information Quality Act, citing peer-reviewed scientific articles debunking it. In June 2014, OSTP rejectedthis request, claiming that Holdren’s statement was his “personal opinion,” not the agency’s position, and that it thus did not constitute “information” subject to the Information Quality Act, which excludes “subjective opinions” from its reach.

When OSTP produced the records on March 4, 2016 (they are at this link), they showed inconsistency in OSTP’s position over time. Although OSTP told CEI in June 2014 that Holdren’s claim was just his personal “opinion,” not “information” that is subject to the Information Quality Act (IQA), this was not the position it originally took in its draft response to CEI’s request back in Spring 2014.

Instead, OSTP described Holdren’s claim in these drafts as “information provided by the government [that] meet[s] ‘basic standards of quality, including objectivity, utility, and integrity,” and constituted “communications from the White House about climate science.” (see pages 1 and 5 of each draft). Accordingly, OSTP argued it complied with the IQA’s standards for the quality of official information.

Read more:

The following is the video at the centre of this controversy.

If President Obama and John Holdren genuinely think the evidence supports their position, that Climate Change is a serious threat, why don’t they simply stand by the evidence which they believe supports their case? Why did John Holdren, in my opinion, attempt to hide behind legal technicalities, and do everything in his power to obstruct transparency, when challenged about the defensibility of alarmist statements he made about climate change?