Tag Archives: climate change

Losing the Battle

So I got this email the other day at work.

From: Bag, Douche

Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 12:41 PM

To: Everyone at Work in My Building

Subject: Kids on climate change

Hi everyone.

I know I shouldn’t do this, but I had to share this video developed by the Ontario government and featured on their climate change website.


And here’s the website:



Douche Bag

Senior Tree Hugger

(PS – I wear board shorts and flip-flops to work in an office because I’m huge prick.)

What strikes me about receiving this email is the inference on the part of the sender that all those receiving this email would be either grateful for it or accepting of its contents. There is an implied impunity to any blow-back, because if I had replied something to the effect of, “Please, in the future do not send me links to government tax-payer funded propaganda that uses little kids to hector their parents about climate-alarmism,” guess who would have been the f’n bad guy? Me. What kind of Neanderthal, anti-science, troglodyte calls this propaganda? Isn’t it the truth?!? WHO IS AGAINST TRUTH?!? EVIL PEOPLE, THAT’S WHO.

So, I debated for a few minutes responding to Mr. Bag, weighing the costs and benefits of outing myself as a “denier”. Then I came to the conclusion, as I usually do whenever I stop and not let my emotions get a hold of me, that I cannot change this person’s mind nor can I do anything other than put a giant target on my back for the eco-cultists on the 3rd floor to shoot at (with their metaphorical guns, certainly, not real guns), so what would be the point other than to start argument I cannot win.

I thought briefly about forwarding the email to Human Resources and inquiring as to whether it was appropriate to be circulating political emails at work, but then after thinking about that for several minutes also, I came to the conclusion that the interpretation at HR would likely have been “what’s political about that?” and doubtless my complaint would have gone nowhere, or equally likely they would have lazily just forwarded my email on to Douche with some kind of limp-wristed instruction to please take care in the future, and I would have been outed anyway.  We are talking after all about a company that has a “Sustainability” group that does bullshit false-economy work commissioning buildings so they achieve some kind of minimum threshold of environmental compliance and can hang a cheap looking diploma in their lobby stating that they’re LEED certified, or something like that.  Meaningless work unless you have a culture that upholds meaningless work as way of corporate virtue-signaling…. “Look how awesome and environmentally conscious a company we are!” and then they get a nice profile in some year end magazine listing the “greenest” companies to work for.

So in the end, despite my dismay at receiving an email promoting a Nazi-youth, North Korea style, climate propaganda video that speciously uses children, I lacked the courage to do anything but meekly read his email, click on the link, watch in disgust, wait a few minutes for my fuming to subside and then delete the email. I have kids to feed, a mortgage to pay, I cannot afford to make any great moral stand on something ultimately I have zero ability to influence. But oh wait – after some monkeying around with Outlook I did find a way to block the asshole so I will never see another email from him again.   That will teach him.  Next time he invites us all to one of his lunch seminars about filling out our mileage forms to comply with our commute-reduction goals, I won’t get the invite.  Straight to trash.  We have to take triumphs, no matter how small, wherever we can get them.

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

David Suzuki’s Minority Report

There he goes again, suggesting (not for the first time) that we arrest Stephen Harper for his “criminal” inaction on climate change.

We’re not the best ones to make arguments against the whole climate change hysteria, there are plenty of excellent persons and blogs that are dedicated to that cause, and we defer to them.

But it boils down to four questions about the Climate Change debate.

  1.  Is Climate Change real?

Maybe.  Sure.  The earth has gone through a great number of climate change cycles during it’s existence, including several ice ages and several hot-house periods.  They’ve found alligator bones near the Arctic Circle… did those alligators drive there in their SUV’s?  But for the sake of argument here, let’s concede that the earth is in fact warming…. again.

2. Is Climate Change man-made?

This is where the IPCC term “anthropogenic global warming”  or AGW comes in, i.e. that man made “pollutants” (if you consider carbon dioxide a pollutant) is the main cause of Climate Change.  This is more contentious.  You may get us to concede that AGW is a contributor, but to what extent?  What percentage of our current global warming can be directly attributed to our carbon dioxide emissions?  There is no answer that quantifies it.   But again, let’s concede for the sake of argument that we are contributing some appreciable amount to the current global warming.

3.  Are the effects of Climate Change catastrophic?

Here’s where we go rogue; no.  Virtually every IPCC prediction for the doomsday effects of AGW on the earth, from the early part of the century to recently have been false.  Global sea levels – more or less the same… no flooding of Miami or islands in the South Pacific.  Himalaya glaciers melted by 2013?  Just the opposite in fact,  ice caps have increased, not only in the Himalayas but in parts of the Arctic and Antarctic.  Global temperatures have more or less held steady for the past 18 years, despite claims to the contrary about the “hottest year on record” et al.  Climate models have failed to accurately predict future conditions thus far, so why are we trusting that they will get it right eventually?  The effects of Climate Change will not be catastrophic or something that we cannot adapt to.

4.  Do you trust the government to stop Climate Change?

Hell, no.  And last time we checked, there was no WORLD GOVERNMENT that could force China, India, Russia and Brazil to hold their carbon output.  Canada is a mere 1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and of that 0.7% was attributed to the oil sands, which is slowing down given global gas prices.

So, David Suzuki is an unfortunate example of that poor soul who shouts into an echo chamber and thinks his own thoughts said out loud are validation of his dumb ideas.  He cannot predict the effects of climate change, so what are we arresting Harper for?  And Harper was supposed to do what to stop global warming?

Go away old man.

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

The Perfect Symmetry of Liberal Irrationality

Stephane Dion, our Minister of Foreign Affairs was recently at the NATO meetings where they discussed primarily the mission against the Islamic State.  He rationalized Canada’s decision to pull out of participating in air strikes by citing that Canada accounted for only 2 % (2.4% actually) of the total air strikes made in recent months against the IS.  In other words, why are we bothering?  Our contribution is just token participation, we’re not really affecting any change over there.  Fair point.  Generally, we’re always in favour of substance over symbolism.

As it happens, while Dion is pulling our planes out of Syria, our new Prime Minister is doing a grand tour that will end in Paris with the grand soiree climate change conference.  And he’s promising money left right and centre to fight this that and the other thing with respect to climate change.  And his sympatico Kathleen Wynne is about to unveil a carbon tax system that will cripple the Ontario economy even further.  Rachel Notley in Alberta brought a carbon tax to Alberta with much fanfare.  Canada’s contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions?  1.6%

So, let’s get this straight… 2.4% of airstrikes against IS?  Tokenism, why bother?  1.6% of global greenhouse gas emissions?  My God, we need to do everything in our power, including tanking our manufacturing and energy sectors of the economy!  It’s a moral imperative!

Ah, liberal logic.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Evidence-Based Partisanship

The narrative that Stephen Harper’s Conservative government was a micro-managing, repressive, partisan, anti-democratic force for ill extends back to Day One of his time in power, because, of course, the number one sin of any conservative politician in the eyes of the left is electoral victory itself.  An election victory is usually explained away by the left as a “stolen” election (Bush), a duped electorate (Ford) or bought and paid for by Big Oil/Big Pharma/Big Banks/Big whatever (every conservative).  Because interpreting conservative victory at the polls as a repudiation of leftist policies cannot ever be considered as a possibility.

Take the case of federal public civil servants.  Under the incrementalist Harper, his government actually increased the size of the federal government, giving civil servants pay raises and never experiencing a federal labour strike or work stoppage of any sort.  He did almost nothing to redress the continuing imbalance between public and private sector wages/benefits/employment levels, and yet he was openly despised by said civil servants, to the point where they openly called for his defeat.

If that’s not bad enough, civil servants were recently seen cheering Trudeau cabinet ministers and booing a reporter for asking legitimate questions at a press conference.

Of course, you could argue it’s not all about the pay and benefits, but how they were treated under Harper.  They were “muzzled” under his “reign of terror” (an expression the author of the article uses 3 times, including terms such as “rule”, “regime” etc., all connoting a dictatorial leadership, not a democratically elected one, but we digress).  But is it any wonder?

Sure a conservative government might be able to find enough qualified conservatives to staff the first few levels of any bureaucracy, but it is almost impossible to fill the ranks top to bottom with conservatives – there just aren’t enough of them, and most are working in the private sector (happily) anyway.  So when your rank and file are opposed to their very own government, can you afford to have people, most of whom have no respect for the idea of trying to maintain an outward appearance of neutrality, running around questioning and bad-mouthing your policies?  No, it’s insubordination in the simplest definition of the word.

Guaranteed if a conservative-minded civil servant is brave enough to speak out against the Trudeau government that person will be censured.  But will the “muzzling” narrative be used then?  Unlikely.

And the whole “evidence-based policy” idea is something that will be explored in future posts.  But make no mistake, it’s propaganda because Liberal governments have a knack for ignoring evidence to the contrary on all sorts of issues, whether it’s proof that raising the minimum wage results in higher unemployment, to proof that raising taxes actually reduces government revenues and on and on.  Rather what this “evidence-based policy” making that these un-muzzled scientists are championing is simply code for climate change policy.  Nothing more, and yet nothing less since this union of scientists, the 97% that believe in climate change, is itself a mythology… without evidence.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wow, The Climate Changers Are Really Stretching Now

At times we’re at something of a loss on how to treat all the climate change bullshit that gets passed off as news; we here at RA being very proudly in the denier camp.  And we have a real hard time stomaching the sanctimonious preaching, the needless alarmism and the rampant hypocrisy from the climate changers of the world.

Take for example this article bemoaning the impending, inevitable end of pond hockey in Canada, all because we haven’t enacted Kyoto.  Seriously.  The article goes so far as to threaten us with never having another Wayne Gretzky ever again!  My God, Stephen Harper, aren’t you a hockey fan?  How can you in good conscience allow this to happen?  Would you stop with the robocalls just long enough to weep with the rest of us for the hundreds of thousands of displaced outdoor hockey players in our country?

Now admittedly, we’ve had a pretty warm winter here in Ontario, not warm enough to melt Heather Mallick’s brain, but pretty warm.  Reasonable people might say, OK, it happens once in a while.  And you know, last year we had a pretty stiff winter, lots of snow and plenty of downright cold days (yeah, funny how short some memories are).  And even this year, while sure we had a warm winter here, just look across the pond – Europe has had a very cold winter (yeah, funny how myopic some people’s vision is).  Lots of snow.  Lots of freezing temperatures.  They’ve had a much colder winter than normal.

So, the law of averages would seem to indicate, all is good.  And perhaps we should consider applying the law of averages over years and decades and see how we pan out.  Turns out if we did that, we’d all see things are just fine – but umm… that doesn’t work with the climate changers’ agenda, so we’ll just ignore that, along with a thousand years of climate data so we can produce incredible hockey-stick graphics for Al Gore to lie about.

And one last thing that struck as absurd in the article – how many kids are playing hockey outdoors anyways?  The article had to go all the way back to Wayne Gretzky, circa the 1970’s to find an example of a superstar raised on outdoor rinks.  With all the things kids have these days  – Xbox, Playstation, cable TV, the internet, Blu-Ray DVDs… how many kids are we talking about here?  That’s its own sad commentary on society today.

Tagged , , , ,
%d bloggers like this: