The term “climate change” should be expunged from Conservative policy not solely because it is a disingenuous obfuscation of the fact that “global warming” has failed to appear on schedule, or at all…
The unpredicted, unprojected and hypothesis-busting global warming pause or hiatus, as recognized by the IPCC and climate scientists such as Michael E Mann, demonstrates that climate models, notwithstanding data tampering, are too simplistic to be a reliable tool for understanding a complex chaotic non-linear system.
A rise in CO2 has historically followed a temperature rise making it an unlikely cause and the demonization of CO2 and confusion of that beneficial naturally occurring (plant food) gas with the solid, carbon, indicates a misplaced problem unlikely to be solved no matter the amount of money wasted.
Meanwhile the vilification and censoring of many voices which have intelligently pointed out contradictory views, such as the sun being the greater influence on climate cycles, the globe warming – which has historically permitted life on this planet to prosper – is an indication that “climate change” is theocratic dogma not science.
Even if there was any validity to current computer simulations of the effects of climate change, a core Conservative value – fiscal-responsibility – requires that we consider proper cost-benefit analyses of proposed policies. Such cost-benefit analyses of climate change policies reveal that they are all cost and no benefit.
Many, including PM Stephen Harper, have identified the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming litany as a socialist wealth-transfer scheme. To arrive at the same conclusion one need only listen to the UN’s own representatives who point out that it is not about the climate; climatism has become a sustainability religion for ‘Mother Earth’.
Vaclav Klaus, former President of the Czech Republic, was the only world leader to identify what was going on. He spoke at the Heartland Climate Conference in New York in 2004. His opening comment was that the world went through 70 years of communism, so why the hell would you want to go back to it? He made his case effectively in his book “Blue Planet in Green Shackles” where he wrote:
“It should be clear by now to everyone that activist evironmentalism (or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans, about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a “noble” idea. It is not an honest pursuit of “sustainable development,” a matter of elementary environmental protection, or search for rational mechanisms design to achieve a healthy environment.”
A thorough reading of the UN Agenda 21 and now Agenda 2030 shows how that religion insidiously becomes a totalitarian regime curtailing individual liberties and imposing a form of global governance which subsumes national sovereignty. MP Cheryl Gallant made a statement in Parliament to warn of how this central planning was affecting her own riding. Some US states have tried to ban Agenda 21 for its unconstitutionality.
The Canadian public, Americans and indeed the population of the world are admirably aware of what has become known as the climate scam despite decades of obscene amounts of propaganda… something about people fleeing south every winter perhaps!
Conservatives should run, not walk back from any kind of support for the death-cult theocracy of climate change, for it is a pernicious threat to our nation and our principles (§§2.1.5, 2.1.11 sub-sections 184.108.40.206, 220.127.116.11, 18.104.22.168 and §2.1.12). One need only look at the economic suicide of Ontario or Alberta to witness the disastrous economic and social destruction under the rubric of green. Our prosperity is our greatest defence, it permits adaptation and resilience, our fair and pragmatic response to the cyclical vagaries of our northern climate which even the UN concedes is a challenge (Chapter 1, Article 2, ¶ 1 of the UN Charter states:
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
Chapter IX, Article 55 of the UN Charter states:
With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote:
a. higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
b. solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and
c. universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
“The recent Paris agreement also recognizes that each country must act to meet the needs of its people. The fact that we are a northern country with long dark winters and extremes of temperatures… plus we export necessary goods that the rest of the world uses, should mean that our policies have to better support our people in terms of fossil fuel USE (which ours is actually lower per GDP than that of the Pacific Island Nations) …and we should not put our employable people at risk by adopting rules that will make us less competitive than other nations – especially other nations who do not follow the rules.)” – Michelle Sterling, Friends of Science
And the polar bears are doing just fine!…