More Climate Chage Whoppers and Paid for by Ontario Taxpayers

[Anonymous]

Ontario Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk has condemned Premier Kathleen Wynne's government for using taxpayers' money to fund a 30-second commercial featuring David Suzuki.



In it, he uses apocalyptic rhetoric to scare frightened children about climate change.



Lysyk said the ad was politically partisan in that if offers viewers no useful information about climate change, seeking merely "to create a positive impression of government doing something" without explaining it.



This tactic isn't new. In the U.K. in 2010, an environmental group created an ad in which school children who refused to take part in climate change initiatives suggested by their teacher had their heads blown off, covering their horrified classmates in blood.



These efforts would be laughable were it not for the fact they represent a deliberate strategy by governments and their environmental allies to stampede the public into endorsing climate change initiatives that will not lower industrial greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions linked to claim is nonsense.



First, 100% of climate scientists agree climate change is real because the climate has been changing for billions of years, from ice ages to tropical conditions and back again.



This due to natural factors such as ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbit, the tilt of the Earth's axis, solar and volcanic activity and cloud cover. In that context, to suggest humans "cause" climate change is absurd.



The actual theory agreed to by most scientists is that GHG emissions caused by humanity's burning of fossil fuels for energy, has led to an abnormal warming of the global climate beginning in the second half of the 20th century, due to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and equivalent gases in Earth's atmosphere.



But there is no consensus among scientists that man-made climate change represents an imminent, existential threat to humanity.



Some scientists believe it does. Others believe that while anthropogenic climate change is real, it is only one of many environmental problems we face such as storing radioactive nuclear waste, cleaning up toxic waste dumps and addressing conventional air and water pollution globally.



Predicting the impact of man-made climate change in terms of precisely what will happen, where it will happen, when it will happen, how severe it will be and, most important, what measures should be taken to mitigate and adapt to it, is the least exact part of climate science.



The single most effective thing we could do would be to eliminate the world's use of coal to generate electricity. Canada is a global leader in this. Less than 11% of our electricity comes from coal, compared to 75% in China, 70% in India, 44% in Germany and 33% in the U.S.



A major reason for Canada's low usage of coal was Ontario's elimination of coalfired electricity plants in 2014, a rare good idea by the Liberal government.



When it isn't inappropriately using taxpayers' money to frighten children for partisan political purposes, that is.

[Romero]

Plenty of spin in that article! If you need to mislead to make your point...

First, 100% of climate scientists agree climate change is real because the climate has been changing for billions of years, from ice ages to tropical conditions and back again.

This was never an issue. It was never even any question. It's like saying 100% of geologists agree the Earth is round.



Yes, there is no consensus that climate change is an imminent, existential threat as in we're all going to be dead real soon. But the consensus is that climate change is a threat that will get worse.



Who to believe? The consensus of scientific experts, or some writer of a tabloid?

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/">//http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/



Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming



Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.



Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations



"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."



American Association for the Advancement of Science



"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."



American Chemical Society



"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem."



American Geophysical Union



"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes."



American Medical Association



"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant."



American Meteorological Society



"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide."



American Physical Society



"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."



The Geological Society of America



"The Geological Society of America concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s."



U.S. National Academy of Sciences



"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."



International academies: Joint statement



"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world's climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities."



List of worldwide scientific organizations



https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php">//https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

[Anonymous]

This was never an issue. It was never even any question. It's like saying 100% of geologists agree the Earth is round.



Yes, there is no consensus that climate change is an imminent, existential threat as in we're all going to be dead real soon. But the consensus is that climate change is a threat that will get worse.



Who to believe? The consensus of scientific experts, or some writer of a tabloid?

You only quoted the first part Homo-ero. You missed this First, 100% of climate scientists agree climate change is real because the climate has been changing for billions of years, from ice ages to tropical conditions and back again.



This is due to natural factors such as ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbit, the tilt of the Earth's axis, solar and volcanic activity and cloud cover. In that context, to suggest humans "cause" climate change is absurd.



Absolutely undeniable. The climate has been back and forth from day one.

The actual theory agreed to by most scientists is that GHG emissions caused by humanity's burning of fossil fuels for energy, has led to an abnormal warming of the global climate beginning in the second half of the 20th century, due to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and equivalent gases in Earth's atmosphere.



But there is no consensus among scientists that man-made climate change represents an imminent, existential threat to humanity.



Some scientists believe it does. Others believe that while anthropogenic climate change is real, it is only one of many environmental problems we face

The consensus pretty much ends that the climate is changing and always has. It is important to distinguish between the statement, which is true, that there is no scientific consensus that AGW [anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming] is or will be a catastrophe, and the also-true claims that the climate is changing (of course it is, it is always changing), and that most scientists believe there may be a human impact on climate (our emissions and alterations of the landscape are surely having an impact, though they are often local or regional (like heat islands) and small relative to natural variation).



Here are some scientists who all believe in climate change, but do not believe it is an existential threat to himanity.



Earl M. Aagaard, PhD, Charles W. Aami, Roger L. Aamodt, PhD, Wilbur A. Aanes, M. Robert Aaron, Ralph F. Abate, Hamed K. Abbas, PhD, Wyatt E. Abbitt II, Bernaard J. Abbott, PhD, David J. Abbott, MD, David M. Abbott Jr., Donald W. Abbott, Douglas R. Abbott, Eugene Abbott, Frank D. Abbott, Paul Abbott, Ursula K. Abbott, PhD, Refaat A. Abdel-Malek, PhD, Albert S. Abdullah, DVM, Alan E. Abel, MD, Jason Abel, Janis I. Abele, Joseph M. Abell, Robert E. Abell, Gene H. Abels, MD, Philip H Abelson, PhD*, Wayne Aben, Jerrold Abernathy, Marshall W. Abernathy, Grady L. Ables, Earl Arthur Abrahamson, PhD



There are a lot more scientists too who know the world faces a lot bigger challenges than a changing climate.

[Anonymous]

Ontario Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk has condemned Premier Kathleen Wynne's government for using taxpayers' money to fund a 30-second commercial featuring David Suzuki.



In it, he uses apocalyptic rhetoric to scare frightened children about climate change.



Lysyk said the ad was politically partisan in that if offers viewers no useful information about climate change, seeking merely "to create a positive impression of government doing something" without explaining it.



This tactic isn't new. In the U.K. in 2010, an environmental group created an ad in which school children who refused to take part in climate change initiatives suggested by their teacher had their heads blown off, covering their horrified classmates in blood.



These efforts would be laughable were it not for the fact they represent a deliberate strategy by governments and their environmental allies to stampede the public into endorsing climate change initiatives that will not lower industrial greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions linked to claim is nonsense.



First, 100% of climate scientists agree climate change is real because the climate has been changing for billions of years, from ice ages to tropical conditions and back again.



This due to natural factors such as ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbit, the tilt of the Earth's axis, solar and volcanic activity and cloud cover. In that context, to suggest humans "cause" climate change is absurd.



The actual theory agreed to by most scientists is that GHG emissions caused by humanity's burning of fossil fuels for energy, has led to an abnormal warming of the global climate beginning in the second half of the 20th century, due to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and equivalent gases in Earth's atmosphere.



But there is no consensus among scientists that man-made climate change represents an imminent, existential threat to humanity.



Some scientists believe it does. Others believe that while anthropogenic climate change is real, it is only one of many environmental problems we face such as storing radioactive nuclear waste, cleaning up toxic waste dumps and addressing conventional air and water pollution globally.



Predicting the impact of man-made climate change in terms of precisely what will happen, where it will happen, when it will happen, how severe it will be and, most important, what measures should be taken to mitigate and adapt to it, is the least exact part of climate science.



The single most effective thing we could do would be to eliminate the world's use of coal to generate electricity. Canada is a global leader in this. Less than 11% of our electricity comes from coal, compared to 75% in China, 70% in India, 44% in Germany and 33% in the U.S.



A major reason for Canada's low usage of coal was Ontario's elimination of coalfired electricity plants in 2014, a rare good idea by the Liberal government.



When it isn't inappropriately using taxpayers' money to frighten children for partisan political purposes, that is.

Wynn is our destructive premier's soul mate. Ontarians are paying billions more for energy than they should be because she denies the fact that Canada let alone one province cannot change the world's climate.

[Romero]

I didn't miss anything. Nobody's disputing the obvious fact that the Earth's climate has always changed. The real issue is what's happening with the climate now.

Suncor accepts the scientific consensus, publically stating that "climate change is happening and we need to take action." Energy development has an impact on the environment and we must do our part to manage and minimize our carbon footprint.



As Canada's largest energy company, Suncor has a significant role to play, both within its plant gates and as a partner in broader energy discussions and strategies.



Suncor is committed to developing long-term, sustainable solutions and being part of something that's bigger than just our company or industry. Nearly two decades ago a plan was launched to manage our GHG emissions, and we continue to invest in technology and innovation to reduce our emissions intensity.



http://www.suncor.com/sustainability/environment/climate-change">//http://www.suncor.com/sustainability/environment/climate-change

[Anonymous]

The real issue is that any current changes in climate fall within historic norms. Do costly carbon taxes/cap and trade and subsidies stop the climate from changing? Not so far they haven't.



BTW, you do know that Suncor along with my company are the biggest cheerleaders of our new carbon tax. Revenue generated from the new carbon pricing regime will be directed towards the development of potentially game-changing greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction technologies.

[Anonymous]

Ontario Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk has condemned Premier Kathleen Wynne's government for using taxpayers' money to fund a 30-second commercial featuring David Suzuki.



In it, he uses apocalyptic rhetoric to scare frightened children about climate change.



Lysyk said the ad was politically partisan in that if offers viewers no useful information about climate change, seeking merely "to create a positive impression of government doing something" without explaining it.



This tactic isn't new. In the U.K. in 2010, an environmental group created an ad in which school children who refused to take part in climate change initiatives suggested by their teacher had their heads blown off, covering their horrified classmates in blood.



These efforts would be laughable were it not for the fact they represent a deliberate strategy by governments and their environmental allies to stampede the public into endorsing climate change initiatives that will not lower industrial greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions linked to claim is nonsense.



First, 100% of climate scientists agree climate change is real because the climate has been changing for billions of years, from ice ages to tropical conditions and back again.



This due to natural factors such as ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbit, the tilt of the Earth's axis, solar and volcanic activity and cloud cover. In that context, to suggest humans "cause" climate change is absurd.



The actual theory agreed to by most scientists is that GHG emissions caused by humanity's burning of fossil fuels for energy, has led to an abnormal warming of the global climate beginning in the second half of the 20th century, due to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and equivalent gases in Earth's atmosphere.



But there is no consensus among scientists that man-made climate change represents an imminent, existential threat to humanity.



Some scientists believe it does. Others believe that while anthropogenic climate change is real, it is only one of many environmental problems we face such as storing radioactive nuclear waste, cleaning up toxic waste dumps and addressing conventional air and water pollution globally.



Predicting the impact of man-made climate change in terms of precisely what will happen, where it will happen, when it will happen, how severe it will be and, most important, what measures should be taken to mitigate and adapt to it, is the least exact part of climate science.



The single most effective thing we could do would be to eliminate the world's use of coal to generate electricity. Canada is a global leader in this. Less than 11% of our electricity comes from coal, compared to 75% in China, 70% in India, 44% in Germany and 33% in the U.S.



A major reason for Canada's low usage of coal was Ontario's elimination of coalfired electricity plants in 2014, a rare good idea by the Liberal government.



When it isn't inappropriately using taxpayers' money to frighten children for partisan political purposes, that is.

I live in Ontario. I know first hand the unnecessary pain that the Ontario Liberals destructive climate change initiatives have caused. It will make no difference to the earth's climate either. They don't care though. Their agenda is being driven by extremists who don't care little things like a cost benefits analysis.

[Romero]

The real issue is that any current changes in climate fall within historic norms.

Nope. The change is happening faster than what would happen naturally.

Let's start with a very simple, but fundamental, question: is climate change real?



Yes, we accept the prevailing scientific consensus that climate change is a real and growing global challenge and that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere.



We know our own operations have an impact on the environment and that we must do our part to manage and minimize our carbon footprint.



http://sustainability.suncor.com/2015/en/environment/climate-change.aspx">//http://sustainability.suncor.com/2015/en/environment/climate-change.aspx

Do costly carbon taxes/cap and trade and subsidies stop the climate from changing? Not so far they haven't.



BTW, you do know that Suncor along with my company are the biggest cheerleaders of our new carbon tax. Revenue generated from the new carbon pricing regime will be directed towards the development of potentially game-changing greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction technologies.

What? Carbon taxes accomplish nothing but Suncor and your company are the biggest cheerleaders? Hahahaha, I thought only envirotards wanted carbon taxes? How ironic that you, your company and the oil industry are pushing for carbon taxes and I'm not!



How very odd. Why is Suncor and your company so concerned about climate change and greenhouse gases when it's all supposed to be a hoax?

[Renee]

The real issue is that any current changes in climate fall within historic norms.

Nope. The change is happening faster than what would happen naturally.

Let's start with a very simple, but fundamental, question: is climate change real?



Yes, we accept the prevailing scientific consensus that climate change is a real and growing global challenge and that human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, is contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere.



We know our own operations have an impact on the environment and that we must do our part to manage and minimize our carbon footprint.



http://sustainability.suncor.com/2015/en/environment/climate-change.aspx">//http://sustainability.suncor.com/2015/en/environment/climate-change.aspx

Do costly carbon taxes/cap and trade and subsidies stop the climate from changing? Not so far they haven't.



BTW, you do know that Suncor along with my company are the biggest cheerleaders of our new carbon tax. Revenue generated from the new carbon pricing regime will be directed towards the development of potentially game-changing greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction technologies.

What? Carbon taxes accomplish nothing but Suncor and your company are the biggest cheerleaders? Hahahaha, I thought only envirotards wanted carbon taxes? How ironic that you, your company and the oil industry are pushing for carbon taxes and I'm not!



How very odd. Why is Suncor and your company so concerned about climate change and greenhouse gases when it's all supposed to be a hoax?

Maybe because like many energy producers and fossil fuel companies they have been investing in alternative forms of energy? It's no secret that oil and natural gas companies are playing on both sides of the fence.



There is money to be made in the business of climate change. Only dimwits think efforts to provide alternate forms of energy are done for the welfare of the planet.

[Romero]

There is money to be made in the business of climate change. Only dimwits think efforts to provide alternate forms of energy are done for the welfare of the planet.

BTW, you do know that Suncor along with my company are the biggest cheerleaders of our new carbon tax. Revenue generated from the new carbon pricing regime will be directed towards the development of potentially game-changing greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction technologies.

ac_toofunny

[Anonymous]

This book is written by climate experts. I guess they didn't consult with Romero before writing their findings.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61mxBox40FL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg">

[Romero]

Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers



Climate change is an important global issue, requiring action across industries and around the globe.



Greenhouse gases (GHG) from human activities are a significant contributor to climate change. The challenge is how to reduce GHG emissions while demand for energy – and the amount of energy the world is consuming – is growing.



http://www.capp.ca/responsible-development/air-and-climate/climate-change">//http://www.capp.ca/responsible-development/air-and-climate/climate-change

American Petroleum Institute



It is clear that climate change is a serious problem that requires research for solutions and effective policies that allow us to meet our energy needs while protecting the environment: that's why oil and gas companies are working to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.



http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/environment/climate-change">//http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/environment/climate-change

[Anonymous]

Maybe because like many energy producers and fossil fuel companies they have been investing in alternative forms of energy? It's no secret that oil and natural gas companies are playing on both sides of the fence.



There is money to be made in the business of climate change. Only dimwits think efforts to provide alternate forms of energy are done for the welfare of the planet.

You are exactly right Renee. Energy companies will be providing energy no matter if it is fossil fuels, or something else.

[Anonymous]

This book is written by climate experts. I guess they didn't consult with Romero before writing their findings.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61mxBox40FL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg">

That is an informative book.



There is no survey or study showing "consensus" on the most important scientific issues, despite frequent claims by advocates to the contrary. No where is it more obvious there are many different beliefs on global warming within the scientific community than when it comes to computer modelling used to predict the future.The results of the global climate models (GCMs) relied on by IPCC are only as reliable as the data and theories "fed" into them. A lot of climate scientists agree those data are seriously deficient and IPCC's estimate for climate sensitivity to CO2 is too high.



I believe that the climate has warmed a little and man has likely contributed to it. But, I also agree with many scientists that beyond that we really don't know what the future holds. This does not even take into the sun. The recently quiet Sun and extrapolation of solar cycle patterns into the future suggest a planetary cooling may occur over the next few decades.

[Romero]

The recently quiet Sun and extrapolation of solar cycle patterns into the future suggest a planetary cooling may occur over the next few decades.

???

March 14, 2016



Fresh data from NASA says 2015 was the hottest year ever and that February was so warm that it set new temperature records around the world.



News of the record warmth was released in the Goddard Institute for Space Study.



The NASA data indicates there was a global surface temperature last month that was 1.35 C higher that the February average between 1951 and 1980.



NASA posted a statement which called the global surface temperatures warmer last month than they've been in more than a century and a quarter.



"Earth's 2015 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern record keeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)," the NASA statement said.



"The record-breaking year continues a long-term warming trend — 15 of the 16 warmest years on record have now occurred since 2001," the statement continues.



https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/03/14/nasa-says-warm-february-set-records-worldwide.html">//https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/03/14/nasa-says-warm-february-set-records-worldwide.html