Blather and lies.

The fakery involved in the climate scam is now totally exposed, in the words of the scientists who engaged in a fraud.

"Kevin Trenberth: The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

"Michael Mann: Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations."

ClimateGate - Climate center's server hacked revealing documents and emails

http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d20-Clim...

"Read it. The conclusion looks pretty clear. These people should be put in jail as soon as possible. You know, these are not just small tricks in an academic discussion. These people have acquired millions if not billions of taxpayers' money by methods that seem to be provably fraudulent."

http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/11/hacked-hadley-cru-foi2009-files.html?u...(Lubos+Motl's+reference+frame)

Which taxpayers do these two authors represent? The evidence for anthropomorphic-caused climate change is irrefutable. Why is the Canadian Taxpayers Federation so afraid to own up to civilization's impact on the environment? Why don't they quote any research to back up their claims?

It is really easy to write down unsubstantiated claims (let me try making up a few claims, similar to their methodology):
A carbon trade program is the simplest way of introducing accountability for energy use and consumption; an important task considering the devastating effects carbon emission has on the environment. Such a program would encourage business to invest into new technologies that would ensure efficiencies in our production methods. A ten percent tax on carbon emission can lead to an equal amount of economic stimulus in the form of job creation in the technology sector of our economy. The net benefit is a healthier environment, the circumvention of run-away climate change, and a stimulus to the technology sector of the Canadian economy.

The cap and trade system provides a rare opportunity for countries like Canada, which can rely on a small tax to its seemingly endless natural resources in order to reinvest in energy efficient technologies. The welcomed stimulus to the economy in the form of new jobs, and the recognition as a world leader in new technologies are worthy outcomes for the small penalty taxing excessive use of carbon resources.

Canada, take the opportunity to become a leader in action towards climate change, so that we may all benefit from a healthier planet and a economy seen as a pioneer in green technologies.

Signed, the majority of taxpayers.

(and Arlo Bundsen)

What a load of crap. I can't believe the Straight gives these jokers a forum to spout their lies.

I’m sick and tired of the greedy, conservative and ignorant, look after myself and screw everyone else, commentary from Maureen Bader in the Georgia Straight. I’d be quite happy to see TransLink pay high carbon taxes to operate diesel buses on the trolley bus routes in Vancouver.

On only the 99 B-Line route where TransLink is operating diesel buses on the #9 and # 17 trolley bus routes, the 99 B-Line diesel buses emit 5,000 tonnes of CO2 annually. If we had TransLink pay a carbon tax of $1,000/tonne of CO2 for any diesel bus operating on a trolley bus route, maybe we wouldn’t have so many people dying from lung cancer or developing asthma from the asthma and cancer causing diesel bus emissions which the simpletons at TransLink dismiss as the cost of having “sustainable and livable” transit.

Now that Bader has outed herself as a Denier, we need to ask are the members of the CTF sympatico with her?

Almost all Neocons (Harpo, Gordo, Bader) pay lip service to environmental issues when in reality they do everything in their power to increase Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. They love Tar Sands and Big Oil.

Harpo is trying his damnedest to shut down AECL with his Nuclear Rejection Commission because he knows nuclear power will end Canadian fossil fuel use and set an example to the world on ending Global warming. Perhaps Bader is with Harpo believing in the Tim LaHaye scenario where Global warming hastens the Apocalypse making any effort to reduce greenhouse gases a very bad thing.

Cons like Bader love to enlist the support of Greenies in their election fights, using them to siphon away votes from progressive political parties who might actually do something about global warming. Fresh from Jane Sterk's successful reelection of Gordo, Elizabeth May is plotting to give Harper that environmentally destructive majority government he so desperately needs. Both are proud of the work their American counterpart Ralph Nader did in electing George Bush and scream with delight thinking of the millions of Iraq's he killed, the monumental environmental damage he caused and the depression he bestowed upon us.

Bader is right about one thing - new age “renewable” religious dogma like Green taxes and Cap n' Trade are designed by Big Oil sponsored Greenies to get the way of the solution to Global warming.

The world is starting to realize that nuclear power is the only possible answer to our less than ten years away civilization ending peak oil and climate crisis. With mass production, nuclear power costs drop from the current Asian $1.5 to under $1 billion a gigawatt cheaper than coal and 10% the least cost renewable.

Where western progressive politicians seemed to have joined the Greenies new age “renewable” religious sect, India has plans to do something about global warming with 470 gigawatts of nukes and is dumping beaucoup bucks into nuclear research. China is working the same path.

A worldwide build of 10000 reactors would be paid for by and would end fossil fuel use

In Canada, a $150 billion investment in 150 mass produced AECL nukes, would be paid for by and would end our expenditure of $100 billion annually on fossil fuel - a two year payback.

Similarily the US needs to build 2500 reactors, but is crippled by inefficient private power companies, a biased Nuclear Rejection Commission and corrupt and litigious legal system, quadrupling their nuclear costs and time frames compared to our own.

By rimming the border with AECL reactors Canada's public power companies would make $trillions selling the US nuke power at premium rates, making AECL the world leader in nuclear power, and generating a huge high paying job producing Canadian industry.

The conversion from fossil fuel to nuclear is great economics and with the current recession the industrial capacity is there. It eliminates our air pollution, creates a huge employment boosting domestic and export industry, and makes our economy far more competitive than the “renewable” powered Europe and lately the US. Even the deniers would go for it.

Canadian neocon governments have always chosen the hewers of wood drawers of water route refusing to support Canadian hitech from the Arvo Arrow to Nortel. Lets hope Harpo doesn't dump AECL.
seth

If these shills from the so-called Canadian Taxpayers Association are against it, then I'm for it. Look at the language: billions from "Canadian families" would "kill jobs", to feed "fashionable eco-guilt" for "our supposed eco-crimes" as we "leave families shivering in the dark with their budgets running on empty". The CTF always argues on behalf of corporate interests, not those of the rest of us, although their arguments are camouflaged as populist. I do think it's impossible to solve a problem caused by proliferating global capitalism using more of the tools of global capitalism, namely economics (cap and trade). But whenever I hear these people blathering on I grab my copy of James Hoggan's excellent book "Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming" as an antidote.

I for one support the principles of the Copenhagen Treaty, there is one planet and one people. Since the advent of capitalism, the European Nations and the United States have built their empires off the backs of children,men, and women from the underdeveloped nations of the world. In fact they continue to do so in many ways.

We are in this together, and we need to develop sustainable ecological economic development throughout the world so that all people may reach their potential. not just now but for future generations, is that so hard to understand and except?

Eric Chris says: "If we had TransLink pay a carbon tax of $1,000/tonne of CO2 for any diesel bus operating on a trolley bus route, maybe we wouldn’t have so many people dying from lung cancer or developing asthma from the asthma and cancer causing diesel bus emissions which the simpletons at TransLink dismiss as the cost of having “sustainable and livable” transit."

Where do you think the money for such an effort would come from? Exactly how much in Canadian dollars are you personally prepared to up your taxes to accomplish this?

You could start a sustainability fund, say $2000 per year from you and like minded associates, and sustainable transit could be built for you from the fund.

The supposed purloined items make interesting reading. I wonder if the shift from 'global warming' to 'climate change' hyperbole has resulted in more supporters, or is there a need to shift to something even less intrusive.

People, just see google news. The climate scam is exposed for the fraud it is.The news of the hacked emails is being covered Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, AP.
As Prof Ball says:
"These people controlled the global weather data used by the IPCC through the joint Hadley and CRU and produced the HadCRUT data. They controlled the IPCC, especially crucial chapters and especially preparation of the Summary for PolicyMakers (SPM). Stephen Schneider was a prime mover there from the earliest reports to the most influential in 2001. They also had a left wing conduit to the New York Times. The emails between Andy Revkin and the community are very revealing and must place his journalistic integrity in serious jeopardy. Of course the IPCC Reports and especially the SPM Reports are the basis for Kyoto and the Copenhagen Accord, but now we know they are based on completely falsified and manipulated data and science. It is no longer a suspicion. Surely this is the death knell for the CRU, the IPCC, Kyoto and Copenhagen and the Carbon Credits shell game."
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102

Those of you who have unwittingly supported a scam must now turn your energy to reversing the harm done and preventing more nonsense about "carbon footprints".