Canadian rhapsody for “Climate Hustle”

“Do you think the carbon tax is going to reduce global temperatures?”  [Laughs] “NO… It’s a money transfer scheme, nothing else.”  Canadians loved Climate Hustle in Alberta, they are tired of expensive climate policies that enrich a few and do nothing meaningful for the environment.
Can we control world temperature through taxes, redistribution and regulations?
Categories

About the Author: CFACT Ed

  • marlene

    I just hope their elected leaders are as smart as the Canadian people.

  • SEGUE_C

    Sadly the current PrIme Minister is a reflection of how effective the globalist agenda has been in “dumbing down” the population and conscripting the MSM to the role of propagandists. He is as much if not more of an Agenda21 ideologue than Obama. The bureaucrats are all in place to run a totalitarian state.

    • Last night on CBC TV Vancouver the local weather girl stood bubbly in front of a huge graph and told us that August 2016 was the warmest month ever recorded on the globe. I have no idea at all what makes people willingly look and sound like idiots in front of viewers who know far better.

      • SEGUE_C

        Money or indoctrination…CAGW has been pushed by people like Maurice Strong and George Soros through the UN and their NGO groups right into schools, churches, media and the public service.

        • trevormarr

          We need Climate Hustle to be shown in schools and to the Governments!

          • Brin Jenkins

            And the UK.

        • Ian5

          And don’t forget that it’s infiltrated the likes of NASA, NOAA, universities like Harvard, Oxford and Standford as well as virtually every US, Canadian and international scientific academy. A conspiracy!

          • Immortal600

            Your sarcasm is duly noted, kook.

            • Ian5

              Noted but not refuted by the misinformer Isandhlwana79. And name calling is a technique used by propagandists.

              • Immortal600

                No, the misinformation comes from your side. My observation that you are a kook is on the money. You are a follower, a lemming. You can’t think for yourself.

                • Ian5

                  Weak deflection. Why should we believe your nonsense over the evidence-based conclusions of “…NASA, NOAA, universities like Harvard, Oxford and Standford as well as virtually every US, Canadian and international scientific academy”?

                  • Immortal600

                    The same reason we shouldn’t believe your nonsense. You can’t substantiate AGW. If you had any sense you’d realize that the academies boards make the decisions whether to support AGW. How about the members. Do all of them agree? No they don’t. None of the organizations you cite can offer evidence that AGW is real. Mann’s hockey stick is a sham. Temperature records have to keep being adjusted to fit the narrative. Your AGW hypothesis is a sham. In other words, you have nothing to support your case and appeals to authority certainly is no proof. You should know that.

                    • Ian5

                      All fluff and bluster. “None of the organizations that you cite can offer evidence that AGW is real”. Complete rubbish.

                      Start here: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Then go to your state university library and educate yourself . Then talk to faculty in the physical sciences department instead of repeating the trash talking points from the heartland institute. The multiple lines of evidence are unequivocal. You don’t understand how the positions of scientific organizations and academies are formulated, probably because you are not a member of one. There is no conspiracy.

                    • Immortal600

                      “All fluff and bluster”

                      Sums you up completely. Thank you.

                    • Ian5

                      More deflection, the usual pattern used by Isandhlwana79 and other misinformers.

                    • Immortal600

                      No deflection. It was on the money. You have nothing but appeals to authority. YOU are no scientist, so who are you to say anything?

                    • Ian5

                      And you appeal to ignorance. Refute it: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                      You’ve offered nothing but rubbish and name calling.

                    • Immortal600

                      I guess you don’t understand what “appeals to authority” actually means. Citing NASA is just an example of what I said. Don’t you get it? You can’t prove AGW or substantiate it in any way no matter what you cite. Ignorance is your game if you can’t understand the simple concept I’ve laid out.

                    • Ian5

                      No you are greatly confused. People who use the words “proof,” “prove” and “proven” in their discussion of science are not real scientists. Proofs exist in mathematics and logic, not in science. Evolution isn’t “proven” either but the evidence – via multiple lines including biochemistry, molecular biology, paleontology, etc – is unequivocal. I suggested you go to your state university library and science faculty and learn instead of repeating trash talking points.

                    • Immortal600

                      You focus on the word “proof” as if that lessens the argument. That is what you call deflection. As I said, You can’t SUBSTANTIATE AGW. Fact. All the libraries in the world don’t have the EVIDENCE either. Fact.

                    • Ian5

                      No it’s not deflection, its “proof that you don’t know what you are talking about.You haven’t been to your state library or talked to physical science faculty, have you? Of course you haven’t, you are lazy and havent read any of the science because it conflict with your personal bias. The evidence is unequivocal: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ .

                    • Immortal600

                      Appeals to authority. That is all you have. I don’t know what I’m talking about? How rich coming from the non scientist himself.

                    • Ian5

                      No you don’t. Nor have you produced or referenced any scientific evidence. Just the usual trash talking points.

                    • Immortal600

                      So have you. Your talking points are trash. You got something else? We can go round and round like this all you like. You can’t substantiate AGW no matter what you post. The sky is not falling. Relax.

                    • Ian5

                      Have you ever been to a library, done any scietific research or talked to a climate scientist?

                    • Immortal600

                      Yes I have. Your point? You have to be aware that there is much disagreement as to what CO2 is doing to the climate. Saying that it redirects IR therefore it drives climate is simplistic and wrong.

                      You got something else? Haven’t you figured it out yet that you are wasting your time here? It is evident that you are no scientist so how do you expect to change anyone’s viewpoint on the subject? There is nothing bad happening as a result of extra CO2. Open your eyes and look around. That is a fact.

                    • Ian5

                      Tell us then…what scientific research have you done and what climate scientists have you met with? Who exactly? Give us some names.

                    • Immortal600

                      What difference would it make to you? You would either not believe me or figure some excuse not to accept the facts. Your mind is closed on the subject.

                      As I said, do you think you are achieving anything here? You are an AGW zealot. I’m not concerned with what you think of my viewpoint on AGW. I know it’s false and the climate and time are proving me right.

                    • Ian5

                      No evidence, no sources, no science, no credibility.

                    • Immortal600

                      Same with you, EXACTLY. How ironic.

                    • Dano2

                      Comical flail. Pointing to supporting scientific evidence not only is a comical knee-jerk “appeal to authority” parrot phrase, but also contains “no evidence, no sources, no science”.

                      Amusements abound!

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Immortal600

                      Coming from a kook, that is hilarious. This is the only response you’ll get from me, kook.

                    • Dano2

                      More comical flail.

                      Free amusement from this one, guaranteed!

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Ian5

                      Tell us what scientific research have you done and what climate scientists have you met with? Who exactly? Give us some names.

                      Can’t produce any? No evidence, no sources, no science, no credibility.

                    • Immortal600

                      Tell us…..tell us…….Go away, fool. You are a non scientist sucked in by AGW. YOU can’t substantiate it and YOU know that (if you have half a brain). YOU have no credibility here. I could not care less what you think my credibility is. My validation isn’t dependent on fools like YOU.

                    • Ian5

                      Even more flailing! You criticize nasa and noaa yet are unable to refute any of their statements, science or evidence. Clearly you have no credibility.

                    • Immortal600

                      You want to keep repeating that so you believe it? SO WHAT??? I don’t care what YOU think. You can’t substantiate AGW and THAT is the bottom line fact! That must irritate you to no end and that is why you give your feeble responses. I just laugh at fools like you.

                    • Ian5

                      No you are sadly mistaken. The scientific evidence for human-caused climate change is unequivocal. I have pointed you to multiple independent sources. You have been unable to refute any of it and seem only capable of name-calling. I’m not irritated, just mildly amused by your absurd and childish behaviors.

                    • Immortal600

                      No it isn’t. Why do you think so many highly educated folks don’t accept it? I don’t need to refute anything, something you AGW zealots don’t seem to understand. It is up to you to substantiate it and you can’t. That is a fact you just don’t seem to understand and all you can do now is call names. Grow up.

                    • Ian5

                      “Why do you think so many highly educated folks don’t accept it? “I don’t need to refute anything,”

                      Which highly educated folks? Please share.

                      “I don’t need to refute anything”.

                      Opinion without evidence is pretty worthless…you have no credibility.

                    • Immortal600

                      No credibility? Applies to you, troll. You have NONE.

                    • Ian5

                      Amusing flail! No evidence, no sources, no science, no credibility.

                    • Immortal600

                      Amusing response! Still can’t substantiate AGW. How about that!

                    • Dano2

                      You lack capacity to grasp all the evidence you have been given, multiple times over two screen names, by numerous commenters.

                      It is your failure of understanding. Ian has typed slowly for you, used small words, used common in-group identifiers to engage your cerebral cortex….nothing. Nothing registers. Nada. Nil. Null set. Nichts. Zero. Zip. Zilch, Squat.

                      Likely the cause of the amusing regression to lashing out.

                      Two centuries of physics and chemistry that CO2 keeps them thar earf from bein an ice ball:

                      Fourier, J.B.J. 1827. On the Temperatures of the Terrestrial Sphere and Interplanetary Space. Memoires de l’Academie Royale de Science 7: 569-604.

                      Tyndall, J. 1861. On the absorption and radiation of heat by gasses and vapours, and on the physical connection of radiation, absorption, and conduction. Philosophical Magazine Series 4, 22: 169-194, 273-285.

                      Arrhenius, S. 1896. The influence of the carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground. Philosophical Magazine, Series 5, 41: 237-276.

                      Chamberlin, T.C. 1897. A group of hypotheses bearing on climatic changes. Journal of Geology 5: 653-683.

                      Chamberlin, T.C. 1898. The influence of great epochs of limestone formation upon the constitution of the atmosphere. Journal of Geology 6: 609-621.

                      Chamberlin, T.C. 1899. An attempt to frame a working hypothesis of the cause of glacial periods on an atmospheric basis. Journal of Geology 7: 545-584, 667-685, 751-787.

                      Callendar, G.S. 1938. The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 64: 223-237.

                      Callendar, G.S. 1949. Can carbon dioxide influence climate? Weather 4: 310-314.

                      Plass, G.N. 1956a. Effect of carbon dioxide variations on climate. American Journal of Physics 24: 376-387.

                      Plass, G.N. 1956b. The influence of the 15-micron carbon dioxide band on the atmospheric infrared cooling rate. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 82: 310-324.

                      Plass, G.N. 1956c. The carbon dioxide theory of climatic change. Tellus 8: 140-154.

                      Revelle, R. and Suess, H.E. 1957. Carbon dioxide exchange between atmosphere and ocean and the question of an increase of atmospheric CO2 during the past decades. Tellus 9: 18-27.

                      Callendar, G.S. 1958. On the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Tellus 10: 243-248.

                      Callendar, G.S. 1961. Temperature fluctuations and trends over the earth. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 87: 1-12.

                      Plass, G.N. 1961. The influence of infrared absorptive molecules on the climate. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 95: 61-71.

                      Collection of the science that addressed the Detection and Attribution problem and empirically determined that the increase in CO2 is from man, and that these emissions warm the earth:

                      http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf
                      https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/drafts/fgd/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter10.pdf
                      http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap18_FINAL.pdf

                      The history of it all, in one place, with many links for verification and education:

                      https://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

                      Experiments confirming all this:

                      Feldman, D.R. 2015. Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010. Nature 519 pp. 339–343.
                      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

                      Press release explaining results: http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

                      You have nothing to refute this fact. Nada. Nil. Null set. Nichts. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Jack. Bupkis. Squat. Diddly.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Immortal600

                      Comical flail, as you would say. hahahahahaha

                      Nada. Zip. Bupkis, too !! hahahahahaha

                      You are a troll and KOOK and everyone here knows it. You have a severe psychological disorder and should seek help. No more response to you today, KOOK.

                    • Dano2

                      You can’t refute a single byte of my comment.

                      Not one.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • mrpoohead

                      Hmmmmm, pot, kettle a little tarnished perhaps. Try this next time you’re in the bathroom – “mirror, mirror on the wall who is the dumbest of them all”. Unless Peatro has followed you in, you’re looking at him.

                    • Ian5

                      Have you gone to the library yet like i suggested? Read any journals? Met with any scientists?

                    • Immortal600

                      I have concluded you are a KOOK just like Dano. No more responses to you either.

                    • Ian5

                      I’ll take that as a no. No interest in informing or educating yourself. Have you ever been to a library? It can be a great experience and would be good for you.

                    • mrpoohead

                      Yes, don’t be so damn silly – this is were National Enquirer and Mad get all their ideas. Duh! Only visit here (and all the other idiotic alt-right sites) if you want the low down on dumbass.

                    • Peatro Giorgio

                      Highly Educated merely means They are book smart. It doesn’t mean your are unable to be brainwashed, munipulated persuaded, or decieved. In fact I have many highly educated Friends who posses zero common sense. Yes Many chose to secure,Masters degrees other went on to secure their Doctorates. I ended with 3Bachelor s . The only thing I regret is the time I wasted perusing the 3 Bachelors degrees. (What a waste of 8 years of nights. ) When I should have pent those evenings with my daughter. Thank God I awoken to the reality Book smart doesn’t equate to intellect, NorE does it increase common sense. Final point the first two years of college were reviewing revisiting those things we had already learned in Grammer & High school.

                    • Ian5

                      Thanks for the insights. Why not share them with your admirer immortal600. He is the one who employed the term “many highly educated folks”. I was merely quoting him. Thanks again!

                    • mrpoohead

                      You’re a liar!

                    • mrpoohead

                      You’re a dummy – try Spellcheck. Pleaseeeeeeeeeee!

                    • mrpoohead

                      Please apply for a refund from you place of education – it hasn’t gone in and how you passed with your English skills I have no idea. Were the colleges in another language? Uni for Dimwits and Retards perhaps?

                    • Immortal600

                      Peatro, Ignore the trolls. They are kooks best ignored. They have nothing but insults.

                    • mrpoohead

                      No insults – just truth and fact instead of gibberish.

                    • Peatro Giorgio

                      What it is that you presume to be Fact is neither fact or truth . The truth is Theories abound promoted by some who call themselves scientist, When in fact all they real are is plagiarizer’s,Manipulators of evidence. You may wish to read up on several reports Published By 4 NASA scientist, now Politically silenced. Their areas of expertise are Oceanography, Meteorology, & Climatology. These studies,these reports were in deed Peer reviewed. These reports absolutely counter your contrary views on Global warming. Neither of theses scientist used the method ,for which The fake ass scientist use.The method used by these fake ass frauds, paid government liars is as follows; They have rejected precise temperature readings. Instead they have always rounding off to the higher degree points of ocean water temperature reading. Rather then rounding to the closest degree point. Whether higher or lower. The product for which they the frauds have publish is highly deceptive, extremely fraudulent. These non science clowns Falsely claim oceanic temperatures are rising ! ” Horse crap ” .003 of a degree over twenty years. Is not nor has ever been consider anything other then a Bleep. Now we are entering upon a cooling off period .As our Suns solar flare ups are beginning to subside after over 80 years of high activity. Hence the very reason, Antarctica’s ice sheets have increased by 95 billion cubic feet.

                    • Immortal600

                      Peatro, thank you. Well done.

                    • Peatro Giorgio

                      Immortal600 Your very welcome! Most important thought in my mind is to never remain silent . Especially when I posses full or nearly full knowlegde of particular subject matter. When then I either read or hear spoken incorrect , deceptive,misleading or fraudulent information. Over the many years I have witness many,who other wise iwhere ntelligent folks. They Who unbenouced, or purposely fell into self deception. Yes willingly believing what they had wished to be True. Just as the many UN phonies, this administration,the dumbo rat party ,some moronic rino republicans & many government sponsored, funded fake scientist. These goid people see what they precieved to be a problem ,do in large part for the simple reason they have heard a lie repeated over an over again by many coconspiritors. These folks have read either a few or multiple academia provide articles, or supposedly peer reviewed studies only to find months or even years later,their results were not only entirely or mostly wrong. But rather absolutely wrong. They then also soon discover those who reviewed the studies ,reports, papers were part an parcel to the original conspiracy to decieve in order that they may continue to recieve goverment funding. Lets get back to the basics the fundamentals of science. Suggest go to your local library pick up some 1979s Earth science books as well a few Earth’s history books. Look for those books published during the 1970’s Yes those were the years when then actual Earth’s history & Earth science had not been manipulate, infected by Political correctness.

                    • Ian5

                      Wacko conspiracy theory drivel with no sources or supporting arguments.

                    • Peatro Giorgio

                      Thank you for the response .For you are in deed the living epitome ,of the naive,gullible type I had referred to . Yes one who has read much of the lunatic far left Academia dribble.
                      With out ever giving a single thought as to Actual Earth history or Earth science. Though you are one of the rare few exception to the rule. That exception is you fall with in the spectrum of the irrational ,illogical & of course utterly ignorant type .

                    • Ian5

                      Ok smarty pants, point us to some of that thar “Actual Earth history and Earth science”. Please share some of your sources.

                    • mrpoohead

                      So says Einstein. Ha, ha, ha!

                    • mrpoohead

                      Eleven spelling or grammatical errors, I think. Obviously academia not your calling.

                    • Peatro Giorgio

                      O ,Y, Yes of course;conspiracy theories abound when the multitudes are rather Gullible, Naive & Ignorant. You My tiny minded little friend happen to qualify under all three conditions. So rather then stroking your tiny little dick all day? How about reading some highly insightful information. Such as the following article Published in the Business Insider. Author of said article one Gus Lubin.
                      On April 11th,2012. Title of said article ( 49 Former NASA scientist send letter Disputing Climate change ). Or how about this Peer reviewed study Finds Majority of scientist Skeptical of Global warming Posted in Forbes On 02/13/2013.
                      Or how about this article Published On Global research.ca on 09/21/2013 More then 1,000 international Scientist Dissent over-man made Global warming . Or if your inclined to continue to improve your knowledge Read this article
                      Published in the Wall street Journal on 05/26/2014 Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer Title of said article The Myth of Climate change 97% WSJ.
                      Then we have another Article Published In the National Association of Scholars. title : Estimated 40 Percent of Scientist Doubt Man made Global warming. This list has continued to grow. ” Moron “

                    • mrpoohead

                      “Conspiracy theories” – you mean like the drivel that comes out of your mouth? Celts, Latins, Trump employment, passports, dual nationality……………..the list just keeps mounting up doesn’t it. Aren’t I a woundeful teacher – you have learnt so much since we have been conversing. Numero Uno – you’re an idiot!

                    • Peatro Giorgio

                      ( U=USELESS Dead from the neck up IDIoT)

                    • mrpoohead

                      Nicht, nada, nowt – dummy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                    • Dano2

                      Denialists are so easily duped. Standard fare.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Peatro Giorgio

                      NOW U HAVING CHOSEN TO JOIN THE RANKS OF THE DEAD FROM THE NECK UP USELESS IDIOTS SOCIETY . WITH A USER NAME SUCH AS DANO2 THAT WAS NOT UNEXSPECTED.

                    • mrpoohead

                      Must be one of your relatives then – duh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                    • mrpoohead

                      It comes to him in a dream, that and Santa Claus.

                    • mrpoohead

                      Yes, please show everyone what a retarded monkey you are.

                    • Peatro Giorgio

                      Well the monkey is on your back ” Moron “. Google Business Insider ,Search for the following Article (49 former NASA Scientist send a letter disputing Climate change .) Article Authored By GUS LUBIN
                      Written an Published on April 11th,2012.

                    • mrpoohead

                      Actually you remain the “monkey” I was referring to your appalling, again, language and grammar, plus the complete and utter lack of coherence. Am not really interested in the subject matter, as both sides of the Climate Change issue I regard as idiots, wasting time and money on debating an unprovable point from either perspective. The money would be better spent elsewhere.

                      Now; what happened to all the other “issues” and your amusing use of the English language. Celts, Latins, Executive Orders and the new made up “Actions”……………………..still not winning anything are you. Hopefully they’ll let you back into school soon.

                    • Peatro Giorgio

                      What is it that you have presumed I wished to win? O how Broadly you’ve painted a false narrative. Rather falsely ! One might add. As if one had attempted to win. On the contrary I merely educated the ill-informed the ill-educated. Now having shut down your ignorance. As it relates to no evidence.
                      Of man caused global warming; Or ancient Italy you my tiny minded little friend attempt to take a back door exist. Still waiting on your answer to Troglodytes excrement consuming Monad’s On to the tribal group the Latins. They were neither Celtics or Vikings. In fact had your read anything of south eastern European History what one would soon discover Moron ! Is This; The Hordes were a highly diverse group! A collection of France,British-Celtics, Germans, and others. Who were the slave soldiers .Whether by forced or treaty into Roman military. They The Celtics were known to the Romans as the Gaulish. Those Gauls Concurred Frances Not Italy Dumb ass Though they did plunder and pillage some more north western regions of old world Italy .However they never manage to enter that area in which my ancestry originated .Which of course was the Italian and Austrian Alps region Yes We of the Mountain People ! Yes of the original Latins Tribe. Julies Caesar crushed your dumb asses. As for the Celtics ever controlling any portion of old world Italy horse crap’ola. You failed history 101. Go ahead say it thank you teacher.
                      YOU ARE WELCOME STUDENT.

                    • mrpoohead

                      Which would be wonderful if you actually had any facts that had any element of truth to them.

                      you seem to have a big problem with sport and history: Celtic, Scottish football team. Celtics, basketball team – don’t think the Romans played. Celts – tribe in Europe.

                      Celt tribes were easy to beat as they were mostly independent of each other.

                      North east Italy – check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauls
                      Look at the map doofus.

                      The Latins were from Lazio or Roma – duh! Latins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latins. A little bit – they got lucky.

                      The Celts were mostly mercenaries and fought for all sorts, including the Carthaginians against Romans. Same in the Balkans – give them the prize of gold, sacking and raping they’re happy.

                      If you wish to be a teacher I suggest you learn to use Spellcheck and edit a bit. I think in future I would like you to provide references for your missives or I can’t be bothered. I was going to point out your errors in the language and grammar area. However I ran out of fingers to keep score too quickly. References to substantiate anything please. You ain’t got none as you’re stupid.

                    • Peatro Giorgio

                      Just as I had assumed . Your source of History or any other information. Comes directly From the one source which States in theit Declaration We are not responsible for the content or subject matters post with in.This is an open form where anyone may post comments or information whether factual or not. WE do not an are not responsible for their research. For all anyone knows your the idiot posting bullshit history on Wikipedia. That in all likelihood is more true then not.Right dumb ass.

                    • mrpoohead

                      Whereas your reference is Santa Claus? Thought so – probably a little help from the Tooth Fairy too?

                      Wikipedia lists the references at the bottom – just follow. Still beats Santa Claus, except for pressies.

                    • Peatro Giorgio

                      (U=USELESS IDIOT)

                    • mrpoohead

                      My daughters want to know if you can convey their Xmas requests as you obviously have an inside track?

                    • mrpoohead

                      Think that’s you actually! Big time. Facts over Santa – wins! Well not on December 25th.

                    • Peatro Giorgio

                      Funny How your previous comment happen to have landed in my spam file folder .
                      Much like your Faux facts Gmail considered your comments garbage spam trash. ” Fiction ” is your moniker just as Santa Claus Is a fairy tale for children so to are your posted comments. This year for your new Years eve wish; you might wish for a Brain ” Okay” So I meant to say a functional brain.

                    • mrpoohead

                      I can only hope that you are merely “winding me up” – I cannot believe you are stupid enough to believe your rhetoric and be so unbelievably naive and ignorant. Ireland? Latins? Dual nationality? Really? Just what planet of stupid are you from?

                    • Ian5

                      “Now we are entering upon a cooling off period”

                      According to who? Absolute rubbish. Look at the temperature record:
                      http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

                    • Immortal600

                      Readjusted temperature figures by a government entity that is biased on the subject is what you Brits like to call “RUBBISH”.

                      NOAA, NASA, HADCRUT, are all in the tank for AGW. You should be embarrassed to even use them as sources.

                    • Ian5

                      It’s a conspiracy! Show us your sources then.

                    • Immortal600

                      I don’t need to. Anyone with half a brain can see it plain as day. They have readjusted temperature figures under a guise of having “better understanding” of the methodology. Fact. I am not surprised that you are unaware of that. You are the type of person that automatically believes anything a government entity tells you. Sad.

                    • Ian5

                      No sources…exactly. You don’t have anything. You just make stuff up.

                    • Immortal600

                      Pretty much like AGW, I’d say

    • ninetyninepct

      A totalitarian State is what many of us see coming. The Trudeau government has no intention of protecting Canada and Canadians. Does he not wonder why restricted firearm courses, registrations and purchases have increased? We are being forced to start preparing to defend ourselves and our families. The only thing worse than new official RCMP uniform of pink hijabs would be to replace the RCMP Musical Ride horses with goats which would finish the job of making themselves a world wide laughing stock.

      Islam hates democracy so having muslima police members is yet another small step by Trudeau to Muslimize Canada. Enforcing Democratic laws violates Islam therefore the Koran demands they be executed. They can’t have it both ways. Arm yourself.

  • Peatro Giorgio

    The only benefits of the carbon taxes Will be to those selling the unneeded unnecessary equipment,products, those in acting aon the enforcement of environmental regulations. And Yes! The lying politcal hacks who continue to decieve , out right lie. As if Mankind has any control over Mother earth an Her huge Sister the Sun. These unneed unnessasry enviromental regulations hurt far more then they shall ever help. In fact not a single cent of carbon tax will ever produce a single benefit to the false narrative of man caused global warming. These unneeded ridiculous imposed regulation shall an will cause further job loses further homelessness, far more delapitated roads streets bridges ,public schools,public housing. For those Revenues needed for rebuilding will instead go into the pockets of the legal thieves an liars. Instead of imposing huge carbon taxes we should impose huge fines for Dumping trash Hume wast into our seas oceans an water ways. Slowly we are killing not only sea life but our selves. Without sea creatures all life on earth is dead.
    Climate ,Change Global warming is a normal recurring act of mother nature beginning day one of earth’s History. 4 plus billion years ago. Continuosly ,Cooling & heating up ,then cooling back down again an again on a regular schule on earth. Carbon IS NOT A POLUTANT.We an all animals of the Animal kingdom exhale carbon dioxide. Which then all plant life obsorbeds. THE PLANT LIFE NEEDS TO THRIVE . IN RETURN THOSE PLANT produce AN RELEASE oxegen with which WE AN ALL OF THE ANIMAL KINDOM need to LIVE AN thrive.

    • VACornell

      Why cannot this erudite person spell and…

      • Peatro Giorgio

        Well thank you for your praise. As well thanks for pointing to all my Grammatical errors. Truth be told when one is on a rather tight schedule. One usually winds up with many errors . Especially when one hasn’t taken a moment to edit Compounded with rather large hands an thick fingers while attempting to post comments on a cell phone.

  • trevormarr

    Great job from the Rebel and CFACT!!!

  • disqus_A0AITsAh0Z

    Whose “book” is being referred to at 2:55? Would like a copy.

    • mtnrat

      The Destroyers: Rachel Notley and the Ndp’s War on Alberta

  • Concerned

    The Carbon Tax benefits ONLY the “money changers.” This has proven to be the case every time it has been tried. Any sane person will understand that this will increase the cost to the middle class, force companies to shut down any heavy manufacturing and move it off-shore to those countries who have the cheap energy. This results in loss of jobs and a reduction in the U.S. quality of living. As a result, the total CO2 will keep increasing and will have NO IMPACT on reducing global temperatures, only mother nature can do this along with help from the sun.

  • Immortal600

    We have 3 Kooks who are trolling this article. Flag all their comments. That is what they deserve. Ban their garbage from this site.

    • Ian5

      If you substantiated your many ridiculous claims with science, evidence and sources, and refrained from childish name-calling, the dialogue on this site might be more fruitful.

      • Immortal600

        You are a KOOK. That is it. NO MORE, CLOWN

        • Ian5

          Name-calling is a frequent strategy used by propagandists.

  • Immortal600

    I have just blocked the 3 KOOKS that are trolling this site. I will not even look at their inane garbage any more. I suggest all flag their comments. Have them BANNED. They offer nothing to the debate but trolling.

    • Ian5

      And your incessant and childish name-calling is somehow acceptable?