It is quite unfortunate that a man like Mr. Carr, former CEO of the Ontario Power Authority, who has known for a long time, the problems with wind energy, declined to step forward until now.
Many families in the province have had their lives ruined while he and his colleagues remained silent.
That said, maybe his words will encourage others to step forward.
I want to take this opportunity to thank all those who refused, to shut up, lay down or go away. Be proud of the fight you have, and continue to wage. Truth and justice are always worth the effort.
May other citizens learn from your example.
Jan Carr, former OPA CEO, will now tell you exactly what we have been saying for years.
Thanks for coming forward Mr. Carr, and welcome aboard the truth train.
Mr. Carr’s letter to the Globe and Mail.
Green, not dumb
Toronto — My wife suggested Murray Campbell’s use of “old” in “dumb old utility guys” should be my basis for a complaint to a human rights tribunal (‘Dougs’ Take Warning: Curious George Is Keen On Green – Sept. 25), as the former CEO of the Ontario Power Authority.
Let the facts speak for themselves. The OECD’s International Energy Agency and the websites of the European utilities themselves say it all. In spite of hype about their innovation in renewable energy, both Germany and Denmark derive half of their electricity from coal-fired stations. As its nuclear generating stations reach the end of their design-lives, Germany will have to decide between building new coal-fired generation (it already has 10 times the amount that Ontario has) and abandoning its no-new-nuclear policy. With a quarter of its supply coming from renewables and more on the way, Ontario’s electricity is already considerably greener than Germany’s and soon will take league leadership from Denmark.
Then check electricity prices. Germans pay double and Danes triple what Ontarians do.
From the Globe and Mail
Today at noon, Ontario’s 672MW’s of wind were producing 32MW’s
Gore and Suzuki keep saying the debate is over. I can’t find any evidence of a debate ever taking place.
According to the CoR “democracy has failed and new forms of governance are required” and “a common enemy must be found, one either real or invented, to unite humanity.” They then state that “in searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
Sounds like global warming was picked as a vehicle and the science was constructed to fit a predetermined outcome. That might explain why debate has never taken place. It might also explain why Gore turned down the invitation and the money from the Heartland Institute. John Coleman might be on the right track. Put up or shut up Mr. Gore and Mr. Suzuki
John Coleman, who founded the weather network in 1982, suggests suing for fraud proponents of global warming, including Al Gore, and companies that sell carbon credits.
“Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question,” Coleman said.
“Since we can’t get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue,” Coleman said. “I’m confident that the advocates of ‘no significant effect from carbon dioxide’ would win the case.”
Ethanol and wind farms are being used by large corps to extract money from your pocket via taxes. Ethanol is nothing more than burning food crops for profit. Think about it – burning food.
Is the National post is the last paper in Canada?
The media snowjob on global warming
Ronaldo Schemidt, AFP, Getty ImagesAl Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize, not a science award.
Just how pervasive the bias at most news outlets is in favour of climate alarmism — and how little interest most outlets have in reporting any research that diverges from the alarmist orthodoxy — can be seen in a Washington Post story on the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), announced last week in New York.
The NIPCC is a counter to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. The group was unveiled this week in Manhattan at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, along with its scientific report claiming that natural factors — the sun, El Ninos and La Ninas, volcanoes, etc, — not human sources are behind global warming.
The Washington Post’s first instincts (not just on its opinion pages, but in its news coverage, too) were cleverly to sew doubt of the group’s credibility by pointing out to readers that many of the participants had ties to conservative politicians, such as former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher, and that the conference sponsor — the Heartland Institute — received money from oil companies and health care corporations.
That’s standard fare, and partly fair, so that’s not what I am talking about.
The insidiousness I am referring to is the unfavourable way the Post compared the NIPCC report to the IPCC’s famous report of last year.
After reminding readers that the IPCC and former U.S. vice-president Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for their work on climate change, the paper then, sneeringly, added: “While the IPCC enlisted several hundred scientists from more than 100 countries to work over five years to produce its series of reports, the NIPCC document is the work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of them not scientists.”
First of all, the IPCC and Mr. Gore won the Peace Prize, not a science prize, which only proves they are good at politics. They didn’t win the Physics Prize, for instance.
Also, while the former vice-prez may have invented the Internet (by his own admission), he is demonstrably not a scientist. Yet in the same paragraph as the Washington Post lionizes Mr. Gore for his work saving the planet, it backhands non-scientists for meddling in the climate change debate, never once showing any hint it recognized its own hypocrisy.
And the paper displays its utter lack of intellectual curiosity, too.
I want to thank the Heartland Institute and the scientists for their dedication and hard work involved in exposing the scam that is global warming.
Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change
“Global warming” is not a global crisis
We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,
Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;
Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;
Recognising that the causes and extent of recently observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;
Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing, human suffering;
Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:
That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.
That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.
That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.
That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.
That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.
Now, therefore, we recommend —
That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth.”
That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.
Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008
As went the Jews so do we follow: with nary a whimper
Hitler would be proud
McGuitny – Bring on your Czar
March 29 I will have ever light on in my house. I might just go buy more and turn them on as well.
I have always had the greatest respect for the environment but this has nothing with the environment. This has to do with you giving up your rights as human beings.
Join me on the 29th. Protest this bullshit by turning on, not off, your lights. Send a message to McGuinty and his Czar.
Queen’s Park Bureau
Premier Dalton McGuinty has appointed a climate change czar to lead Ontario’s fight against global warming.