Canada's Climate Barbie Dumber than Wood

Climate fanatics promoting hysterical predictions of an imminent climate apocalypse remain dumbfounded that there are those like me, who put little stock into their dire predictions of impending gloom and doom.
And so in order to frighten the unbelievers, these climate doomsayers and their political allies ramp up the pressure by making more and more outlandish predictions.

The latest prediction is that the world has but a scant ten or twelve years to turn things around before it is too late and we face an irreversible climate disaster.

This prediction which is meant to frighten disbelievers into action has quite the opposite effect on myself because I know we cannot possibly do what the climate-doomsayers tell us what we must in order to avert disaster.
It is like a hockey coach telling his team which is losing 5-1 with a minute left in the game that they should just push harder in order to win. It isn't going to happen.

I remember that just before the great housing crash of 2006-7 all the experts were pooh-poohing the one investor, Peter Schiff, who predicted with dead accuracy the upcoming financial meltdown. The experts told all who would listen (and we all listened) that the good times would continue to roll along.
Financial experts like Arthur Laffer and Mike Norman went on television citing statistics and fundamentals proving beyond a shadow of a doubt why Schiff was dead wrong. Watch a hilarious video of the idiots and their predictions.
The investment world believed this so-called 'expert consensus ' and subsequently lost gazillions in the crash.
What's the point? Many of these same idiots who were dead wrong then, are back on TV today telling us what to do with our money and predicting how the market will perform tomorrow.
So much for consensus.
As they say..... “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”

And so it brings us to the granddaddy of climate-hoaxers, Al Gore, who started the panic, telling us like Chicken Little, that the sky is falling.
His predictions, amongst others, that by today we would all be underwater due to the melting of the polar ice caps has proven to be wrong, or worse a hoax.
At least Gore has the humility to shut up today and say no more.

Then there is the famous 'hockey stick' graph in which scientists presented a dramatic increase in the rise of CO2.
Turns out that British climate scientists deliberately fudged the numbers as was discovered when incriminating emails were publicized by way of a whistle-blower.

The so-called 97% scientist consensus around global-warming is widely cited as irrefutable proof that science is overwhelmingly on the side of man-made global warming.
But the statistic is largely based on papers published. Ask yourself what scientist in his or her right mind would dare to publish a paper decrying the myth of man-made global warming. It would be career suicide and by the way, what university or government would dare fund research debunking the popular theory? None.

Canada's Fraser Institute shot down the 97% myth rather handily;

Not only is there no 97 percent consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues

“Like so much else in the climate change debate, one needs to check the numbers. First of all, on what exactly are 97 per cent of experts supposed to agree? In 2013, U.S. President Barack Obama sent out a tweet claiming 97 per cent of climate experts believe global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous.” As it turns out, the survey he was referring to didn’t ask that question, so he was basically making it up. At a recent debate in New Orleans, I heard climate activist Bill McKibben claim there was a consensus that greenhouse gases are “a grave danger.” But when challenged for the source of his claim, he promptly withdrew it...

...In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53% agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.
So no sign of a 97% consensus. Not only do about half reject the IPCC conclusion, more than half acknowledge that their profession is split on the issue.”

None of this matters, pesky facts don't mean a whit to Climate keeners the world over who believe what they want to believe because climate change isn't science, but rather religion.

Canada's Environment Minister Catherine McKenna has an impressive resume of feel-good jobs, but absolutely zero background in science and less in economics. One would hope that she would bone up on the science of climate change and the effect of a carbon tax before lecturing Canadians on the subject.
Apparently, she hasn't.

“Environment Minister McKenna cited the deaths in promoting a 12¢-a litre carbon tax under the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act. “We are all paying the cost of extreme weather events like floods, like droughts, like forest fires, and 90 people died in Québec this summer because of extreme heat,” McKenna told the Commons on October 26.”

HaHa!! What an idiot. Full of degrees and credentials but no brains.
There are lots of people like her in the Trudeau cabinet.

While there is ample room to debate the negative effects of climate change, there is no room to debate whether a warming planet will lead to more deaths.

Last summer Quebec had a heatwave for about two weeks. I wouldn't call it disastrous, it was actually rather nice. This heatwave of about 30 degrees average would be laughed at in Africa, which incidentally has little air-conditioning and suffers precious few deaths due to heat alone.
But the Quebec newspapers started pedalling the nonsense that Quebecers were dropping like flies because of the heat. The stories were so moronic they should have been recognized as fake news

And so our Climate Barbie Environment Minister (yes its a well-deserved pejorative) repeated this nonsense as a dire consequence of climate change.
Someone who purports to lead Canadians in the subject of the environment should do a modicum of fact-checking before speaking. McKenna is so used to espousing bullshit that she sounds like a vapid beauty pageant contestant offering her view on world peace.

Not surprisingly the Quebec government agency that monitors births and deaths recently revealed that there was no increase in deaths in July during the heatwave as compared to years before.

While there may or may not be debate over the effects of global warming, not so over the issue of heat versus cold in relation to premature deaths.

"The study — published in the British journal The Lancet — analyzed data on more than 74 million deaths in 13 countries between 1985 and 2012. Of those, 5.4 million deaths were related to cold, while 311,000 were related to heat."

So worldwide, fifteen times as many humans die from cold temperatures as compared to warm temperatures, yet Climate Barbie tells us the opposite.
It isn't a leap to say that as the Earth warms, deaths from cold will decrease and deaths from heat will increase, but the net effect will be a vast overall decrease in deaths due to hot or cold weather.
Climate Barbie should learn arithmetic as well as basic science before lecturing us.
It is sad that idiots like her actually have a say in something like a carbon tax which cannot possibly have any effect on global warming.
How do I know the carbon tax will fail?
Well first its just a plain bad idea, but more importantly, it will fail because the grossly incompetent government of Canada will administer the plan, a government that cannot even pay its own employees properly and this going on for years.
What large company in Canada could get away with not paying employees for weeks or months because of a computer snafu?

At any rate, Canada contributes about one half of one percent of the world's CO2 output, so even a successful carbon tax program that would cut those emissions by say 10% would have almost zero effect, this while China and third world countries ramp up their CO2 emissions as they modernize.

By the way, a carbon tax is useless as long as other trading partners don't install the same tax. The other alternative is to impose trade sanctions against those foreign producers not subject to a carbon tax. None of that could possibly happen.

All these considerations- taxes, science, economics are beyond the scope of Catherine McKenna's expertise, schooling and experience.
She is the perfect example of the Peter Principle, which tells us that employees rise in the hierarchy through promotion until they reach the levels of their respective incompetence.

I'll not be lectured on climate (or anything else) by McKenna or Justin, who are just politicians expert at trolling for issues they can exploit.

The world is always getting hotter or colder, this with or without mankind's interference.
At any rate, I'll take hotter over colder any day of the week....