When Al Gore released his “An Inconvenient Truth” video the world was taken in by a science that neither they nor Gore truly understood.
With his book, “Inconveniently Screwed,” author Dave Plumb unravels the science behind climate change and in doing so debunks many of the myths and junk science promulgated by climate change alarmists, politicians, media, and yes, even some scientists.
This Just Right exclusive is a follow up to our interview with Dave Plumb on show #579 – The Frozen Debate on Climate Change which aired October 25, 2018.
“Inconveniently Screwed” is the title of our guest Dave Plumb’s book about climate change – and about the litany of outright fear-mongering and shameless deception that defines the Left ‘s so-called ‘climate’ agenda.
Being ‘inconveniently screwed’ is also the perfect way to describe what will happen to voters in the four provinces (Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick) specifically targeted by Canada’s prime minister Justin Trudeau on Tuesday via his National Climate Plan.
Arbitrarily citing an “urgent need to put a price on pollution,” Trudeau announced nothing more than another socialist wealth redistribution scheme on Tuesday, glaringly self-evident as such. Using an argument that could only be taken seriously by those totally disconnected from reality, Trudeau outrageously promised that “Eight in ten Ontario families will get back more than they pay directly.” That of course means that two out of ten families have to give their money to the other eight out of ten. That’s a ‘climate’ plan?
“Starting next year, it will no longer be free to pollute,” announced Trudeau in referring to carbon dioxide, offering as blatant a display of ‘facts don’t matter’ as one could possibly conjure. The fact is that carbon dioxide is no pollutant and is actually beneficial to life on earth! To suggest otherwise is an outright lie!Continue reading »
As faith-based religion continues to lose its monopoly on morality, the source and nature of mankind’s morality is finally being openly questioned and discussed. In fact, that discussion has been drawing unprecedented audiences to both social media and to live venues, where the likes of Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris have essentially established the popular – and incorrect – framework of this public debate.
It’s not surprising in the least that these debates have never produced a resolution; one cannot resolve a philosophical dilemma without confining oneself to the discipline of philosophy itself. In attempting to resolve issues of ‘free will’, determinism, choice, and morality, neither ‘faith’ nor ‘pragmatism’ offer any solutions.
Morality has but one source and one standard: the preservation of human life itself. That is the ‘good.’ The destruction of human life is the ‘evil.’ Morality has no other application or purpose. Like any discipline, the development of an objective moral code is fundamentally a science, and as such, must be based on evidence and reason, not on faith or intuition.
As the third branch in the hierarchy of philosophy (the first two being metaphysics and epistemology), the development of any moral code will necessarily be based on whatever conclusions have been drawn from the first two. This is why the discussion about morality has largely become hijacked by a needless and meaningless debate over atheism versus religious faith.Continue reading »
At what point does it become necessary to actually “know” things about certain issues or topics? When is it ok just to leave the details to the “experts“? It’s a practical question that is fundamentally based on individual responsibility.
It is also a question that has bedeviled Professor Christopher Essex, theoretical physicist and mathematician with the Department of Applied Mathematics at Western University. As one of the pioneers of climate change computer modeling, his skepticism about the political climate that has arisen around this field of study has fallen mostly on deaf ears.
Understandably, when it comes to the details of science and technology, most people will defer to the experts. But there comes a point when leaving it to the experts may in fact be quite detrimental to those affected.
Having reached the point at which the responsibility to know falls squarely on those who need to know, a decision must be made. Shall we continue to rely on opinions and “expertise” that does not seem to be consistent or realistic, or shall we finally take the leap from the ledge of ignorance and embrace the technicalities of knowledge?Continue reading »
Inconvenient truths about the ‘climate change’ debate
We call it the “Greenhouse Defect.” Take it literally. Take it figuratively. Works both ways.
In the politically driven debate about “fighting climate change,” the actual “science” surrounding climate and the earth’s environment is simply not relevant.
Just ask Chris Ballard, Ontario’s Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. In his Sept 9 letter to the editor disputing a column by Lorrie Goldstein, Ballard wrote the following:
“As Ontario’s independent environmental Commissioner said in her annual report, ‘putting a price on carbon by itself would not be enough to achieve Ontario’s reduction targets… Ontario needs complementary emission reduction measures.’Continue reading »
Bob and Robert were invited to attend the Annual General Meeting of the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship held at Western University on May 13th.
Here is our recorded presentation of Jan Narveson, Emeritus Professor of philosophy at the University of Waterloo. Dr. Narveson used the current controversy surrounding climate change to speak on “When Science is Political.”
When it comes to climate, one theory holds that there’s a fifty-fifty chance that we’ll be unable to adapt to climate change 90% of the time. For the other 10% of the time there’s still a fifty-fifty chance that our odds will remain even. Of course, it depends on which side of the C02 / carbon tax issue you’re on, and on which political party you support.
Sound confusing? Confusing us is the whole point of playing the percentages warns Dave Plumb, who joins us today for a continuing discussion about both the science and politics of climate change.
Here’s a 100% certainty: CO2 production is a natural and healthy occurrence. You could even say that efforts to rid our planet of CO2 are unnatural and unhealthy.
Playing the percentages is just one of the ways politicians justify “fighting climate change” by taxing CO2 production.
Citing man-made CO2 production as a reason for “fighting climate change” – and in turn using the “fight against climate change” as a premise for taxing man-made CO2 – is a circular and fraudulent way to impose a new tax that will neither reduce world CO2 levels nor prevent climate change.Continue reading »