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 »
Banning plastic straws is among the latest environmental fads of the Left, and it’s impossible to resist pointing out just how much this one sucks.
While one jurisdiction has imposed penalties as high as six months in jail and a $1000 fine for serving a straw with a drink in a restaurant, another jurisdiction – San Francisco – is planning to ban straws, carry-out containers and wrappers. The utter futility of the gestures is dwarfed by their hypocrisy.
San Francisco has today become a city with conditions worse than that in many impoverished third-world nations. Human feces lies on every block of the city, drug addicts openly shoot up on the streets in public, and the city dispenses hundreds of thousands of free needles also littering the streets. Poverty and homelessness abounds. In the midst of all this, its new mayor apparently believes that ‘education’ will solve the problem.
As it undeservedly adopts a moral high ground in condemning ‘plastic refuse,’ the Left simultaneously celebrates and perpetuates the human refuse in its wake. Such is the plastic politics of pollution.Continue reading »
Despite political claims to the contrary, the ‘science’ has never been ‘settled’ on the contentious issue of ‘climate change,’ formerly known as ‘global warming.’ It never will be, as long as the climate keeps changing, which it will.
The belief that our planetary climate can be kept ‘un-changed’ by means of various carbon tax schemes is practically the definition of ‘irrational’ – and that’s why we’ve called this belief the Climate Derangement Syndrome (CDS).
Only a social affliction, like the ‘emotional plague’ described by Wilhelm Reich in his Mass Psychology of Fascism, or a completely sinister agenda masquerading behind a veil of false virtue signaling, could possibly explain such an irrational belief in objective terms.
One cannot help but notice that sufferers of CDS continually focus their attention on the political climate while pretending to be concerned with the planetary climate.Continue reading »
Outraged by a November 15, 2017 NBC News editorial, Danielle and Robert share their incredulous reactions to a Leftist’s view of ‘morality.’
Written by Travis Rieder, the headline reads “Science proves kids are bad for earth. Morality suggests we stop having them.”
“But morality suggests that we SHOULD have children,” responds Danielle, as Robert cites the continuing death cult philosophy spouted by representatives of the Left.
In conflict are two entirely polarized and opposite views of morality.
The Right view on morality and ethics was perhaps best expressed by Ayn Rand when she wrote: “… the standard by which one judges what is good or evil – is man’s life – or that which is required for man’s survival qua man. Ethics is an objective, metaphysical necessity of man’s survival…”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.”