Carbon Taxes in Trouble

A new poll in British Columbia has found that BC residents hate the new carbon tax.

The Poll result highlights:

  • 72% do not trust the provincial government to make the tax revenue neutral
  • 64% oppose the new tax
  • 10% support the new tax
  • 88% think that the industry breaks were unfair
  • 77% don’t think the $100 bribe is enough to offset the extra they pay

BC was the first jurisdiction in North America to levy a carbon tax.  With poll numbers like these, it may be the last as other provincial, state and territorial governments weigh the massive negative reactions of BC’s voters.

Whether or not governments believe that global warming needs devices like carbon taxes, they do know that they prefer being in power to the alternative.  There’s nothing like a dose of reality to throw a permanent wrench into the green agenda, and polls like this one are a very hard reality for politicians.

I predict that this green tax experiment in BC will fail at the next election.  Either the current government will realize its mistake and reverse its decision in a desperate attempt to retain power, or the opposition parties will promise its repeal and will win.  The good news for skeptics is that if the carbon tax fails in BC, the ‘greenest’ province in Canada, it will never be tried again.

I wonder how Federal Liberals are feeling when they read these poll results; after all, their entire platform for the next election is built on a massive new carbon tax.

Global Warming Films. Which is more honest?

This post is a response to the global warming hoaxers that have emailed me to gloat over the recent decision by UK regulator Ofcom in the case of the Channel 4 movie the Great Global Warming Swindle.  The Gorebots think that the Ofcom decision means that the entire movie has no value and is discredited.

It is unfortunate for the hoaxers that prior to the Channel 4 Ofcom ruling, their own propaganda piece was  in the UK courts.  Following Gorebot logic, the verdict in the case against An Inconvenient Truth discredits their film to an even greater degree.

Anyway, to set the record straight, let’s look at the  facts.  I’ve found the actual decisions and am excerpting the relevant parts for you below.  Read them and decide for yourself which movie was found most inaccurate.

[Format Notes: complaints/findings are bolded, the court/regulator explanation is in red and quotes from the works are italicized.  Spelling is UK English throughout.]

Part One:  The Great Global Warming Swindle (decision)


Rule 7.1 : “Broadcasters must avoid unjust or unfair treatment of individuals or organisations in programmes.”; Ofcom’s investigation found that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, the former Government Chief Scientist, Sir David King and
Professor Carl Wunsch were treated unfairly in the programme. In
particular, the programme made some significant allegations without
offering an appropriate and timely opportunity to respond. In the case
of Sir David King, the programme makers also criticised him for
comments he did not make.

Rule 5.11:“….due impartiality must
be preserved on matters of major political and industrial controversy
and major matters relating to current public policy…”; and

Rule 5.12:
“In dealing with matters of major political and industrial controversy
and major matters relating to current public policy an appropriately
wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight
in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes. Views and
facts must not be misrepresented”.

Ofcom did not find parts one to four of the programme, which focused
on the scientific debate about the causes of global warming, in breach
of the Code. Ofcom concluded that these parts of the programme were not
matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to
public policy and therefore the rules on due impartiality did not apply.

In addition, while Ofcom had concerns about aspects of the
presentation (and omission) of fact and views within the programme, it
did not believe, given the nature of the programme, that this led to
the audience being materially misled. As such, Channel 4 has not been
found in breach of Rule 2.2 of the Broadcasting Code.

Part Two: An Inconvenient Truth (verdict)


1. ‘Error’ 11: Sea level rise of up to 20 feet (7 metres) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland in the near future.

# In scene 21 (the film is carved up for teaching purposes into 32 scenes), in one of the most graphic parts of the film Mr Gore says as follows:

“If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida. This is what would happen in the San Francisco Bay. A lot of people live in these areas. The Netherlands, the Low Countries: absolutely devastation. The area around Beijing is home to tens of millions of people. Even worse, in the area around Shanghai, there are 40 million people. Worse still, Calcutta, and to the east Bangladesh, the area covered includes 50 million people. Think of the impact of a couple of hundred thousand refugees when they are displaced by an environmental event and then imagine the impact of a 100 million or more. Here is Manhattan. This is the World Trade Center memorial site. After the horrible events of 9/11 we said never again. This is what would happen to Manhattan. They can measure this precisely, just as scientists could predict precisely how much water would breach the levee in New Orleans.” # This is distinctly alarmist, and part of Mr Gore’s ‘wake-up call’. It is common ground that if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, but only after, and over, millennia, so that the Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of 7 metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.

2. ‘Error’ 12: Low lying inhabited Pacific atolls are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming.

# In scene 20, Mr Gore states “that’s why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand”.
There is no evidence of any such evacuation having yet happened.

3. ‘Error’ 18: Shutting down of the “Ocean Conveyor”.

# In scene 17 he says, “One of the ones they are most worried about where they have spent a lot of time studying the problem is the North Atlantic, where the Gulf Stream comes up and meets the cold wind coming off the Arctic over Greenland and evaporates the heat out of the Gulf Stream and the stream is carried over to western Europe by the prevailing winds and the earth’s rotation … they call it the Ocean Conveyor … At the end of the last ice age … that pump shut off and the heat transfer stopped and Europe went back into an ice age for another 900 or 1000 years. Of course that’s not going to happen again, because glaciers of North America are not there. Is there any big chunk of ice anywhere near there? Oh yeah [pointing at Greenland]”. According to the IPCC, it is very unlikely that the Ocean Conveyor (known technically as the Meridional Overturning Circulation or thermohaline circulation) will shut down in the future, though it is considered likely that thermohaline circulation may slow down.

4. ‘Error’ 3: Direct coincidence between rise in CO2 in the atmosphere and in temperature, by reference to two graphs. # In scenes 8 and 9, Mr Gore shows two graphs relating to a period of 650,000 years, one showing rise in CO2 and one showing rise in temperature, and asserts (by ridiculing the opposite view) that they show an exact fit. Although there is general scientific agreement that there is a connection, the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts.

5. ‘Error’ 14: The snows of Kilimanjaro. # Mr Gore asserts in scene 7 that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. It is noteworthy that this is a point that specifically impressed Mr Milliband (see the press release quoted at paragraph 6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

6. ‘Error’ 16: Lake Chad etc # The drying up of Lake Chad is used as a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming. However, it is generally accepted that the evidence remains insufficient to establish such an attribution. It is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.

7. ‘Error’ 8: Hurricane Katrina. # In scene 12 Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans is ascribed to global warming. It is common ground that there is insufficient evidence to show that.

8. ‘Error’ 15: Death of polar bears. # In scene 16, by reference to a dramatic graphic of a polar bear desperately swimming through the water looking for ice, Mr Gore says: “A new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find the ice. They did not find that before.” The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm. That is not to say that there may not in the future be drowning-related deaths of polar bears if the trend of regression of pack-ice and/or longer open water continues, but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description.

9. ‘Error’ 13: Coral reefs. # In scene 19, Mr Gore says:”Coral reefs all over the world because of global warming and other factors are bleaching and they end up like this. All the fish species that depend on the coral reef are also in jeopardy as a result. Overall specie loss is now occurring at a rate 1000 times greater than the natural background rate.”  The actual scientific view, as recorded in the IPCC report, is that, if the temperature were to rise by 1-3 degrees Centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and widespread coral mortality, unless corals could adopt or acclimatise, but that separating the impacts of climate change-related stresses from other stresses, such as over-fishing and polluting, is difficult.

Channel 4 misquoted the IPCC and two scientists, but was not criticized for their portrayal of the science.  Al Gore was found to have misrepresented and exaggerated the science.  Which seems more egregious to you?

Related Posts:
The Problem with Zealots
Global Warming’s Fatal Flaw


I just read the news that the Grand Pier at Weston-Super-Mare has burned down.

I grew up in Britain’s West Country, and a day trip to Weston on the train was a regular feature of my childhood summers.  The pier was always a treat, there were new machines where you could play Space Invaders once you had devoured your Wall’s ice cream.  I used to run along the pier, legs covered in mud and sand from the beach, excited as all hell to get to look down through the planks at the water underneath while dodging as close as I dared to the little train that ran the older folks to the end and back.

Weston-Super-Mare is an odd place for people that like actual beaches to understand. It’s on the widening Severn Estuary rather than the sea, and the tide goes out for miles leaving very black sticky and unpleasant smelling mud.  We called it Weston Super Mud as kids, for good reason.  But it was affordable to get to on a budget and still have enough cash to buy a donkey ride, an ice-cream and the new thrill of the video arcade.

Because of the tide and the mud, the pier at Weston was important if you were to have a good day out and not expire on a long dangerous trek to the waterfront when the tide was fully out.  I haven’t thought about Weston or the pier in many years, but now I have learned of the pier’s destruction it saddens me greatly.  Another childhood landmark lost, never to be seen again.

Here’s the pier before the fire, pretty much as I remember it.
wsmpier2And during the fire:
red_03pier.jpegI’m sitting here now, thousands of miles away, and I swear I can hear the gulls and smell the mud.  I feel sorry for the generations of kids that will never know the simple pleasure of a pier at Weston.  If kids still like that stuff anymore.

The Problem With Zealots

Zealot, (noun):

  1. One zealously devoted to a religion: devotee, enthusiast, fanatic.
  2. A person who is ardently devoted to a particular subject or activity: devotee, enthusiast, fanatic, maniac. 
  3. One who holds extreme views or advocates extreme measures: extremist, fanatic, radical, revolutionary.

Pick one of the definitions above and it is easy to apply any of them to the leaders and proponents of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hoax.  The comparison of AGW ‘believers’ to fervent religionists has been made often, for good reason.  Global warmers, once so sure of themselves, now wilfully ignore what actual science is telling us about our planet.  Instead they continue in pursuit of a higher calling, that of feeling good about ones self or feeling superior to ones neighbour, or both.

Zealots find it relatively easy to get the cause’s ball rolling at first, there is usually a willing congregation among the weak-willed and gullible; this early following is eager to assuage some internal guilt about their cozy lives and relative wealth by attaching themselves to a ’cause greater than themselves’, in AGW’s case the fraudulent panic about our planet’s ‘fever’.  In past ages these same AGW followers would have attended religious services, followed faithfully the latest fire and brimstone prophet and burn the odd witch.  Now they watch badly researched documentaries, follow a profiteer and fear burning anything because of the evil ‘carbon footprint’.

As the momentum of the cause builds, the original zealots gain acolytes, believers and some cynical types that see a way to make a living from those attracted to the zealots cause.  This is where the cause goes ‘mainstream’ and attracts the unsuspecting average Joe.  It helps to have a somnolent and complicit media; when no dissent is allowed or serious questions asked of the prophet the message accelerates unchallenged and becomes accepted wisdom quickly.

But there is always a tipping-point when the zealots lose a large proportion of their audience, because there is only so much doom-saying that reasonable people can take before they shake their heads and wonder where the actual doom is.  It’s hard for a prophet, even a talented profiteer, to declare that there is only ten years to act before certain doom and destruction occur, twenty years after other prophets claimed the exact same thing.  People remember stuff like that, and the causes’s message loses credibility.

When the zealots begin to make ordinary life uncomfortable, many members of the congregation will drift away, unwilling to sacrifice tangible wealth and comforts.  Hard-core believers will accuse these drifters of a version of blasphemy or apostasy, but such invective makes no difference to those that have woken up and moved on.  Once out of the boiler-room atmosphere it’s easier to look back and see the emptiness of the claims of the believers and the lack of truth in the AGW cause.

Thus the problem with zealots is revealed.  They go too far, too fast for most people; those souls that they need to convert to the cause to propagate its growth are turned off by the constant emotional blackmail and angry rhetoric.  The zealots get caught up in the microcosm of their beliefs, constantly receiving uncritical feedback from their fellow travellers and drifting inexorably away from mainstream society until they one day wake up and see that they have become outliers; oddities with spittle-flecked chins and wild over-reactions, accusing all that refuse to bow to their cause of crimes against humanity, or worse.

We are not far now from this final stage in the AGW scam.  The leaders of the greatest hoax in the history of mankind cannot repeal their views, or ‘beliefs’.  They are inextricably linked forever with their cause, and even as the hard truth emerges they continue to try and prop up their flagging cause for fear of being discovered for the frauds that they have always been.  People are not buying the scam any more, and the green zealots ever increasing fantastical claims about the threats to mankind are being met instead with disbelief and awkward questions.

I wrote last week that human nature will be the final undoing of the AGW hoax.  It is the dark side of human nature driving the hard-core AGW believers today, a raw lust for power over others.  If history has shown us anything it is that such great causes are easily perverted, and as witnessed by the threats and angry rhetoric of the warmers in their death-throes, the AGW cause is no different.

It’s time to pull the plug on their travelling side-show religion, for all our sakes.

Weekend Notes

I’m leaving for a weekend road trip, so there will be no more posting until Monday.

I have quite a few comments and emails to get to after the traffic avalanche of the past three days.  I will try to get to everyone, but it won’t be this week.

This is where I’m headed, and it ain’t pretty.  A prize of a self-administered pat on the back to any reader that can identify where I’m spending this weekend:

Chimney-Flag-Coin.  But Where Am I?

Enjoy your weekend, wherever you spend it.

Labour on the Brink

Britain’s Labour party took a devastating defeat in a by-election yesterday, losing the previously safe seat in Glasgow East to the separatist SNP.

Gordon Brown is under pressure now, the Conservative leader is pushing for an election.  PM Brown may be wondering why his political future looks so bleak.  Here are a few clues:

British people are taxed to death, and regulated beyond belief.  There are even calls to limit the number of children they can have ‘to prevent global warming’.

Add to a collapsing economy and rising inflation the spiraling crime rate, anger over the increasing interference from the EU and resentment over immigration and you have a perfect storm for political change in the UK.  David Cameron will destroy Labour entirely, if he can figure out how to turn Britain into Fantasy Island.

Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, July 24th 2008

Your round-up is a day early this week because I’m taking a road trip this weekend (yes, in my SUV).  Here then are this weeks highlights from the skeptic’s side:

Part One: It’s all about ME!

I posted an essay on Monday, you can see it here, and it was picked up and appeared on some of the biggest climate sites and blogs.  ICECAP, JunkScience, Skeptics Global Warming, Greenie Watch, Little Green Footballs, NCMediaWatch and WNHO all linked the post, so the traffic spike has been, well, like a hockey stick!  So hello new subscribers, FYI the good stuff is right at the bottom of this post.

Part Two: Gore-d

Al Gore and his posse of alarmists have not had an easy week, Al declared last week that we only have ten years left to fix global warming, which is exactly what the UN said, twenty years ago:

According to July 5, 1989, article in the Miami Herald, the then-director of the New York
office of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), Noel Brown, warned of a
“10-year window of opportunity to solve” global warming. According to the 1989 article,
“A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of
the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening
political chaos.”
Source (pdf file)

It’s not easy being green.  Here’s another report on just how bad Al Gore’s beloved Ethanol is for the world.  And some scientists predict that Al was exactly wrong about those ‘increased hurricanes‘.

Some skeptics have had enough and are calling out the alarmists for their hoax claims, and pixie-dust solutions.  Some are getting quite aggressive about it.  Fair enough, let’s see if Hansen will sue Bill Hennessy and risk discovery of what he knew, and when.

Bad news for Gore’s ‘we’ campaign; Australians discovered that TV ads cause global warming.  Considering that Al is spending $300 million on advertising his itty bitty greeny club, does that make him a ‘climate criminal‘?

This is all in addition to the news that Al’s message is falling on deaf ears, as a Rasmussen poll revealed that only one third of Americans believe that Gore’s goals are realistic.

Part Three: Real Science

Dr Roy Spencer testified that there is significant reason to doubt that CO2 is driving global warming, and presented some evidence.  You’ll note just how interested Senator Boxer was in listening to this testimony as she tries to smear Dr Spencer’s reputation at the end of the video:
New reports consider that the oceans could be responsible for 70% of any warming, which is a problem if you’ve been blaming CO2.  More here and here.

The scare-mongering about the arctic being ice-free this summer.  No, in fact there is a lot more ice this year than last year:

A reformed warming alarmist now claims that there is no evidence that CO2 is causing warming, you can read his full column here.  Jennifer Marohasy lists four reasons why CO2 is not driving global warming.

Dr Vincent Gray takes on the UNIPCC report, and does not mince his words:


[IPCC:] The globe is warming

[Gray:] This statement is a lie.

NC Media Watch finds that some climate data was simply made up.

LiveScience reports that a fossil discovered in Antarctica suggests that it was as much as 17 degrees C warmer than today.

Part Four: Politics, News and Opinion

The Wall Street Journal looks at carbon credit trading, and finds it’s a joke:

“So this is the Kyoto Protocol in action: A marginally-economical
chemical factory in an industrial superpower finally installs 1970s-era
technology to clean up its act, and as a result makes 30 times more
money by selling “carbon credits” to fight global warming than it makes
by selling chemicals.”

It turns out that not signing Kyoto reduces emissions:

“Between 1997 and 2004, carbon dioxide emissions rose as follows:
Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%;
Emissions from countries that ratified the protocol increased 21.1%
Emissions from non-ratifiers of the protocol increased 10.0%;
Emissions from the US (a non-ratifier) increased 6.6%;”

More on the carbon credit scam here, and its potential negative effect on jobs here.

Victor Davis Hansen blames the hippies.  With good reason.

hippiesThe global warming hoax is the fault of hippies like these

Even if some bright person comes up with an idea to reduce emissions, the hippies greens oppose it.

Political cooling in the UK to expensive green ‘solutions’, and a piece on the best way to wreck an economy.

In the US, the EPW blog has some excellent links, including questions about Al Gore’s aversion to nuclear power.

Part Five: Green Zealotry

It’s unfortunate but true that green leaders like David Suzuki and James Hansen want to stifle debate rather than argue the facts.  Mostly this is because they are afraid of the facts.  Here are some of the weeks more radical green zealot moments.

Bob Ward, of the UK Royal Society wants to ban DVD sales of The Great Global Warming Swindle.  This is after the program was cleared of deceiving the public, even if it was found to have been unfair to some scientists. refused to publish a comment which you can read here.

The Sunday Mirror in the UK made up almost entirely a story about dying penguins, and a green nutbar tried to glue himself to the UK’s Prime Minister.

Other greens rely on name calling instead of debate (something I’ve seen this week on this blog), and other’s perform criminal vandalism.

Part Six: Fun Stuff

Polar bears taste great.

Turning the Sahara into a solar array, what could possibly go wrong?

Irony alert: Earth Hour winners get return flights to Cannes!

Being green’s unintended consequences (more hippies)

Jay Leno skewers the Democrats:

Part Seven: The Global Hottie

This week’s global hottie hails from Wales.  The solar array I mentioned above is about the size of Wales, so there is the green connection, like you needed one.  I wrap up this week’s round-up with the very pleasant lines of Mrs Michael Douglas, Catherine Zeta-Jones:


That’s all for this week, have a good weekend!

Are Bell & Telus Going to Kill the Internet?

I can’t say for sure, but this article is an interesting and chilling read.

I’m going to do some digging of my own into this, I’ll update next week with what I find out.  If you have some information or insight, leave a comment or email me the details, I’d appreciate the help.  The threatened action sounds very alarming right now, but we’ll see if it’s truly as bad as it’s described.

If the Telco plans are really bad, then wave goodbye to the blogosphere as we know it.  At the very least it should unite both left and right spheres in a common cause for free speech.  And if it doesn’t do that, perhaps we deserve to get killed off. 

Go read it all, here’s a teaser to get you moving:

“From my browsing (on the currently free Internet) I have discovered
that the ‘demise’ of the free Internet is slated for 2010 in Canada,
and two years later around the world. Canada is seen a good choice to
implement such shameful and sinister changes, since Canadians are
viewed as being laissez fair, politically uninformed and an easy target.”

George Cross Awarded

Read this story of a Royal Marine that has earned a George Cross medal for courage.

He jumped onto a grenade to save his comrades, and incredibly only suffered a nosebleed!

An excerpt:

He dived onto the floor, rolled over and used his backpack – containing a 66mm
rocket, a large lithium battery and medical kit – to cover the lethal
shrapnel fragments from the coming blast.

He was already having quite the day before the grenade incident:

In an earlier instance of bravery the Marine attended a comrade shot in the
chest preventing his lungs from collapsing while under fire for 45 minutes

Congratulations to L/Cpl Matthew Croucher on his recognition, and his heroism.  It’s nice to get a reminder that the kind of men that made Britain great are still out there.