The Price of the Stupidity of Anthropogenic Global Warming Nuts

Ontario Premier Says Cap-and-Trade Plan to Increase Gas Prices by 4.3 Cents a Litre

For my American readers 4.3 centiliters = about 16 cents per US gallon

'The cost of doing nothing is much, much higher than the cost of going forward,' premier says

The question is, how much higher? Kathleen Wynne's statement is straight bulls--t! She certainly has no idea what the cost of doing nothing is. If she did know, she would realize that she is wasting billions of dollars for absolutely no return. And it's not her money she's throwing away, it's the people of Ontario's money she's burning.

See below for quick and dirty Climate Change Summary

The Canadian Press 

Details of Ontario government's cap-and-trade plan are coming in Thursday's budget. (Darryl Dyck/Canadian Press)

Gas prices in Ontario will rise about 4.3 cents a litre and residential natural gas bills will go up about $5 a month under the Liberal government's cap-and-trade plan.

"The cost of doing nothing is much, much higher than the cost of going forward and reducing greenhouse gas emissions," she said.

However, revenue from the cap-and-trade auction set for next year will be used to "protect" consumers from an electricity rate hike and could even lead to rates going down, Wynne said.

It is scheduled to take effect in January and the government expects to raise about $1.3 billion in its first full year of operation, money that will be devoted to lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

Finance Minister Charles Sousa denied Wednesday that cap-and-trade revenue would be used to lower the $7.5-billion deficit, which the Liberals have promised to eliminate by 2017-18.

"It is not about reducing the deficit, it's about reinvesting to ensure that we meet the targets through the Western Climate Initiative," he said.

Sure. I believe that. I have a tropical island in Labrador for sale, too.

However, the revenues still have to show up on the government's balance sheet.

Climate Change
- Global warming is a real phenomena - the planet is warming.
- It has almost nothing to do with mankind.
  - Man is responsible for only 3-4% of the CO2 that enters the atmosphere
  - 96-97% is naturally formed and released from plants, the oceans, and from the ground
  - Canada emits about 565 megatons of anthropogenic CO2 emissions per year
  - Global anthropogenic emissions = 36.9 billion tons. Canada's contribution = 2%
  - Canada's contribution to global total CO2 emissions = 0.07%
  - A reduction of 33% of Canada's CO2 emissions amounts to 0.023% of total global emissions
  - A reduction of 0.023% of the total CO2 emissions will not produce any measurable reduction in     the global temperature
 Conclusion - there is no benefit whatsoever in Ontario, or Canada spending billions of dollars on      this great quasi-scientific hoax

More facts:
 - The global temperature has risen on 0.5 degrees C since 1880. 
 - Climatological patterns indicate little or no global temperature rise until after about 2030
 - They also indicate about 0.5-0.75 degree temperature rise in the 21st century
 - In 1990 the IPCC predicted a 1.0 deg rise in temperature by 2025; to date it has risen 0.2 deg
 - For the IPCC prediction to come true the temperature would have to rise 0.8 deg in the next 9        years, more than the rise in the last 135 years
 - Currently, but for El Nino, the temperature has shown very little inclination to rise in past
   decade or more.
 - one good sized volcano could eliminate the effects of several years of global emissions reductions
 - Professor Murry Salby has shown that temperature increases follow CO2 increases, historically      by about 800 years
 - Most scientific research supports anthropogenic global warming because those with an open
   mind on the subject are frozen out of research funds

Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels and industry increased by 0.6% in 2014, with a total of 9.8±0.5 GtC (billion tonnes of carbon) (35.9 GtCO2) emitted to the atmosphere, 60% above 1990 emissions (the Kyoto Protocol reference year). Emissions are projected to decline by -0.6% in 2015 (range -1.6% to +0.5%).

Surprising Divide Over Human Role in Climate Change - Study

Study involving University of Montreal researchers being submitted to scientific journal

CBC News 

A woman walks past a map showing the elevation of the sea in the last 22 years during the World Climate Change Conference 2015 near Paris. A new study asked 5,000 Canadians their opinions on the cause of climate change. (Stephane Mahe/Reuters)

A study co-authored by University of Montreal researchers suggests that while 79 per cent of Canadians do not doubt the reality of climate change, 39 per cent don't believe it is caused by human activity.

The researchers, also from four other universities, including Yale, surveyed a total of more than 5,000 Canadians over the last five years.

"We asked participants if they believed the Earth was getting warmer partly or mostly due to human activities as an indication of climate change," said lead researcher Matto Mildenberger.

"The skepticism was a bit surprising," said Erick Lachapelle, who co-authored the study, which is being submitted to a scientific journal for publication and has not yet been peer reviewed.

"I think it is partly because Canadians are less knowledgeable than one might think on the topic."

The sheer arrogance of the educated mind! The skepticism that global warming is caused primarily by human activity may very well be because Canadians are more knowledgeable that one might think. Anyone who looks at the impartial data with an open mind cannot help but conclude that blaming humans for global warming is at best a farce and at worst a diabolical conspiracy.

The study did not ask what people felt was causing climate change, if they did not believe it was caused by humans.

Humans responsible for only 3-4% of CO2 in atmosphere

FYI, 96-97% of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from natural sources - the ground, vegetation, etc. Remarkably, this figure is not disputed by climate change enthusiasts. That leaves 3-4% caused by humans. So, the increase in CO2, and hence, global warming, is 96-97% naturally produced. How many hundreds of billions of dollars are we prepared to spend reduce man's input to 2.5% from 3.5%? And if we do spend stupid amounts of money on this fairy tale, will it make any difference whatsoever in global warming? I suspect that any difference it does make will not be measurable.

Researchers did not note whether the proportion of Canadians who thought climate change was caused by humans had changed over the five years of the study.

The results

44% of Canadians surveyed believe Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activities.

61% believe Earth is getting warmer partly or mostly because of human activities.

66% support a cap and trade system.

49% believe taxes should be increased on carbon-based fuels. 


Deep divides in belief

Survey respondents seemed to be deeply divided on what is causing climate change, the study suggests.

For example, only 33 per cent of people living in the Fort-McMurray—Cold-Lake riding in Alberta believe climate change is partly or mostly caused by humans.

That compares to 78 per cent in the Quebec riding of Laurier-Sainte-Marie, where the rate is the highest in the country.

Click on the map to explore the results compiled by the researchers.


Yale study
The results found opinions vary depending on whether the study subjects were living in a city or a small town.

Lachapelle points to the differences in Edmonton and Calgary, compared to smaller Alberta communities.

"Urban dwellers are more progressive in general," he said.

Read, more susceptible to liberal bulls--t. If what you are 'progressing' toward is a lie, and a very expensive lie, how can that be a good thing?

"They are younger, better educated, and have better access to solutions like active transport or public transit, than people in small towns."

Does being younger and more educated make one smarter? One could argue that post secondary education is heavily laced with liberal biases that virtually brainwash the young, susceptible mind; that graduates emerge even less open-minded than their parents.

The survey asked four questions:

From what you've read and heard, is there solid evidence that the average temperature on Earth has been getting warmer over the past four decades?

Is the Earth getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels or mostly because of natural patterns in the Earth's environment? 

Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose [a cap and trade] type of system for your province? 

Another way to lower greenhouse gas emissions is to increase taxes on carbon based fuels such as coal, oil, gasoline and natural gas. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose this type of system?

So, the real question is, do you trust the science behind global warming? Having worked in meteorology most of my life, I have a great deal of confidence in science; in scientists, however, not so much! 

Let's say you read a scientific study that concluded that Nutella was easily the most nutritious breakfast on the planet, would you believe it. You probably would. But if you knew that Nutella was mostly sugar, would you still believe it? Maybe, it is science after all. But if you then found out that the study that came to that conclusion was funded by Nutella through clandestine means, would you still believe it? 

Huge amounts of money are available to university researchers for the study of global warming. But if a study concludes that global warming is not man-made, it's almost impossible for that scientist to obtain more funding for research. So, they had better conclude that Nutella is the most nutritious breakfast ever, if they want to continue their research.

That is the sole reason why most of the science supports man-made global warming.

Methodology behind study

For the study, four telephone surveys over five years were conducted by firms Léger Marketing (2011, 2013 and 2014) and Elemental Data Collection (2015).

For each survey, there were between 1,014 and 1,502 respondents.

The answers to four questions in the study were compiled and integrated into a statistical model that took into account the socio-demographic and geographical characteristics of the interview subjects. The answers were then divided geographically by federal riding.

The study has a margin of error of six percentage points for provincial findings and seven percentage points for local findings, 19 times out of 20.