When Greta Thunberg came to visit Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, he promised he would plant 2 billion trees if re-elected. The program was originally set at about $3 billion in costs, and now has skyrocketed to double that. That means the program is costing every Canadian about $170.00!! With energy prices sky high and inflation on the rise, $6 billion is a LOT of money for something that Mother Nature will do for you. Michelle Stirling, Communications Manager for Friends of Science, goes on location to a ditch where dozens of small spruce trees are growing right under power lines. The fact that they are squashed together means they cannot all thrive, and since they are in the ditch under power lines, sooner or later the county will spray them or cut them down. Michelle says she and her Dad used to go hunting for ditch trees when she was a kid, to plant them in their yard. If your county/community regulations permit, why not save these little ditch trees, transplant them to your yard or acreage, and then... ask for a tax rebate! You can have your own personal 'ditch tree planting rescue' plan, that won't need a penny from tax payers nor will another public servant need to be hired. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsiGc3Zpb3M
Robert Lyman’s “FreedomTalk” presentation explored “The Barriers to Net Zero.” In part 2 of his interview with Michelle Stirling, he explains that Royal Bank of Canada’s (RBC) recent report on the cost of decarbonizing Canada is a significant underestimate.
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3qiDFNi6Xc
Recently Deputy Governor Timothy Lane of the Bank of Canada gave a presentation entitled "Thermometer Rising" and claimed the Fort McMurray wildfire #ymmfire of 2016 was caused by climate change, but the evidence shows the vast scope and damage of the Fort McMurray wildfire was due to lack of preparation, not following the recommendations of the Flat Top Review Committee (on the catastrophic Slave Lake fires of 2011) and not following FireSmart. Calling this devastating wildfire 'climate change' and demanding investment in 'climate change' is a diversion of necessary public funds from the practical measures all Canadians can take to reduce and prevent such uncontrolled fires. The boreal forest MUST burn to renew itself, so wildfires will always be with us. They generally need not threaten homes and lives if FireSmart measures are taken and if Flat Top Review recommendations are followed. Be prepared!
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4ThH4M_Ldo
The focus on NetZero and reduction of carbon dioxide has people demanding that we 'get off fossil fuels' to 'solve the problem.' Dr. In Clark counters with 'what problem' - and then points out that realistically it will take about 200 years to get off fossil fuels, if that's what people decide we must do.
He suggests that perhaps to reduce emissions, choosing natural gas over coal is an option, but all fossil fuel power plants have a very small land footprint and high energy density compared to wind and solar. Dr. Clark discusses how human industrial emissions of carbon dioxide are cycled into a much larger natural carbon cycle about every four years. Though many people claim human emissions are driving climate change, Dr. Clark points out that even the IPCC agrees that about 75% of the temperature change since the Little Ice Age is due to natural facts, not human. However, the modest warming may be keeping us from another Little Ice Age, or perhaps will modify such impact. Dr. Clark explains that cooling periods lead to a drop in agricultral output, famine and civil unrest, while "optimums" (warm cycles) allow human civilization to flourish. Watch Dr. Clark's full presentation: Friends of Science Twentieth Annual Event, With Dr. Ian Clark and Robert Lyman | Friends of Science
https://friendsofscience.org/library/events/friends-of-science-twentieth-annual-event,-with-dr.-ian-clark-and-robert-lyman.html
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U3djDlXkDU
Host Michelle Stirling will walk the audience through a powerpoint version of this report "Speed Bumps on the Road to Decarbonization". Robert Lyman has summarized some highlights of an important JP Morgan report. The recent statements by several world leaders endorsing the political goal of reducing their countries’ greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050, if not sooner, has been followed by the publication of several articles assessing the feasibility of this goal. One of the most interesting was the 2021 Annual Energy Paper published by the investment firm J.P. Morgan. J.P. Morgan is usually regarded as one of the most “woke” investment companies in the United States and one that supports the “decarbonization agenda”. For that reason and others, the contents of the paper, written by Michael Cembalist (with Vaclav Smil consulting), are very interesting. After endorsing the decarbonization goal and assuring readers that “the overarching message of this paper is not climate nihilism”, the paper examines the technological and economic barriers to the goal of decarbonization. Read the report: https://blog.friendsofscience.org/2021/05/09/speed-bumps-on-the-road-to-decarbonization-part-1/
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv3b1leXYqs
We are constantly told there will be thousands of 'green jobs' in the energy transition. That claim is disputed by Robert Lyman. Robert Lyman is an energy economist. He is a former federal public servant of 27 years, diplomat for 10 years. In this short clip, Robert reveals that in general 2 to 3 jobs are lots for every 'green' job created, mostly due to the higher electricity prices that drive industry away. Likewise, he shows that Statistics Canada stated that 'clean energy' sector made up 3% of the Canadian GDP in 2007....by 2022, with billions of dollars in subsidies along the way, that 'clean energy' sector of the economy was still just 3%. It's not growing.
Watch Robert Lyman's full presentation and see what Dr. Ian Clark has to say in our 20th Annual Climate Science Event presentations: Friends of Science Twentieth Annual Event, With Dr. Ian Clark and Robert Lyman | Friends of Science
https://friendsofscience.org/library/events/friends-of-science-twentieth-annual-event,-with-dr.-ian-clark-and-robert-lyman.html
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJhKtmZ6-jQ
...while ignoring pandemic and global oil price shock. The World Economic Forum globalists profess to know how to run the world. They've put out a video telling you how to have a greener Christmas, starting with your Christmas Tree. Where once people said don't cut down trees, now WEF advocates for a live tree over a plastic one for a 'lower carbon footprint'. But will your little tree make a bit difference - or is it more that tree planting is associated with the buying and selling of carbon credits? And since the video mentions the "1 Trillion Tree" organization, a WEF tree planting project, it sounds more like a commercial for their other projects. Odd that they are busy with your Christmas Tree when they have nothing to say about the pandemic or the global oil price shock and energy crisis. In 2006, the WEF reported in their global risks report that pandemic or an oil price shock could crater the world economy. By 2020, both of these were off the list of global risks, replaced with nothing but climate change! What's up with that? No matter what they say - YOU should have a Merry Christmas anyway you want. And...a Happy New Year!
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woIGys1lsW4
Author Steve Goreham discusses the costs of wind and solar being added to the grid and how consumers pay in two ways – for subsidies and through much higher electricity rates. In the US, electric power rates in 9 of 12 wind states went up 12 to 35% from 2008 to 2015, while in the same time overall US power prices rose only 4.8%. He explains that South Australia is now seeing wide area blackouts due to unreliability related to wind power on the grid and simultaneous coal phase-out. Steve’s full presentation can be seen at: Climate Science and the Myths of Renewable Energy: https://youtu.be/mtHreJbr2WM
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lt6DuVMPDAo
AMA, the Alberta Motor Association, is planting a little forest to celebrate its upcoming centennial. Michelle Stirling, our Communications Manager, questions the rationale behind it, while lauding the fact that they seem to be working with an organization that will also monitor and maintain the planted trees. That's important because our forestry consultant says that some 30% of newly planted trees fail in the first year. They die. AMA also indicated that some 80% of their members are concerned about climate change, so that's why they chose tree planting. Michelle questioned that as, anecdotally, in a recent meeting, none of the people she spoke with (who were AMA members) were concerned about climate change. Tree planting seems to just be a social contagion these days. You can buy a bra and they will plant a tree for you! It used to be that there was something special about planting a tree to remember a loved one, or to celebrate a new baby or a marriage - now there's nothing special about and it certainly doesn't cover off the emissions of modern society to plant trees! Canada's recent GHG inventory report shows no success in reducing emissions, despite crushing carbon taxes and other regulations. While National Observer claims that oil, gas and transportation are the obstacles to emissions reduction... in fact, modern life is the obstacle. We need oil and gas, and transportation, so that modern society can thrive, otherwise we will all just be living in caves. There's no climate crisis - see our website for details. And happy tree planting... just remember, you aren't saving the planet or turning down the global temperature just because you planted a tree. Join Friends of Science and become a booster of common sense on climate and energy policies. http://www.friendsofscience.org to Donate on line or by etransfer: contact@friendsofscience.org or call the office if you prefer to not use your card online. Many thanks to all our supporters and subscribers!
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibl5vSKVBok
Probably the most famous 'consensus' survey on human-caused climate change was done by science historian Naomi Oreskes in 2004. She review the abstracts of some 928 peer-reviewed papers using specific search terms, and found there was, in her opinion, 'consensus.' Her work was highlighted in Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth." A few months later, Dr. Benny Peiser reran the study, reading all the papers, not just the abstracts. There were a few more papers that had been published in the meantime, but this did not materially affect the outcome. He found very different results. Michelle Stirling, Communications Manager for Friends of Science Society, uses an angel food cake, cut into representative slices, to discuss the findings, and to consider what the term 'consensus' means. In the end, 'consensus' is not really meaningful in science, because science is about evidence; science is not a democracy. For more details on these surveys, please read Friends of Science Society's 2014 report "97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths and Social Proofs." https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOQ7_IH2438