Climate Gate and Climate Deniers - Followers in Canada

One might think we are living in medieval times when it comes to our attitude to global warming.  So many variations of opinion are muddying current understanding that each view may be as bizarre as the next if one reads the background on the climate wars through the prism of each viewer.  Nobel laureate scientists,  environmentalists, climate deniers, geoengineerers are fighting either to close debate or are working under the radar to make changes for us.

Climate deniers say environmentalists are using scientists to instill fear about global warming in order to perpetuate political control.   Environmentalists are blaming climate deniers for being lobbyists for big oil.  And big money philanthropists, the ones least spoken about in the media, are making environment change with hocus pocus wizardry.

Climategate is the neologism for a politically motivated, special interest group that is making a concerted, organized campaign against the scientifically proven and very clearly exhibited warming of our planet that is caused by human activity.  A third thinks that the solution is to manage the weather or look for another planet.  Each points a finger of "crazy" at the other.

To look for yourself, see the three opposing viewpoints.

U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
Geoengineering

The first website considers the dangerous repercussions caused by over development and examines the scientific evidence of changing environment including warming, weather patterns, extreme weather, melting ice at the poles.  The second emphasizes a magical thinking view that nature has its own means of self regulation and that over time there have been similar fluctuations in global temperature extremes.  The site is a parody of the first at the outset, but the scientific (alchemist) examinations of CO2 emissions are written by scientists with dubious respectability in the field. The third uses science to make nature predictable and changeable.

Funders for the deniers are amongst the big oil philanthropic duo Koch Brothers and Microsoft's Bill Gates Corporation for geoengineering.  The media spin on Gates' donations say that he offered computers to this endeavour.  The reporter didn't corroborate or investigate the truth of that, but it is easily disproven.

Geoengineering is opposed by many environmentalists, who say the technology could undermine efforts to reduce emissions, and by developing countries who fear it could be used as a weapon or by rich countries to their advantage. In 2010, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity declared a moratorium on experiments in the sea and space,except for small-scale scientific studies.

Why GeoEngineering poses the most threat to global warming
The least covered aspect of science about climate change deals with geoengineering.  Most opposition to climate manipulation comes from the countries most immediately affected, like Brazil and Africa.  Brazil has the most resources and internet capacity to campaign against it.

An IceRocket search will provide adequate background for the pros and cons, an example follows.  Note the page rank and number of references for its veracity.

Chemtrails Global Jan 27th 2012 // science

3 days ago by Rusty

... the following video compilation is an accurate depiction of what is happening, this is an important historical/scientific document relying on primary sources and hard data rather than selectively chosen scientific papers funded by the billion dollar foundations and organisations who funded geoengineering ...

AirCrap.org - aircrap.org · Rank: 15,478 · 22 references

How is Canada an important player in Geoengineering? 
Our wide open spaces, tundra, arctic and controlled through suppression Aboriginal population (key opposition) make it possible.  Another location is the atmosphere and the oceans.  However, the secret document at the end of this post lists not the Canadian indigenous peoples but Madagascar as a group to be consulted.  What follows are snippets from the 82 page document.

As well as Gates, other wealthy individuals including Sir Richard Branson, tar sands magnate Murray Edwards and the co-founder of Skype, Niklas Zennström, have funded a series of official reports into future use of the technology. Branson, who has frequently called for geoengineering to combat climate change, helped fund the Royal Society's inquiry into solar radiation management last year through hisCarbon War Room charity. It is not known how much he contributed.

Professors David Keith, of Harvard University, and Ken Caldeira of Stanford, [see footnote] are the world's two leading advocates of major research into geoengineering the upper atmosphere to provide earth with a reflective shield. They have so far received over $4.6m from Gates to run the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research(Ficer). Nearly half Ficer's money, which comes directly from Gates's personal funds, has so far been used for their own research, but the rest is disbursed by them to fund the work of other advocates of large-scale interventions.

According to statements of financial interests, Keith receives an undisclosed sum from Bill Gates each year, and is the president and majority owner of the geoengineering company Carbon Engineering, in which both Gates and Edwards have major stakes – believed to be together worth over $10m.

Another Edwards company, Canadian Natural Resources, has plans to spend $25bn to turn the bitumen-bearing sand found in northern Alberta into barrels of crude oil. Caldeira says he receives $375,000 a year from Gates, holds a carbon capture patent and works for Intellectual Ventures, a private geoegineering research company part-owned by Gates and run by Nathan Myhrvold, former head of technology at Microsoft.

The continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases has profound implications for global and regional average temperatures, and also precipitation, ice-sheet dynamics, sea-level rise, ocean acidification and the frequency and magnitude of extreme events. Future climatic perturbations could be abrupt or irreversible, and potentially extend over millennial time scales; they will inevitably have major consequences for natural and human systems, severely affecting biodiversity and incurring very high socio-economic costs (Section 3.1). (from Canadian Natural Resources.)

Enhanced weathering on land however will have clear local impacts as it requires large mining areas and associated transport infrastructure. In addition, the mineral resources required will only be available in certain locations, therefore reducing the opportunity for choosing between alternative sites. Based on historical experience, large mining activities could have serious social implications. In addition, land space is needed for weathering to happen. 

Second, the distribution of impacts of geo-engineering are not likely to be even or uniform as are the impacts of climate change itself. Regarding impacts on climate, this appears to be mainly an issue arising from SRM. Regarding other impacts, CDR could have local and possibly also regional impacts that could raise distributional issues. Such impacts are explored below in this chapter. Where distributional effects arise, this raises questions about how the uneven impacts can be addressed for instance through proper governance mechanisms.

Third, as with climate change, geo-engineering could also entail intergenerational issues. As a result of possible technological “lock in”, future generations might be faced with the need to maintain geo-engineering measures in general in order to avoid impacts of climate change. This mainly has been identified as an issue for SRM. However, it is also conceivable that CDR-techniques entail similar “lock in” effects depending on emission trajectories. Conversely, it could be argued that not pursuing further research on geo-engineering could limit future generations’ options for reducing climate risk. 

How does one sort through the smog of climate reality?


Follow the money trail to see who is being secretive about their funding and documentation.  Documents disclosing the strategies of climate deniers were sent anonymously to DeSmogBlog and can be read in full by following the links here.

These documents are available over at DeSmogBlog. Several people are going over them, and so far they appear legit. You can read some relevant discussions at DeSmogBlog, Deep Climate, Planet 3, Greg Laden, ClimateCrocks, Shawn Otto, and Think Progress. John Mashey at DeSmogBlog has more info that also corroborates the leaked documents, and to call it blistering is to severely underestimate it.

 How do you know if the media is showing bias?
You might be able to spot deniers or the effect of their propaganda in several ways.  Media  qualifying their remarks by such provisos as attributing a point of view to one organization like the Suzuki Foundation or Greenpeace, thereby branding it with the "wingnut" slander or "lefty" tar brush (wink understood).

Why is there so little science news?
Science is being muzzled by governments world wide in order to maintain a status quo.  We never hear about the impact of oil and gas on the environment, toxics, climate, air, water, food supplies, from scientists in Canada unless the information is filtered.

Science, one of the world’s top research journals, published Miller’s findings in January. The journal considered the work so significant it notified “over 7,400″ journalists worldwide about Miller’s “Suffering Salmon” study. Science told Miller to “please feel free to speak with journalists.” It advised reporters to contact Diane Lake, a media officer with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Vancouver, “to set up interviews with Dr. Miller.”

Obama has made attempts to restore science to its rightful place, while our government has completely reversed all our free speech on environment.  We must agitate to have more news stories on environment and science in newspapers, more scientists in federal agencies.  Why control science?  visibility, media,

Advanced Science Serving Society will be holding a meeting in B.C. this week on the issue of why governments control science, its visibility and media gatekeeping.  Let's see how it is covered and who addresses the story well.

China and Tar Sands Ownership Costs Canadians Their Rights

Tar Sands industry opened the door for foreign interests to swallow up Canadian sovereignty just as the banksters did in the US with their infiltration of the White House. Process is laid out here http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Defenceless/6100920/story.html#ixzz1mJvV6O6H
as we are now going to have our natural resources like water being directed by what industry wants with impunity (pretty much what's already happened) to the shock of all. You will see that the Keystone will be a go, despite the destruction to the environment and protests from the stakeholders. And a network of pipes will travel to the four corners of Canada, including the Port of Churchill, through Hudson's Bay, pipelines through the east. China wants to process bitumen and control market pricing. The advantage is to own the factory, not just have a share in the profit. Thanks a lot conservative voters. Your x on the ballot just changed the course of Canada.

Patronage positions are being handed out to all key posts in the private sector which can accommodate facilitate the oil transport process.  Watch out where you live, because you're going to see a big downturn in property values if you planned on living anywhere near the big honking portlands.  

"Mr. Flaherty’s riding association also includes Tim O’Connor – a director of FarmTech Energy Corporation, the ethanol company looking to build a plant at the port to export corn and ethanol."

Flaherty can hold his nose on this one until he's Conservative blue in the face but it won't stop smelling.

These guys must think voters are fools to ne played with. Sadly, maybe they are.

The tories clearly don't limit their pork to their obscene Senate appointments - now it will be every Port Authority from Victoria to St.John's.

 Hey, the people of Oshawa voted for Diamond Jim, now they have too live with him and his decisions. As ye sow, so shall ye reap. Maybe next time around at election time they'll remember this... or not, since ethics and accountability have never seemed to matter to the Oshawa electorate.

Its no longer who you know to get ahead. You just need to be a card carrying conservative.
Huh, who would have thought considering this was the "ethical" government at work.

Oshawa councillor Nester Pidwerbecki said he fears the seven-member board of the port authority – filled mainly by the federal government – will approve the construction of the plant, despite the unanimous opposition of city council.
====
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

Of course industry will win out Citizens of Canada no longer have any rights!

Your environment is as good as dead.

"also president of the Conservative riding association"

"We don't think as a party that patronage has any place in the Parliament of Canada." Stephen Harper, Calgary Herald, March 22, 1995 ...

Its a shame the article didn't also reference the $100,000,000 that Finance Minister Flaherty allocated in one of his previous budgets for his friends at Farmtech so that they can build a corn based ethanol plant at taxpayer expense.

The list of patronage appointments makes clear that when Canadians go to the polls, they will hit a brick wall of very entrenched lobbyists who are cleared for entry through the back door.  

Tar Sands are Not Sustainable Growth, But Quick Buck Exploitation

Conservatives Care about Incremental Transitioning

 The TransCanada Oil Oligopoly of global foreign investors have banded together to rip up as much damage to the province of Alberta as they can before the Conservative plutocracy is stopped by a reality check this coming election.

Andrew Nikiforuk's Tar Sands Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent  is a scathing report on the damaging project that has completely transformed the Canadian economy and social contract.

Why should Canada embark on this irresponsible greed?  To keep oil business wealthy and to make our economy a slave to big business while in the meantime allowing for a communist agenda to subvert all environmental criticism.  Misrepresentation and untruths abound.

Alberta's bitumen apologists swear that "work is progressing to return the disturbed land to a natural state after development, and it will be done right."  The province's former ambassdor to the United States, Murray Smith, even assured our number ne oil market that the industry will achieve "100 per cent long-term restoration of the lands it makes use of."  Why, major tar sand companies have even planted 7.5 million tree seedlings.  The Mining Association of Canada says reclaiming open pit mines can be done with a "vision worthy of a Group of Seven artist." (Tar Sands, 94)

The tar sands are too big, too destructive, too caustic to soil to rehabilitate.  Nothing will grow there again.  But the plans just keep growing bigger to lay waste more.

Even at that, the mines make up only a small part of the wreckage created by the megaproject.  The Alberta government has leased an additional 23,000 square miles of land (and another 30,000 square miles await global investors) for in situ projects, including steam-assisted gravity drainage.  The Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks, which encompass 9,000 square miles and include Jasper, Banff, Yoho and Kootenay, could fit int this planned industrial zone about six times.  As noted, SAGD development will slice and dice the land with thousands of industrial well sites, seismic lines, pipelines, and roads.  This fragmentation will transform the forest into a bitumen park, exterminating the population of woodland caribou and decimating songbirds home from their winter in the tropics.  Seismic lines, which make a forest look like and engineered spiderweb, typically need more than one hundred years to fill in with trees again.  Yet the government has no tight guidelines for reclaiming forest ruined by SAGD. (Tar Sands, p95.)

Coverup of a tailings pond with sand and grass.  What about the toxins below ground?

These are the facts with real concrete specifics, unlike the vague unrealistic and false statements coming from the Minister of the Environment.

And don't believe that oil is good for the people of Alberta which the Conservative oligopoly likes to pit against all the "have not" provinces against.  They are not doing so well as the lies tell us.
Albertans are losing funding for schools, hospitals, jobs etc. as the money is going to the oil industry. Services such as plumbing and construction are now very expensive and hard to find as most of the workers in this trade are working in the tar sands. The irony of this is that their gas prices are increasing too because most of the oil is shipped to America or elsewhere. The energy security propaganda we hear about from the industry is absolutely false. There have also been many complaints from workers about unsafe, unhealthy and abusive situations. As a result of all this there have been increased rates of gambling, suicide and crime in nearby communities. Long term sustainable economies such as forestry, commercial and recreational fishing, ecotourism, hunting, farming and housing are also taking a hit.   Blog source

Across Canada, we've seen the destruction of B.C. loss of forest industry and tourism slowly becoming a gas and fracking hellhole.  Large sections of coastline which are needed for fish spawning grounds are becoming overbuilt with industry.  Farming in the prairies is taking a hit for growing industry servicing and mining acquisitions.  Quebec has lost so much in manufacturing, the Atlantic provinces to fishery manufacturing loss.  The oil industry is keeping the dollar high which kills off export for any other endeavor across the provinces.

Make sure to keep up the criticism and take action for a change.

All About the Boreal Forest and What Tar Sands Destroy

This is by far the most captivating visual presentation on what we are destroying by oil greed.  Because Canada is so large, PMO can sit in Ottawa and only talk economic action plans.  How a person can watch this video and not care deeply about the damage done to nature is hard to fathom.



As for clean up that will happen after a spill, well forget that.

More than 1,000 barrels of oil spewed into the Yellowstone River after Exxon Mobile's Silvertip pipeline burst during heavy flooding in the region in July. By August, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer said samples taken from the region didn't show any elevated levels of chemicals that would persist in the environment. Officials had said Silvertip wasn't carrying tar sands oil at the time, but it does on occasion -- just, conveniently enough, not when the pipeline ripped open. By the end of the year, Exxon was boring holes far below the riverbed as engineers worked on repairs. The Billings Gazette, in its comments on the attorney general's statements, noted quietly this week that less than 1 percent of the total amount of oil spilled from Silvertip was ever recovered, however. Does that mean there's still about 1,000 barrels of oil floating around somewhere?

Tar sands oil sinks, so it will not be fished out of the rivers, never, ever.  Only 1% was recovered two years later.

Americans Livid Over TransCanada Lies

If an individual lies, it's pathological.  When industry lies, it's criminal.  And foolish.  TransCanada promised to source 75% of its steel for pipelines from the US.  Instead, it came from India.

 Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) accused the foreign company TransCanada of misleading the American public that the pipeline would be built with American steel.

Doyle submitted an amendment that challenged TransCanada to certify its claim that 75 percent of the pipe comes from North America is actually true. Discussing his amendment, Doyle expressed his frustration about his attempts to get a straight answer from the tar sands company about where the steel for the 1700-mile pipe was made. Doyle found that the Indian company Welspun Corp appears to be the pipeline supplier, using its Little Rock facilities to store India-manufactured pipe and steel. “I don’t believe there’s a lick of US or Canada steel in this pipeline,” Doyle said:

I’m asking for a bit of truth in advertising here. It’s been my frustration throughout this debate. We hear a lot of claims about the pipeline and I just want to be honest with the American people. My amendment just says this: TransCanada has told us they have made every effort to source as much steel through North American mills as they can. I’m simply asking them to certify that claim. Through my little amateur investigation, I don’t believe there’s a lick of US or Canada steel in this pipeline. But I would love to be proved wrong.

This says volumes about how TransCanada is a black mark in business dealings.  Currently, their Utah tar sands have been halted for being dishonest about how they would be cleaning up the tar mess.  Apparently, the compound turns carcinogenic and fluid when mixed with tar, further enhancing its capability to morph into a run off and uncontrolled toxic compound.