Anyone who emits carbon will pay, Alberta says as it releases tough climate change policies

http://business.financialpost.com/news/ ... e-policies
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economic ... arbon-tax/

As the price of oil kept tanking, so did Alberta's economy. The Canadian province unwisely did not create a surplus fund of billions during the hey days of oil production, so they could weather the current recession. Briefly debt-free years ago, Alberta currently has yet another deficit of $6+ billion, with a provincial debt of $15.9 billion.

Alberta, under the influence of new left-wing politicians (and probably globalist think tankers from New York City and Toronto) has rolled out their new Carbon Tax, which will suck out $3 billion out of the economy each year. The oil and gas companies have agreed to pay their carbon tithes and then hike prices on the consumers. A carbon tax on gasoline will suck in 6.7 cents/liter. Somehow this will 'encourage' drivers from driving so much, and thus stop them from killing of the atmosphere.

This great shuffling of money, mainly to the prov government, will somehow have an effect on the global temperature. Albertans are expected on avg to pay an extra $320 to the gov in 2017 and $470 in 2018. But I expect them to pay more once the gov starts sucking directly from the arteries.

I think the former 'nice' British colonies like Canada and Australia were scheduled first for implementation of carbon taxes. Then more resistant, independent countries will be 'shamed' into accepting our lovely 'roll over and play dead' attitudes.

The sky is falling. But if you pay me some money, I'll try to stop it. The more money you pay, the more I'll think about stopping that pesky sky from falling. It's in my power, cuz y'know I'm the government.

Australian climate dissenter, Dr Jennifer Marohasy, talks about the "tricks" applied to cook the books

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ge9Nwu8MxE

Dr Jennifer Marohasy exposes the data 'adjustments' that are endemic at the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) and at Berkeley University.
In concert with Dr Jensen, she has asked the BOM to justify their data 'adjustments' and have released a paper on the subject, it can be found here:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/ ... _Final.pdf

Princeton scientist William Happer vs the climate cult

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap6YfQx9I64

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcsSn7ehZ1g

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer

"All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it’s not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide," Happer explained.

Australian Professor of Geology Ian Plimer vs the cult:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEPW_P7GVB8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer

NASA finally admits the truth: the Antarctic is cooling

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/6 ... ate-change

An intensive scientific study of both Earth's poles has found that from 2009 to 2016 overall temperature has dropped in the southern polar region.

NASA’s Operation IceBridge is an airborne survey of polar ice and has finalised two overlapping research campaigns at both the poles.

In the last few weeks NASA has revealed the overall amount of ice has increased at the Antarctic and the amount of sea ice has also extended.

Coupled with the latest announcement of slight cooling in the area, it has fuelled claims from climate change deniers that human industrialisation is not having the huge impact on global temperature as often is claimed.

The article adds mention of two glaciers that are shrinking, but this is no way represents 'all of the continent'. Rather it's obviously a small portion.

Last of all, there's a poll at the end of the article where readers can vote on whether they think human-caused global warming is true. Readers who voted overwhelmingly voted NO.

The Club of Rome: the problem and the solution

one of the keys to understanding the climate change narrative

The Club of Rome, founded in 1968, is a globalist think-tank made up of various leaders in government, business, science, academia, and so forth. Its stated purposes is to identify problems facing the world and generate long-term solutions. It was quietly put together, like so many other think-tanks, by the real globalist elite, who are notorious for creating such noble, lofty councils for ulterior reasons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

To understand the global warming scare and the globalist solution to this unproven 'problem', one must pay close attention to panels such as the Club of Rome. For instance, in 1991 the Club published the First Global Revolution, in which they wrote:

"In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."

It's interesting that, before the global warming and CO2 scares got crazy, the media and governments actually did hype up pollution, water shortages, and famine. Now, apparently, these aren't such a big deal anymore to them. Now it's all global warming, which has evolved into climate change.

Must there be a common enemy? Must we all unite to struggle, sacrifice, and fight? Must all of humanity be the enemy? Must all of humanity beat itself for a better tomorrow? The answer to these questions, according to the globalists, is yes on all counts.

The Club identified that mankind has a built-in need to have enemies. Groups of people unite against enemy groups. So in order for all the groups to unite, they must have a common global enemy, much like in the case of the false terrorism narrative that exploded in 2001 (it pits the so-called civilized, liberal, statist, educated, secular people vs the religious, uncivilized, violent, uneducated people of the past).

More from the Club:

"The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor. Some states have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by blaming external enemies. The ploy of finding a scapegoat is as old as mankind itself - when things become too difficult at home, divert attention to adventure abroad. Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one, or else one invented for the purpose. With the disappearance of the traditional enemy, the temptation is to use religious or ethnic minorities as scapegoats, especially those whose differences from the majority are disturbing." "Every state has been so used to classifying its neighbours as friend or foe, that the sudden absence of traditional adversaries has left governments and public opinion with a great void to fill. New enemies have to be identified, new strategies imagined, and new weapons devised."

A sudden absence of enemies has left a great void? (in 1991, the USSR was rapidly on its way out as a superpower)

New enemies have to be identified?

Enemies are sometimes invented?

A new war demanding new strategies and weapons?

Number of hurricanes reaches 30-year low

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/20/numbe ... -year-low/

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/ ... vity_N.htm

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/uk/new ... ars/49693/


But Al Gore said we were going to face increasing numbers of massive hurricanes and cyclones.

I'm amused by the fact that even the numbers from the climate change crew say that they aren't doing anything.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/11/ ... cmp=hplnws

Send this link to everyone and anyone who is even mildly interested in the subject.

What They Haven't Told You about Climate Change
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkdbSxyXftc

Five minutes of summarized, graphically pleasing truth.

Busting the weak hockey stick

A prime piece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/40 ... bombshell/
MIT Technology Review, 2004


Way back in 2004, when the world was getting hyped up by Michael Mann's 'hockey stick' computer model which showed suddenly rising temperatures, a group of scientists acquired the program and proved it was dead wrong.

No matter what data you put into Mann's computer program, it was built to produce a graph result with a hockey stick blade on the end, showing rising temperatures. This article says it was "error" in the program. The scientists who exposed the computer model as faulty, McIntyre and McKitrick, couldn't get their analysis paper published.