Sheila Gunn-Reid and Michelle Sterling warn Bill C-10 will weaponize government control over online platforms to silence climate skeptics, fossil fuel advocates, and groups like Friends of Science. Sterling cites CBC’s biased 2011 The Tipping Point documentary, repackaged with Susan Sarandon and James Cameron, as proof of media bias. A leaked IPCC report ahead of COP26 (Nov 2021) allegedly pressured governments into mandatory Paris Agreement cuts despite voluntary compliance. Critics like David Menzies link climate alarmism to anti-human ideologies, echoing concerns over censorship during COVID-19 and policies favoring unreliable renewables over natural gas. The law risks enforcing ideological narratives over evidence-based debate, undermining free speech in Canada’s energy transition. [Automatically generated summary]
If you're one of the people who seems to think that that burning ball of gas in the sky has maybe a little more to do with climate change than you're comfortable, SUV.
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed, and you're watching The Gunn Show.
Justin Trudeau's new internet censorship law, Bill C-10, is being rushed through Parliament at breakneck speed.
You see, Trudeau wants to shut up his enemies who are telling the truth about him and all of his bad ideas and his bad behavior and his terrible policies on the internet.
And one of the best ways for him to do that is to make the internet now completely under government control.
And here at Rebel News, we know that Bill C-10 is directed at us, not the CBC.
It's directed at us and our friends at True North and the post-millennial because we do investigative journalism about the liberals all the time.
And so the liberals need to shut us up in advance of the next election.
That's really the rush here on Bill C10.
And it's not just pesky, prickly, adversarial journalists who just refuse to take one of those government bailout bribes.
Bill C10 is going to strip away the free speech rights of educational societies and nonprofit groups and truth tellers who take a different approach to certain keynote policy issues that the liberals hold near and dear to their hearts.
Issues like carbon taxes, like the villainization of the oil sands, and of course, along with that, the phasing out of oil and gas jobs.
These are all cornerstone liberal policy ideas.
And people like our friends at Friends of Science have been doing their best on the internet through their YouTube channel and on their blog on a shoestring budget.
They do this through online events, also to balance out the debate around fossil fuels and to also do something else that I think they're really good at.
And that's humanizing the issue to put a face to the job the liberals want to phase out and to arm you with the facts about these allegedly complex issues where the liberals use overly scientific jargon to make you feel like you're not smart enough to understand the science or the underlying policy issue.
Now, my friend, Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science, she did a really great video the other day about the problems of Bill C-10 and how that bill is going to stifle the free speech of organizations just like hers, while at the same time, the bill will amplify the enemies of Canadian jobs as preferred Canadian content.
So naturally, she's on the show tonight.
So joining me tonight in an interview we recorded yesterday morning is my friend Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science.
Joining me now from a cabin in the wilds of Alberta is my friend Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science.
Michelle, I wanted to talk to you about Bill C10 because you guys have a really great video on Bill C10.
And that was the reason I reached out to you to be a guest on the show.
Well, just one of them.
I don't need to look for excuses.
I love having you on the show.
But you and I were just talking off air that You've had some problems with the CBC in the past with regard to their reporting on oil and gas issues and in particular Fort McMurray.
And it's funny because last week I had another fellow, I wouldn't even say climate skeptic, but you and I and he, we all sort of think that maybe the sun has something to do with climate change.
Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition Canada, and he had his own problems with CBC.
He said they were censoring the comment section.
And I said, I know all about that.
I just did a story on that.
And then you were telling me that you've had your own problems with the CBC and you filed a complaint.
So tell us a little bit about that.
Yes, well, it is interesting that they're trying to change the broadcasting act now because back in 2011, if people recall, CBC did a co-production with Clearwater Productions, Naomi Thompson and Tom Radford.
I think they were the producer and director.
Anyhow, it was called the tipping point Age of the Oil Sands, and it became also a theatrical release, but CBC co-produced it.
And I felt that it was an extremely biased, extremely bad representation of the oil sands.
And I also noted that all the people in it seemed to have some strange kind of connection, which turned out to be connections to the tar sands campaign.
So I complained first to the CRTC, and I said to them that I felt that it was in violation of the Canadian Broadcasting Act because it was in violation of section 31DI, which stated that the Canadian broadcasting system should serve to safeguard, enrich, and strengthen the cultural, political, social, and economic fabric of Canada.
Well, the CRTC, which is supposed to be this big, strong, overriding body, immediately passed it off and said, oh, well, that's not our problem.
You should go to the CBC with that.
So I did.
And I spent about nine months writing letters to them on this very topic about how the tipping point was so biased, so wrong, lots of false information in it, lots of hyped up stuff, and that it would probably end up making Canadians and people around the world hate the Alberta oil sands and hate Albertans.
And that's exactly what happened.
So I've documented that in all my letters in a book called My Tar Sands Tipping Point with CBC.
But it's interesting now with the Allen inquiry looking into all the different players in the tar sands campaign, now they desperately want to change the broadcasting act to be the vision of the government and not what I just read you, which was to safeguard the economy and future of Canadians.
You know, it's very fascinating that the CBC, whether wittingly or otherwise, allowed themselves to be the, I guess, the washing machine to legitimize this anti-oil sands propaganda in 2011.
And now, I mean, that it's just standard operating practice down at the CBC now that the oil sands are bad.
But really, I guess for lack of a better term, that documentary production was in fact the tipping point.
That was really the change day when things changed.
Right.
And one of the complaints I had, since BLC10 is supposed to be supervising the internet, I said, you know, they said, oh, we've done lots of good productions about the great side of the oil sands in the past.
But I said, well, in the past, you didn't have the documentary posted on the web running 24-7 worldwide.
You didn't have key players like James Cameron coming up to Fort Mac.
You didn't have Susan Casey Lefkowitz of the National Natural Resources Defense Council actually sitting in Fort Mac or Fort Chip telling people what the tar sands campaign would entail.
She actually says it right on camera, what they're going to do.
And so this is like a huge promotion for here's how you shut down the tar sands, everyone.
And, you know, I spent nine months writing letters.
I wrote them dozens and dozens of letters.
I went right to the top and I said, look, you've got to at least put up, you know, a list of the Alberta environment sites and the oil sand development sites at the same time so that people can read and get a fair balance.
But they refuse to do it.
So, you know, it's, yeah, it was really a turning point.
It was the tipping point for the reputation of the oil sands worldwide.
And of course, they recut that same material and released it as a theatrical documentary worldwide voiced by Susan Sarandon, who was in James Cameron's film, Avatar, right?
With the poor innocent Navi being run over by massive mining operations.
Yeah, yeah.
And, you know, I think I'm like you.
I don't care if these people do these things.
I just don't want to pay for it.
And I don't want to give them access to government-funded networks in the form of the CBC to distribute it.
I don't want to be a part of it.
Go do whatever you want.
Those people already have the very deep pockets of foreign charities.
They don't need the help of Canadian tax dollars to disseminate their lies about us.
And not only that, I mean, as a broadcaster, if you look at the CBC Code of Ethics and pretty much all broadcasters in Canada, they all state they're going to have fair balanced journalism.
They're going to give viewpoints of all Canadians, you know, and they've never done that.
They didn't do it in that case.
And so, you know, it is interesting that they now want to change the Broadcasting Act to simply reflect the vision of the government of Canada, which is basically PRAFDA.
But they're already doing that.
As you said about our video in the video about Bill C10, we show that there's so much soft and hard censorship already going on in Canada that, you know, this is kind of the last nail in the coffin.
You know, that's, and again, that's why I wanted to have you on the show is because C10 is the top of everybody's mind and everybody is concerned about, you know, what they're going to be allowed to say on the internet and what they're not.
This bill really does put the internet underneath government control.
And I think at Friends of Science, you folks have really been on the forefront of, I hate to use the word intersection, so I'll say cross-section because I'm trying not to use the language of the left these days.
But you've really been at the cross-section of how censorship is stifling climate skepticism.
And again, I say climate skepticism for lack of a better term.
I don't think you and I disagree that humans change their environment around them, but maybe there are other factors like that big burning ball of gas in the sky that also affects the temperature on the ground.
But you, I think, have really had the foresight to see, okay, so they might use this on people who are, you know, gun rights activists and critical of radical Islam or on the flip side of that, who are pro-Israel.
Those people are going to get censored on the internet.
But you see it coming for climate skeptics.
And I think you're right because this is such a big issue that the liberals are really making a cornerstone of their government.
Well, you know, it's really a house of cards because I know we're going to talk about this a bit later, but the climate change, the upcoming climate change report for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is basically the climate Bible, if you like, that governments set their policy on.
That won't be, that's not slated to be released until 2022, but it was leaked to a Jence France Presse to have, you know, lots of media headlines like, oh, we're all going to die.
We've only got a limited time.
All the tipping points are going to tip and oh, it's all going to fall down.
But actually, the people on the dissenting side, I like to call ourselves people with rational dissenting views.
And there's nothing skeptical about them.
They're all based on evidence.
So, you know, we bring forward the evidence and say, well, look, funny you should say that because we don't see that in the data.
We don't see it in the long-term trends.
You know, Facebook is now, for instance, doing a climate science section.
So the other day on our Facebook page, I went to post something.
And as I posted it, Facebook popped up.
Would you like to see the temperature trend for Alberta?
So I said, sure.
So where does their temperature trend start?
1950, which was in a downslope in a cool time and goes up to now.
So of course, it looks like temperature is rising.
But if you look at the long-term record, and we have almost 100-year records for many places in Alberta and many places in Canada, it's like this.
So, and in some places like that.
And in very few places, slightly up.
But we're not warming three times faster than the average temperature of the world.
We're not.
It's just not happening.
So this house of cards cannot be criticized publicly.
This house of cards is about to fall.
So this is why they have to shut everybody up.
There's billions and trillions of dollars invested in green bonds.
There's a $1.5 trillion industry built up about it.
All these green groups, where do they get their money from?
Climate catastrophe.
Where do all the ENGOs get their money from?
They say, send us money and we'll help stop climate change.
Now, if there's no human cause climate change happening on any catastrophic level, they're all out of business.
So they're going to fight like hell to make sure that this climate catastrophe scenario goes on.
And part of that is definitely shutting up any opposition or any questions, any inquiry, and any data evidence-based source.
The End Stage Of Removing God00:12:07
You know, and that's, we're already seeing that with coronavirus information on the internet.
We have to put a big blaring, although it's a little over the top and obnoxious for a reason, because we do it in protest.
We have to put a warning in front of so many of our videos.
And a lot of our videos, friends at home, if you're ever watching, there is often a YouTube version of a video and a Rumble version of the same video, because there are certain things that we are just not permitted to say on YouTube if we want to maintain our channel.
And while we don't like playing by YouTube's rules, we want to be able to have a means for people to find us and then take an off-ramp onto some of the other platforms.
But we're already seeing it that censorship happened so quickly with anybody who is skeptical of the official coronavirus narrative.
Not that coronavirus isn't real, not that it's not deadly, but hey, maybe we could have handled this a different way.
Hey, maybe there are some other problems with deaths that are not being counted, deaths of despair and deaths of loneliness.
We can't even talk about those sorts of things on YouTube or our channel will get killed.
And the same thing, they're just going to take that formula and throw it on top of climate change.
That's what I think.
Well, and especially, you know, with climate change, people don't realize that big tech, you know, big tech surpassed all of the big oil companies, like Exxon was at the top of the most valued shares in the world for decades.
And recently, all of big tech surpassed Exxon and it fell off the top 10.
And everyone was like, see, big oil doesn't matter anymore.
Well, people don't realize that the share value of all these big tech companies relies almost entirely on the mistaken impression that they provide clean tech, right?
They don't have a carbon footprint.
Now, if you look at them, like Netflix, for instance, 15% of the world's internet usage, you know, go and look up the servers for Facebook, for Google, for Amazon.
I mean, Amazon wasn't even reporting to the CDP and they got an F every year.
They probably knew that if they reported, they would be deemed to be very dirty.
So instead, Jeff Bezos put, what, $10 billion that he gave away to climate activists and bought them off that way.
And he also is building that arena in Seattle.
What is it?
The climate arena or something.
Yeah.
Who calls an arena the climate arena?
Yeah.
So, you know, their share value relies on this climate catastrophe scenario as well.
So of course they want to prop it up because, you know, the real lie is that everything relies on oil, gas, and coal to exist, to operate, but they like to pretend that they're completely clean.
And therefore, the investors at the UNPRI who are all dogmatically following Al Gore as their financial guru, their fiduciary guru, they're all investing there and into things like Tesla, believing that they're saving the planet and getting tons of money from you in the form of subsidies, right?
So Amazon is recently buying renewable energy certificates here in Alberta from a solar farm going up.
So that means you Albertans, you Canadians are supporting one of the richest companies in the world with your subsidies because all these solar and wind farms are completely underwritten by tax subsidies and sweet deals on things like flow through shares and no environmental impact reporting and no decommissioning required.
So that's all going to be on us.
So, you know, it's not a green future.
It's an unsustainable, poor, brutal poverty, heater eat poverty future.
That's what we're facing because of these stupid policies.
You know, again, referring back to my interview with Tom Harris, but one of the frequent drums that he bangs is that, you know, the left is particularly the environmental left, they say a lot of stuff about how they are pro-social justice and their anti-capitalism until such time as this big sinister capitalist like Jeff Bezos dumps a pile of money on climate change.
And they complain about, you know, workers getting a living wage.
Okay, fine.
But maybe instead of Jeff Bezos dumping a bunch of money on climate change to make the activists shut up, maybe he could have increased the wage of his employees.
But the activists really don't care about people.
It's a very anti-human ideology that the environmentalist left has.
That's true.
And that's actually, we talked before the show began about the fact that I was on Ben Stein's Panel show called The World According to Ben Stein.
And thanks very much to Mike Visser for making that connection for us.
But I was surprised to hear how Ben Stein also shares the view that this is really an anti-human movement.
And he and I talked a lot about the fact that, you know, this is also written up by Michael Crichton.
So just so that you know that there's more than one reference to it.
But we talked a lot about the fact that euthanasia and eugenics were key parts of government policy in Germany, in the US, and in Canada throughout the 1900s to 1945.
And in Alberta, eugenics was policy, was law up until 1972.
Now, there's an interesting crossover when eugenics goes out of favor, disappears, is delegitimized.
Climate change comes up, and what's part of it?
A lot of it is about depopulation.
It's about getting rid of the useless eaters.
It's about the David Suzuki view that people, humans are like maggots defecating all over the place.
You know, a real disgust for the basic joy of human life.
And I would say that this is my personal opinion, but I would say that that's an integral part of all the attacks on the pastors and churches lately, because, you know, people of a Judeo-Christian background value life however it is.
This is where, you know, they don't make the judgment and say, oh, because this individual with Downs will never make $100,000 working in a regular job.
Therefore, why do we need to have them around?
You know, they say, look at this beautiful child.
This is a person that God made in God's image.
And, you know, if you look at Dante, you know, the image of humanity is like a beautiful rose with a million different petals, and every petal makes the rose beautiful.
So, you know, the value of human life is integral to that Judeo-Christian viewpoint.
And that is corrupted entirely by the Green movement, which in fact has very deep roots in Nazi Germany and this eugenics and euthanasia movement that was prevalent from the 1900s to 1945 there.
Like it's horrifying when you read it.
They were, you know, they were just using the economics of Germany, especially during the 1920s, and saying, you know, these people cost us a lot of money.
Why don't we just get rid of them?
I mean, that's it.
So this was very prevalent within Germany long before the Holocaust began.
And that should not diminish the horrors of the Holocaust, which was a different tact entirely, taking this thinking and applying it to a specific group of people or groups of people and, you know, getting rid of them en masse.
But all of those roots are very clearly founded in general life and economics prior to World War II and the Holocaust.
And we see this replicated again when you see, and it's almost a very mainstream environmentalist view to not have kids.
Yes.
You see that all the time.
They say, we don't want to bring the children into a world that's going to end.
It's irresponsible to bring these, as you say, useless eaters into a world where they'll contribute to the end of the world.
And as a mother, I cannot imagine seeing my children that way.
But I suppose the environmentalist movement is cutting out the middleman of eugenics.
They're just doing it beforehand instead of after.
Well, also after, I mean, why did MAID get passed recently, you know, sweeping MAID regulations?
And we've talked about that before that my brother chose to leave the world through MAID because of his progressive degenerative condition.
But the medical system at the time worked very hard to make sure that he could certainly live the best that he could with that condition.
And that's not going to happen anymore.
I mean, now you can just say, you know what?
I don't feel good.
How about MAID?
And they probably go, sure, here.
No, it's a very slippery slope.
And as you say, it's integral to this thinking that, you know, people are seen as a carbon footprint and not as a human being.
And when you realize that carbon dioxide has nothing to do with any major change in the climate, then, you know, then what is really the policy behind this?
Yeah, you know, and again, just my opinion, but I think this is when what happens, this is the end stage of removing God from the culture, those Judeo-Christian values, because I don't see people as a carbon footprint.
I don't see my children as an infestation on the face of the earth.
I see them as image bearers of the divine, created in God's own image.
And because of that, they have inherent value.
And I think that when whether you're born poor or born rich, you're still an image bearer of the divine.
And I think for much of the environmentalist movement, it's really, I feel like it's neo-paganism.
God doesn't exist in that.
And humans control everything, not that extra higher power that you're accountable to.
Yeah.
And interesting that you mentioned neo-paganism.
I don't know if you've seen the opening to the G7, but there was some sort of like ceremonial entrance by some theatrical performers.
And as I watched it, I thought, wow, that's neo-paganism right there.
What are they doing at the G7?
This is supposed to be, you know, talking about the economy and society.
And they have all these creepy people running around in very weird, strange costumes, performing curious rites.
You know, it's they're off the rails.
It does nothing to, it does nothing for my tendency to be conspiracy-minded when I see those sorts of things.
So I try to avoid them.
Right.
You know, but whatever happened to, you know, celebrating the beautiful accomplishments of human beings, the fact that we don't live in caves anymore, that people with damaging conditions can be restored to health, can live a good life, that, you know, modern medicine makes it possible to do everything that before they broke the habit of flying, so to speak, as WAF calls it.
Advocates Pushing Green Energy Scams00:07:34
You know, just imagine tourism brought to places in the world a whole economy.
You know, some of these small countries, their economies flourished, people's standards of living went up just because of tourism and aviation.
You know, and what's wrong with that?
Oh, the carbon footprint.
Yeah.
You know, that's actually sick.
It truly is.
That's why my friend David Menzies celebrates Human Achievement Day instead of Earth Day.
You know, to celebrate these vast leaps in our quality of life brought to us by our old friend Fossil Fuels.
Now, speaking of fossil fuels, how's that for a segue?
I wanted to talk to you about your latest report.
And it's what you really need to know about renewable energy that the Pembina Institute won't tell you.
And the Pembina Institute has been kicking around for a long time here in Alberta.
They are perennial grant recipients, both federally and municipally.
But they really provincially as well.
I just know that we did access to information and we found how much money the city of Calgary of all places was dumping into Pembina.
We know they get so much money from Justin Trudeau.
But yes, it is a great shame that they are still drinking from the teat of the taxpayer here in Alberta while actively trying to put us all out of work and force these green energy scams on us.
Yes, well, we did a live stream of our recent report and we have a team of professional engineers who went through a document that Pembina Institute published in August of 2020 and it was called What You Really Need to Know About Renewables.
And it was really, you know, sort of a trip to fantasy land.
And they especially made up quite a bit of stuff about how great the solar resources are here in Canada, especially in Alberta.
And on their map, they tried to show that there were fantastic solar resources all over the place here.
And it's true that in Alberta, the solar resources are better than any other place in Canada, but they're still very poor or medium by comparison to places like Arizona.
But they didn't compare us to Arizona.
They compared us to like Miami and Rio de Janeiro.
And so our professional engineers went through and they did a very complete qualitative analysis.
So when you hear someone say this solar farm can power 15,000 houses, that's not true.
Solar energy can power zero houses reliably, zero houses reliably.
And when you start to do the calculations and you see how much extra energy you need to back up solar and wind, you find out, oh, actually they contribute almost nothing.
They cost a fortune.
And it's only because we have conventional natural gas and coal still on the grid and hydro, and that we can import hydro, coal, and from BC and from Montana and Saskatchewan.
It's the only reason why they operate.
So these guys are pushing constantly to add more and more wind and solar and get rid of even natural gas.
The theory is for net zero 2020 that no one will use natural gas anymore.
We'll all use electricity.
Do you have any idea how much that would cost?
It would be more money than people make in a year just to have just to power your home and to go to electrification completely.
It would be right off the scale.
So you have to read our report and see what this qualitative analysis does.
It shows that Pembina Institute is misleading the policymakers and the public in every way on wind and solar.
And they're taking lots of money from the government.
So if you're going to get taxpayer money and make policy recommendations, should you not be required to be accurate?
And I did a live stream on that.
And I show that they're also getting money from foreign sources.
In 2018, they got, I think it was about half a million dollars from the Energy Foundation in the US to push clean energy.
Well, you know, does that organization or parties associated with it have vested interests in the renewables that will be installed in Alberta?
So, you know, there's lots of very big questions about what these guys are up to.
And I think our qualitative analysis shows that they are completely wrong.
Now, that said, we'd be quite happy to engage in any open dialogue.
We can present all of the modeling that we used, all of the sources that we used, all the data sources.
They're all public anyway.
But, you know, we'd be happy to be challenged on it and prove our point.
Open debate with the other side.
What a bizarre concept.
Good luck to you to get those people to the table.
You know, and it's strange too to hear that these advocates again for social justice advocating for energy policy that would basically take up vast tracts of arable land because that's what it would require.
Sure, we've got lots of sunlight here in Alberta.
We use it to grow food, to feed the world, you know, or we have these enormous tracts of boreal forests, which the environmentalists tell me they love, but we would have to mow down huge swaths of it to put up toxic solar farms.
And that's the way of the future, I guess, for them.
But no pipelines, remember, no pipelines, that little skinny line through the bush that's under the ground.
That's going to be a huge problem.
Yeah, well, and the other thing that people don't realize, you know, people who hate pipelines should realize if they are pushing electrification and wind and solar, what's going to have to be built, oh, and EVs as well, is huge, massive transmission lines everywhere you look.
And in fact, in Matthew Embry's film, Global Warning, which by the way has just won a Remy Award at the Houston Film Festival and also just got selected for the Miami Film Festival.
And this is one of the Canadian content films that without Bill C10, no media covers.
Anyway, in his film, Catherine Abreu of Canrack is traveling around in Germany and you see all these wind farms everywhere and transmission lines everywhere.
And she's saying, yeah, you know, I hope Canada looks like this.
This is my vision of Canada.
And, you know, people who work on pipelines, they can just switch over and build these things instead.
Like, you know, they're two different kinds of jobs.
And really, would you rather have a pipeline under the ground where for 50 years you don't even know it's there until some environmental group starts the tour sands campaign or to have massive high voltage power lines running everywhere, buzzing and you won't have a say in it because Bill C10 and Bill C12, you'll just have to shut up and grin and bear it.
COP26 Leaks and Press Controls00:05:52
Yeah.
And, you know, that reminds me of our mutual friend Marine Poole's documentary in which he showed how the pursuit of green energy and in much of his movie, he points out that it's biofuels as opposed to, you know, just natural gas, fossil fuels.
It took up so much arable land, farmers quit growing food because they were living off the subsidies to grow biofuels.
Yes, and it destroys the land because it's a monocrop.
And, you know, it, as you say, it destroys local agriculture.
In his film, it's memorable because he jumps on a tractor and starts driving around the region trying to find a potato farmer and can't find one.
And then he talks with someone who tells him, you know, after the war, a woman came to the rural area looking for potatoes and had a bag full of very expensive jewelry and just wanted to trade that for potatoes.
And, you know, that's, I think I've mentioned this on your show before, but Amartya Sen, who's a Nobel Prize-winning economist, did a study and they found that in countries where there was no censorship of the press, even in difficult times, people survived.
But in countries where there was censorship of the press, famine was rampant in the land.
And the greatest famines throughout history happened in countries where the press was censored.
Wow.
On that dark note, let's move on to the IPCC.
They've leaked a report to the friendly media.
And you and I were talking off-air.
I think they leaked it to friendly media so that the media downstream from there know exactly the expected narrative for them to craft when they report on the information inside this leaked report that isn't due out for another year.
But it's interesting how these things go to journalists all the time and not to other scientists.
Right.
It was actually the French Association des Climato Réaliste who first issued a press statement, you know, very upset that this report had been leaked to the press and not provided so that others could see it.
And people might be wondering, well, what does it matter if it's going to come out in a year?
What's the big rush?
Why is this a problem?
The principal reason is that in the fall of this year in November, there will be a COP26 conference of the parties.
So this is all the people who signed up to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change back in the 1990s.
This is the 26th time that they've met.
Emissions have been going up every year ever since, even though every year they promise they're going to cut them by a dramatic amount.
So this is like a run-up to COP by claiming that the climate community is saying there's a catastrophe coming.
So that will help the COP negotiators push their rulebook into place.
Now, up till now, the Paris Agreement that Catherine McKenna signed, and she didn't even know what a COP was at the time, the Paris Agreement has been voluntary.
The only thing countries actually had to do was to report every five years on what they were up to, what their emissions were, what their plans were.
They didn't actually have to do anything.
So COP26, they're trying to force into place the Paris rulebook and make it mandatory to cut emissions.
And as Ben Stein pointed out on the show when I talked with him, he said, this is absurd.
You know, this is giving China the lead in the world.
This is taking away our ability to be independent sovereign nations.
And that's what they're going to try and do at COP26 in November.
And that's why the leak of this report was so critical, because now the media, as you say, can, you know, hype the catastrophe scenario, but no other scientist can look at this report and say, well, actually, you know, they say that might happen on page 12, but on page 55, they say based on 100 years of evidence, it won't happen.
So it's terrible that, you know, it wasn't, why didn't they give it to a scientific body like the Association for the Advancement of Sciences in the States or to some science journal and have a number of other qualified experts review it and issue their commentaries as well.
Why the media, the only thing the media know about climate change is that there 400 of them are part of Covering Climate Now, which is a Columbia journalism review initiative that reaches 2 billion people.
Wow.
They publish everything in bright orange, and they do nothing but hype climate catastrophe.
You know the tagline on my show is, It's remember, don't let the government tell you that you've had too much to think?
Well, through Bill C10, the government is literally putting the idea that maybe you might be getting just a little bit too much to think on the internet into law.
They're doing this to prevent you from being exposed to new and different ideas, unapproved ideas, I guess.
Government Limits Internet Thought00:00:45
Now, am I an oracle?
Do I have a crystal ball or a crystal brain, as they say?
Or do I just know that so often the people on the left, they really believe that they're right, but they don't know that they're right and they don't have the supporting facts.
So that puts them in a position where they're unable to defend their bad ideas on the merits of the bad idea.
And when you can't do that, the only thing left to do to win an argument is to forcibly shut the other side up.