Tom Harris, ICSC Canada’s director, argues Conservatives risk alienating their base by adopting "climate emergency" rhetoric—90% of grassroots attendees at the 2023 Canada Strong and Free Conference rejected it. He slams Pierre Poilievre’s EV and coal policies as ineffective, comparing them to the 2020 Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, which he calls economically destructive. Apollo astronauts like Buzz Aldrin (MIT PhD) dismissed climate alarmism in a 2012 letter, yet face suppression by activists like Greta Thunberg. Harris warns Dutch-style nitrogen policies could force Canadian farms to close, citing Princeton’s Will Happer’s data showing negligible N2O warming. He frames climate initiatives as a modern "useful idiots" scenario, shifting production to coal-dependent China while undermining Canada’s economy, and urges Conservatives to prioritize adaptation over costly mitigation. [Automatically generated summary]
How should the Conservative Party of Canada be talking about the issue or rather non-issue of climate change, depending on who you ask?
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed and you're watching The Gunn Show.
I think there is a stark disconnect between how politicians talk and seem to care about climate change and how normal people talk and care about climate change.
As in, I think normal people actually don't care at all, except insofar as we might ask, how much is this going to cost us?
For example, right now, the city of Calgary has committed to an $87 billion climate change scheme.
Now, did Mayor Giodi Gondic campaign on that?
Nope.
What say do the taxpayers of Calgary get in any of this?
Well, absolutely none.
And this flows directly from the non-binding declaration of a climate emergency the city of Calgary brought forward not all that long ago.
You see, these non-binding things quickly become binding once they start writing policy around them.
Now, my guest tonight is Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition Canada, and he recently wrote an op-ed in the National Post about how he thinks the Conservative Party of Canada should start discussing these issues.
He says they should not be using the language of the left to talk about climate change.
That's just conceding too much ground to the enemy on this issue.
And when I say the enemy, I mean the people who want us to pay to change the weather.
Now, I've got a long conversation with Tom, so I'm just going to shut up right now and throw to the interview we recorded yesterday afternoon.
So joining me now from his office in Ottawa is good friend of the show, Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition, Canada.
And last time I talked to Tom, it was way back in May, and he was just headed into the Canada Strong and Free Conference.
That's what they call the Manning Center Conference these days.
And Tom sort of did a straw poll of the people who were in attendance about what they thought the candidates for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada should consider as their climate policy.
And that led into an article that was, you know, to their credit, published in the National Post.
Tom, thanks for joining us.
Tell us what you found out when you were, you know, polling the attendees and how that turned into an article.
Yeah, that's right.
It turns out that the general rank and file of the Conservative Party, the grassroots, were very, very supportive of our point of view on climate change.
And I'll just get rid of my virtual background for a second.
Here is the actual banner that we had.
There is no climate emergency.
And I went on to say climate change is natural.
Trying to stop it will only bankrupt our society and put our most vulnerable people at risk.
Now, it's interesting that we had literally hundreds of people actually come up to us and say, yeah, we agree completely.
And we wish to heaven that the actual candidates for leadership would be saying this sort of thing.
So they were very frustrated.
We went into the actual debate that they had there.
Everyone was there except Patrick Brown.
And they actually indirectly supported the climate scare.
They generally didn't say much about climate change in that debate.
But there's a huge disconnect between what the grassroots want.
And after all, they're the ones that are going to vote for leader and what the leadership candidates are saying.
You know, Pierre Polyev is a good example, and it seems likely that he's going to win.
I mean, my contacts within the party tell me it's almost certain he will.
But while he doesn't obviously, I mean, it's not 100% sure whether he believes or doesn't believe the climate scare, but I get the impression he very definitely doesn't.
But what he's doing is he's promoting the idea that we have to store carbon dioxide underground.
He calls it carbon sequestration and carbon emissions.
You know, he's using the language of the enemy.
In fact, Sheila, it's very sad because, you know, my contacts in the party, they're actually saying that in some ways, Pierre is campaigning for the liberals because what he's doing is he's supporting the climate scare.
He's saying that, in fact, you know, carbon dioxide is this big problem.
We have to put it underground.
I mean, that's what he's saying indirectly.
He's also promoting electric vehicles.
He's also saying that we should be encouraging developing countries to get off coal, which of course is the major source of electricity in China and India, and switch over to clean Canadian natural gas.
The objective, of course, being to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
So sadly, Pierre is not doing what the base want.
In fact, none of them are.
I think some of them, in particular, Jean-Charé, is probably pretty hopeless.
I don't think you're ever going to see him being a climate realist.
And of course, the reason is that Jean-Charé, as environment minister, led the Canadian delegation to the Rio conference in 1992 that got Canada into this whole mess in the first place.
You know, that's where we signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which underlies all the UN agreements.
And that Framework Convention is a real problem because it gives an out clause, as we've talked before, to all developing nations.
China was considered a developing nation in 1992.
They had no billionaires.
Now they have, I don't know, maybe 200.
I mean, they've got lots and lots.
The world's second largest economy or first, depending on the day.
And yet they're still classified as a developing country under the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
And you might remember what the Chinese delegate said in Peru when he was questioned about whether or not that China would consider getting off that status.
He said no.
He said the purpose of the Paris Agreement is to enforce the climate framework convention on climate change, not to change it.
So they've got a sweetheart deal.
So what Pierre should be saying, and this is the kind of messaging that is pretty straightforward to give.
And I think the major concern among all the candidates is if they say things like we say, which I just said on the banner, that they'll be called climate change deniers.
They're really scared about that.
So here's a three-step approach that Pierre should be taking.
And in fact, they should all take.
I'm hopeful that Roman Baber eventually will take this approach.
But so far, he's been non-committal on climate.
He's apparently just frightened of the topic because it's so politically incorrect.
And I think he is not a climate alarmist.
No, I don't think so either.
Yeah, in my discussions with him, it's pretty clear that he's quite realistic.
And I don't think Pierre is a climate alarmist either.
The first thing he should stop doing is stop campaigning for the liberals.
In other words, stop promoting the climate scare.
Stop saying things like carbon sequestration.
Do you know what carbon sequestration is to me?
Grass.
Yeah.
Grass pulls it out of the atmosphere and uses it and grassland grazing cattle.
That's carbon sequestration if you care about those sorts of things.
Yeah, completely.
But you know what Pierre says, and I've had email exchanges with him and he's actually answered personally to his credit.
I'll bring this point up and he says, no, we're not going to have Trudeau's carbon tax.
And I say, okay, great.
What are you going to have?
Are no tools?
We're going to have carbon dioxide sequestration.
Although there's the other problem.
He's got to change his language.
It's not carbon emissions.
It's not carbon pollution.
It's carbon dioxide.
Okay.
That's the first thing all candidates should do right away.
Stop calling it carbon emissions because carbon is soot or graphite.
I mean, if you think of it, soot is real pollution.
Okay.
Yeah.
In fact, during the early days of the coal use of coal, we in fact saw lots of real pollution.
So yes, we should reduce that.
But carbon dioxide is plant food.
And in fact, most of the plants in our environment outside evolved at a time when carbon dioxide was much, much higher than today.
And in fact, if you doubled carbon dioxide from today's levels from 420 to 840, it would only be positive.
That would be the only impact.
We would have a lot more plant growth.
We'd have plants growing in areas that are currently too dry because as CO2 increases, you need less water so we can actually have crops in areas that are actually currently too dry.
So first of all, stop using their language.
And language is just so, so important.
You remember the appendix to 1984?
It was all about new speak, how you change the thinking pattern of the population by using language that triggers certain ideas and emotions and things like that.
Well, carbon emissions triggers a negative emotion, an image of black soot, that sort of thing.
So first of all, Pierre and all candidates, stop calling it carbon pollution.
Stop calling it carbon emissions, carbon sequestration.
No, no, it's carbon dioxide.
They could do that change tomorrow and nobody would really notice.
And they would actually be stopping supporting the climate scare.
They'd stop campaigning for the liberals.
The other thing, of course, is that Pierre has to stop giving these messages that imply that he thinks we have this big emergency.
Get rid of your sequestration.
That's a very dangerous thing if you think about it.
You know, there have been cases in history in the Cameroons, for example, in Africa, where there was a big emission of carbon dioxide.
A big bubble came up through their lake.
I think it was Lake Lagos.
I'm not sure.
But what happened is this massive bubble of carbon dioxide escaped and it was natural and it rolled down the valley through the Cameroons, killing livestock and people and everything.
And there's an interesting story about a man who saw all these things dying around him, but of course it's invisible.
He didn't know what was causing it.
So he jumped on his motorcycle and he just went zooming off as fast as he could.
And by very good coincidence, he zoomed in the right direction.
So he got out of the bubble, although he couldn't have seen it, and he survived to tell the story.
And that led to massive death in the Cameroons, especially of livestock, because carbon dioxide escaped naturally and it's heavier than air.
So it displaces air.
And basically, you suffocate.
So you don't want to have a carbon sequestration, carbon dioxide sequestration station anywhere near your home.
Because if I tell you that I do, I do.
Oh, I'm sorry.
Because I'm near the refineries.
And so this is something that refineries usually just sign on to.
They get grants from the government to do it.
And the reason the refineries are near here is because there are salt caverns below.
And so then they inject their CO2 down there and they say, look at us.
Well, at least you know where it would be coming from.
So you know what direction to zoom off in.
Exactly.
Start noticing everything falling dead.
So yeah, these CO2 sequestration is a huge mistake.
And Pierre should not be saying that.
It's going to massively increase the cost of electricity.
I mean, you know, perhaps even double it.
And of course, it's dangerous in the long run.
If you start putting it all over the place, eventually one of them is probably going to leak.
The other thing is EVs.
Why is he promoting EVs?
Well, of course, the whole concept behind that is that it's supposedly going to reduce carbon dioxide.
But you know, we interviewed an engineer, Ronald Stein from California, who's done the full life cycle analysis on electric vehicles.
And he finds that when you count the actual mining and the manufacturing and refining of all the materials to make EVs and to make their batteries, you end up with in the complete life cycle, you end up with more carbon dioxide emitted than if you just use a gasoline-powered car.
So if you're really concerned about CO2, and of course, I don't think people should be, but if you are, then don't buy an EV because it's actually more carbon dioxide.
So Pierre, stop promoting EVs.
That's dumb, especially in Canada.
You'd laugh, Sheila, here in Ottawa, we're going to have all electric buses.
And the Auditor General just said recently, Auditor General of Ottawa, that it might be a good idea if the city were to actually test them in the winter.
Yeah, that's probably a good plan.
The city have had a pilot bus project and they tested it in the spring, summer, and fall, but they never tested it in the winter.
And of course, in Germany, we have buses in their winter, which is much more mild than ours.
And they broke down halfway around their roots and had to, the people had to be rescued by internal combustion driven buses.
And of course, the last thing is don't push developing countries to get off of coal for the sake of climate.
I mean, first of all, coal is a wonderful energy source.
It's very dense.
It saved our forests.
Okay.
If you go back in time to before we had our forests, they were completely denuding England to get wood.
Okay.
So coal was a great discovery and it was something that we were able to then help save the environment.
If anything, we should be encouraging developing countries to use the cleanest coal technology, okay?
To use the best scrubbers and the best pollution control.
But trying to get them off coal, that's really criminal because that's going to massively increase their cost of electricity.
And that's the last thing they need.
So Pierre has to basically stop those two things.
Then the question is, what should he say about climate change?
Well, of course, two things.
One is he should say, considering the fact that Canada has so little influence on world emissions, at the very least, we should be focusing more on adaptation.
And concerning the idea that we are causing dangerous climate change, what Pierre should say is, look, I really care about the environment.
I also care about our economy.
I care about Canadians' futures.
So if we're going to spend hundreds of billions, and remember, what was it?
The environment minister said since Judea came in, they spent $110 billion on the transition to supposedly to transition to new energy sources to supposedly stop climate change, $110 billion.
So, I mean, that gives Pierre a great opportunity to say, look, if we're going to spend that amount of money, we're going to have to have a good, solid look at the science.
And we'll bring in scientists on both sides of the climate debate and we'll have open hearings so the public can hear what's really going on.
And then we'll make decisions based on the best available science.
It's time to cancel, cancel culture.
We'll get rid of that.
We'll bring in scientists who actually study the field and let the public actually hear.
And then we'll decide what we should do with respect to emissions reduction.
Promoting Rational Climate Debate00:03:55
Now, in that case, you know, he'll still be criticized as a denier.
And so the answer to that.
He is anyway.
Who cares?
Yeah.
So the answer to that is, well, is your case so weak it cannot withstand rational debate?
Okay.
If you're so confident that the science supports your plan, Mr. Judea or Mr. Charet, then why are you afraid of hearing both sides of the argument?
And, you know, it actually reminds me of a scene in Star Trek The Next Generation.
And, you know, I've always been a Star Trek fan.
Data, the robot was sent to evacuate a colony because these nasty aliens were coming to reoccupy their own colony because they actually had it originally.
And the colonists didn't want to hear anything.
And so data said, is your point of view so weak it cannot withstand rational debate?
At which points they zapped him and they turned him off.
That's what they do to us now.
Yeah, exactly.
So, so I mean, Pierre has to recognize a couple things.
First of all, he's currently, as I say, campaigning for the liberals because he's promoting the climate scare.
And people who really care about climate change are going to vote liberal.
They're not going to vote for the conservatives, weaker climate change approach.
I mean, he's not going to get any new supporters by being a climate alarmist because they're just going to go to what they consider the people who have the most extreme plan, which is the liberals or the NDP.
So, and also at this point, he's supposed to be appealing to the grassroots of the base.
And the base have made it very, very clear with O'Toole, with Andrew Scheer, that they are very much against this sort of pandering to woke political correctness on climate change.
They're sick of it.
Okay.
And at the conference, as I say, we had hundreds of people say, Damn, you guys are right.
You know, like, why are you, why are our leaders supporting the climate scare?
This is terrible.
And it brings up the article that I had published on June 1st in the National Post, the Financial Post section.
It's interesting, Sheila, in the United States a few years ago, they actually were trying to determine what is it that most causes public opinion on climate change.
What is the big driver of public opinion?
Now, the people doing the poll thought that we had a climate emergency, so they were trying to figure out how can we get people more enthusiastic.
Yeah, right.
So they looked at things like, is it the science?
Is it the statement of the media?
Is it the statement of pressure groups?
Is it the actual weather around them?
Or is it the elites in society, in particular, the politicians?
And it was that last group that was by far the biggest driver.
And they gave good examples.
For example, when the Republicans supported the climate scare, like with John McCain, and both sides of the aisle were supporting the climate scare, the support for strong action to stop climate change was quite high in the United States.
But when the Republicans were saying, yeah, well, you know, we think we should have adaptation, you know, we should study the issue more or whatever, when they were actually not promoting the climate scare, support in the public dropped off, not a little, but considerably.
And so these researchers from McGill University, Ohio State, and Drexel University, they concluded that the major driver of public opinion on climate change is the opinions of the elites, and in particular, the opinions of politicians.
So, you know, I hear from the Conservative Party quite a lot that they will be climate realists.
They will actually promote what's true when public opinion supports it.
They're going to wait for a very long time because what they don't understand is their own power to influence public opinion.
And I don't mean it doing it out of the blue, just a sudden pop, because Danielle Smith did that in a CBC sponsored event where she just suddenly expressed some climate realist type points of view.
Going Along with the Group00:02:47
And she didn't do it strategically, intelligently.
So she got booed and she was just criticized like crazy.
But of course, that's what's going to happen if you're dumb about it.
I mean, if you don't present it in such a way, gradually over time, stop calling it carbon, stop promoting the climate scare, and then eventually start promoting something that makes sense.
If you actually have a proper strategy, yes, you can do that.
And you can also then lead public opinion to go in that direction.
You know, your public opinion polling data about when you know the parties are in conformity and when they have divergent viewpoints, it reminds me of this thing that Ezra always talks about.
And then he'll also sometimes when he's really enthusiastic, he'll make us watch a video from 1951 on his cell phone and he makes us all gather around.
But it's the Solomon Ash conformity experiment.
And so in 1951, it was an experiment to see if you would deny what you know to be true to go along with the group because you don't want to be the one sticking out.
And it was they would show lines, and the other people were told which thing they should answer versus what was reality.
And then the test subject would look at the lines and say, which one is the tallest?
There were three lines.
And the other people would say, oh, it was line three, even though it was line one.
And they found that the subjects would go along with the group, even though they obviously knew what the right answer was.
But they would say, you know what, maybe, yeah, maybe it is line three that is the tallest, even though line three is like this and line one is like that.
I know they're wrong, but why should I make ways to in this case, the subject knows he is right, but goes along to avoid the discomfort of disagreeing with the group until such time as somebody in the other group broke ranks and said, actually, I think it's one.
And then the test subject would be more likely to say, you know what, it's one also.
With a partner, yielding drops to only 5% of the critical trials compared to 37% without a partner.
And I think that's that sort of plays out across everything that we talk about, whether it's about climate change, where there's complete ideological homogeneity, lockdown restrictions.
Once one person stands up, everybody else says, you know what?
Me too.
But it just takes that one person.
So who's it going to be from the conservative side of the debate?
Well, that's right.
And the party whip, from what I've been told from inside, has told MPs you cannot speak out against the climate scare.
So you have people, you know, like Brad Trost, who used to be an MP and comments from Humboldt, Saskatchewan.
Very smart guy.
Very smart guy.
Climate Change Reconsidered00:10:17
He was a geologist and he actually knew that the climate scare was completely bogus.
But if I understand, if I understand rightly, he was forbidden from actually saying anything like that.
And probably the only person in the party actually qualified to talk about it.
Exactly.
Exactly.
And of course, then the party sabotaged him and he's no longer an MP.
But, you know, just as another example of what you're saying, Sheila, whenever I go to a public hearing and there's a question period afterwards, I get to the mic as soon as possible, right away.
If I can be first, I am.
You know, a lot of people say, oh, we'll wait and see how it goes.
You know, I don't want to be first.
No, I want to be first because you set the tone for other people to then come to the microphone and also say, yeah, you know, I have a doubt about this climate scare issue.
I remember back in the 30s, you know, my grandfather telling me about the Dust Bowl.
And they had far more extreme weather than we do today, which is actually true.
And so what I do is I get to the mic right away, or if you're calling into a radio talk show, do it early on because then other people hear it and they're more likely to say, yeah, he's reflecting my point of view.
And they call in or they go to the microphone.
So the conservatives have got to realize they are the major driver along with the rest of the politicians for public opinion.
So stop waiting for public opinion because you're never going to have it.
And why does Pierre Polyev want to preside over a failed country?
I mean, that's essentially what will happen if the climate scare continues because, and you know, this is where the Canadian Energy Center are completely out to lunch.
I had a letter to the editor published in the Calgary Herald just a few days ago in which I said, look, stop promoting the climate scare because they talk about, oh, our oil and gas doesn't produce as much greenhouse gases.
So buy our oil and gas.
No, who cares?
Carbon dioxide.
Our carbon dioxide is a great thing.
In fact, it's interesting.
Patrick Moore, who used to be, of course, one of the founders of Greenpeace, he was one of the founders.
He's now actually joined our board of directors.
Oh, great.
Yeah, he's wonderful.
Anyway, he shows a graph of decreasing carbon dioxide over millions of years before humans started burning fossil fuels.
And what he shows is that if we had not started to release carbon dioxide, you know, as a result of burning fossil fuels, we were actually headed naturally to one of the lowest levels, to a dangerously low level.
You see, if you get down to 150 parts per million, we're currently 420, then what happens is plants start to die.
And that has happened actually in the not too distant past where we got close to that.
During the last glacial period, we got down to about 180 parts per million.
So we were actually approaching the point at which life on Earth would begin to end.
And Patrick says, well, thank God we came along and started to pump CO2 into the atmosphere.
You know, and also we do have to remember, Sheila, we are at one of the lowest levels of CO2 in Earth's history.
I mean, we've had CO2 levels as high as 20 times today's level.
I don't mean the doubling that I'm talking about, which would be beneficial, by the way.
I'm talking about 20 times thousands of parts per million instead of 420.
So, you know, what Patrick does is he actually shows that carbon dioxide is wonderful.
It's the gas of life and we should want it to increase because otherwise nature was pulling us down to a dangerously low level.
So yeah, the conservatives have got to look themselves in the mirror and say, ah, we help drive public opinion.
So we're going to start giving the right messages, but in particular, stop giving the wrong messages.
Now, I want to talk to you.
We'll just touch briefly on it.
One of the subjects that you and I talk about quite frequently is the climate strategy of Ottawa.
And I thought it was enormous and crazy at, I think, in excess of $60 billion.
And Calgary said, hold our beer because they brought in one that's $87 billion.
And they want to go to net zero and all electric vehicles.
Again, the electric vehicles thing, by the way, Michelle Sterling has done a really good analysis of this where she said, our grid doesn't support these wild and crazy ideas.
We don't have the energy infrastructure to get to net zero vehicles the way these people want from us.
But if you're talking about a winter city, Calgary's it.
And yet their mayor, brand new mayor, did not campaign on an $87 billion carbon tax bill, because that's what really this is.
And yet they've imposed it.
And nobody, everybody always says, oh, these climate emergency declarations, they're simply symbolic.
Yeah, until such time as they say, oh, that climate emergency thing that we just announced.
Well, here's what we're going to, here's, that's the basis for this now.
Yes.
Yeah, exactly.
And in fact, as you might have heard, Ottawa just signed the fossil fuel non-proliferation.
Oh, good lord.
So what we've got is a sequence of events.
You've got treating it.
Sorry, they're treating it like a bioweapon or like a nuclear weapon.
Yeah.
Fossil fuels.
I should just read to you the purpose of the thing.
It says the campaign for a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty was inspired by treaties that addresses the threat of nuclear weapons, landmines, and other dangerous substances.
Over the past year, the campaign has been supported by 101 Nobel laureates, 2,600 academics, 231 parliamentarians, hundreds of youth leaders, and a growing group of faith leaders in more than 1,300 civilians.
I'm not sure why I'm supposed to care what a bunch of teenagers think.
But they always say youth leaders.
I'm like, annoying teenagers.
I've got some of those.
I go out of my way not to listen to them.
And you know, here's what, what's how you pronounce her name?
Zippora Berman.
Yes, Zippora Berman.
Yeah, she's the chair for the Fossil Fuel Nonproliferation Treaty out of Columbia.
She says, by endorsing the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, the city of Ottawa is taking responsibility for moving beyond fossil fuels and prioritizing the protection of people and the planet.
Now, of course, that is complete newspeak.
I mean, that is completely the opposite of what's happening.
If we get rid of fossil fuels, and this is a very important point, people should stop pulling their punches on.
They should say it point blank.
It's not protecting people and it's not protecting the planet by getting away from fossil fuels.
I mean, fossil fuels are arguably the greatest invention of mankind.
I mean, perhaps the development of writing was also pretty darn important.
But the fact is, carbon dioxide, and here's something that people should be quoting.
Okay, I'll hold this up.
This is a climate change reconsidered.
I'll hold it in the right spot here.
There we go.
Well, anyway, people can check it out at climatechangereconsidered.org.
And what it shows is that fossil fuels and their CO2 emissions is not a problem.
They've done other reports too.
The most recent one is on fossil fuels, and they show how it is a great generator of wealth, of security, of solid energy.
You know, so I mean, the whole idea that they're prioritizing the protection of people and the planet.
No, you need to prioritize people by actually having the best energy sources, by allowing people to have air conditioning and heating and things like that.
So they have it exactly backwards.
And I'll just read a couple other things.
This treaty, this non-proliferation treaty, actually started in the UK and was launched at Climate Week, New York City, September 25th, 2020.
Okay, that's where it came from.
And it's interesting, when they first started talking about it, they were citing the Toronto Conference on the Changing Atmosphere, which is in 1988, where the threat of climate upheaval, which is the term they used, was compared second only to nuclear war.
Okay.
And so here's what Ottawa's resolution was.
And I don't know what the fraction of counselors voting for it.
It's interesting because when you actually look at the webpage, trying to figure out, well, who the heck voted for this insane thing?
No one tell you.
No, they say that the vote breakdown is not available.
So they say, this is, what's her name?
Catherine McKinney.
She's the actual sponsor of it.
She says, whereas the city of Ottawa declared a climate emergency on April 24th, 2019.
And that's key, eh?
That, as you said earlier, is the beginning of the chain of events that happens that leads to things that are really crazy.
Every time.
So you have Calgary declared the climate emergency.
What happened?
Well, we were saying this last time we spoke.
They're going to soon have, and they now do have an insane $87 billion climate change master plan.
Well, you can be sure they're going to next sign this fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty.
And so Catherine McKenney says this, whereas the construction of new fossil fuel infrastructure and expanded reliance on fossil fuels exposes communities to untenable risks to public health and safety.
Now, that is weird.
I mean, you get untenable risks to public health and safety if you stop using fossil fuels, because indeed, you don't have the energy you need to actually survive extreme weather.
She says, whereas a new global initiative is underway calling for fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty that would, and this is the important point, this is what it's supposed to do, end new fossil fuel exploration and expansion and phase out existing production.
And be it further resolved, and here's the next step: that the mayor, on behalf of the council and the city of Ottawa, send a letter from the mayor to the prime minister of Canada, Premier of Ontario, urging the Canadian and Ontario governments to support the global initiative for a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty.
So they want the whole country to sign it.
And yet, you know, the thing is, I mean, fossil fuels are, if not the major resource importance for all of Canada, it's a major driver of our economy.
Apollo Heroes Celebrate Moon Landing00:05:07
Now, another topic is that today is the 53rd anniversary of the first landing on the moon.
And I, of course, as a space nut, I actually, you know, I'll just get rid of my background here.
There we go.
Look at this.
Do you have that?
Yeah, this is the Montreal Gazette.
The whole front page was a picture of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the moon.
Okay.
And then that was the Montreal Gazette.
Here's the Montreal Star, which was a more major newspaper at the time.
I was actually a delivery boy.
Gate to the universe opens, you know, and they had the whole thing.
And they had a 20-page section.
And this just shows how why, you know, people like me became aerospace engineers.
I mean, this was a very, very exciting time.
I mean, look at the back.
They had literally 20 pages of moon stuff.
I mean, I was in seventh heaven, quite literally.
Yeah.
Now, the reason I bring that up, tomorrow is the 53rd anniversary of the first moon walk, okay, is because guess who are climate realists?
Guess who actually are?
It's the Apollo astronauts.
In 2012, 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts signed an open letter to NASA to say, stop promoting the climate scare.
Rely on real data to tell us what's really happening.
You know, one of their mantras, this group, was in God we trust, everyone else brings data.
I thought that was kind of cute.
But here are the Apollo astronauts.
By the way, Buzz Aldrin is a climate realist.
He said point blank, and it's been reported in various media sources, and he was the second man on the moon.
Tomorrow, the 53rd anniversary, he thinks the climate scare isn't founded.
But in addition to that, we have Walter Cunningham from Apollo 7.
I've met him many times.
Charles Duke, 16, Richard Gordon from Apollo 12.
And here's a fellow, Dr. Harrison Schmidt, Jack Schmidt.
He actually was the only scientist to walk on the moon from Apollo 17.
And I had the privilege of introducing him a couple of times at conferences.
Very, very nice man.
Al Warden from Apollo 15.
These are all the Apollo astronauts that signed this open letter to NASA saying, stop promoting this nonsense.
You know, we also had the flight director, Chris Kraft, from the Apollo mission.
And it goes on and on.
So, I mean, the idea that we are causing dangerous climate change, there are many, many world leaders in science, the astronauts, all sorts of people who are saying this, this is nonsense.
So at the very least, Pierre and company should stop promoting it.
It's so bizarre because you have these scientists who achieved this great feat despite the technology in front of them.
Also brought to you by our old friend Fossil Fuels.
Yeah.
And they are being told to shut up by teenage girls like Greta Tunberg.
And it just, it's fascinating to me that that's where we've gone as a society.
But these guys who achieved this great thing through science and grit and innovation and being able to think about solutions outside of the box, which we are not allowed to do anymore.
We're only allowed to be ideological conformists and scientific conformists.
We aren't allowed to innovate.
These guys achieved this thing because they were allowed to think differently.
And now they're being told to shut up and called unscientific science deniers.
Yeah.
And you know, the astronauts, generally speaking, are committed environmentalists.
I mean, like Buzz Aldrin when he walked on the moon.
And remember, Buzz Aldrin has a PhD from MIT in astronautics.
Okay.
This is a very, very bright man, a very brave man, too.
I mean, they had no backup.
If they couldn't launch, they were stuck on the moon.
You might remember that Richard Nixon actually had a backup speech to give.
They came in peace for all mankind and they will rest in peace for all mankind.
He had the speech prepared for them unable to leave the moon because they had one engine, one engine.
That was it.
They had no backup.
Nobody could rescue them.
They didn't have enough air to last for more than three days.
So they were dead if their rocket didn't work.
So extremely brave men.
But you know, the interesting thing is Buzz Aldrin said that the thing that astounded him is that when he reached up with arm's length, he could cover the earth with his thumb.
Yeah.
Everything on humanity, everything on the planet was everything he ever knew was covered by his thumb.
So, you know, the astronauts are very strong, committed environmentalists.
So people might say, oh, they're climate change denied.
No, no, these are top scientists.
They may have been astronauts too, but they're also very well-qualified scientists as well, and also committed environmentalists.
So, I mean, if they can tell us this sort of thing, that the climate scary is ridiculous and dangerous, actually, because it's getting us off of our most valuable source of energy, which is fossil fuels, then yeah, everybody should be talking about this.
Dutch Farmers and Nitrogen Fertilizers00:07:37
And so that's what I think of when I think of, you know, the moon day, which is what today is.
Now, I wanted to ask you about the Dutch farmers protest, because my concern is that this is obviously on its way to Canada because the CETA agreement, the Canadian European trade agreement that was drafted by Christopher Freeland, shoehorned a whole bunch of gender nonsense.
And more importantly, the Paris climate change targets, those were written into the agreement.
And because Holland is this enormous agricultural exporter, their government is now imposing these nitrogen targets on their farmers.
And I wanted to ask you about the nitrogen side of it, because as a farmer, I know about manure, nitrogen and manure.
And I know about, I know about the value of nitrogen in fertilizer, in increasing yields and making food more affordable for people Farming more profitable for farmers who are price takers and not price makers.
So, you know, when your yield suffers, you suffer.
But tell us about the science of nitrogen.
Why do they hate it?
Yeah, nitrogen actually combines with oxygen to forms a compound called N2O, okay, two nitrogen atoms and one oxygen, nitrous oxide.
And it is actually greenhouse gas.
Okay, so if you're concerned about greenhouse gases, you might want to reduce that.
But in fact, it's interesting, Will Happer, Professor Happer from Princeton University that we spoke about last time I was on, he actually has done a very detailed analysis of the potential impact of all the different major greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, water vapor, which is a big one, by the way, it's water vapor, not carbon dioxide, and methane and nitrous oxide.
And if people go to the icsc-climate.com, not icsc-canada.com, which is this one, but our major international body, icsc-climate.com, right on the homepage, we have an interview with Professor Happer.
And he wrote this really exceptional paper analyzing what would happen if we double, you know, or other amounts of increase of nitrous oxide.
And like with carbon dioxide, he shows that the increase in temperature is very minimal.
Okay.
For example, in the case of carbon dioxide, he says if we doubled it from our current level of 420 to 840, we would see a 1%, 1% change in the outgoing radiation from the Earth.
And that would result in a temperature rise of less than a degree Celsius.
And we're talking about a similar kind of thing with the other greenhouse gases.
So in fact, from a climate perspective, and that's the major driver to try to reduce nitrogen, from a climate perspective, we should completely not worry about nitrogen.
Now, nitrogen is an extremely important ingredient in actually making plants work.
Right.
That's why they put it in fertilizers.
So what's happened in Holland is in an attempt to reduce N2O, the gas, the greenhouse gas, they're forcing farmers to reduce the amount of fertilizer they use.
And the forecast is that as a result of the Dutch plan, a third, 33% of all their farms will have to close.
Okay, now the Netherlands is a major breadbasket for the whole of Europe.
So this is a complete and utter disaster.
And Trudeau now is talking about the same kind of thing for Canada.
You know, they're not talking about as big a reduction, but still a very major reduction.
And so we should get on that topic, you know, now because before it gets gathering steam, because in fact, as I say, in Europe, it has already got to the point where they've passed rules and laws that they're going to close a third of all of their farms.
So I call livestock, cull a third of livestock.
What does that do?
Like we're all experiencing food inflation.
Imagine you're taking one of every three steaks, one of every three bricks of cheese right out of the grocery store.
What does that do to the cost of food?
Nobody thinks about these things until you can't afford to feed your family.
Yeah, and I've been told and actually seen various interviews on this that one of the drivers is that they want farmers to sell their land to the government.
Sure.
You know, this is a World Economic Forum operative, quite frankly.
They head of Holland and like Trudeau and Freeland are as well.
And so what they want is for state control to actually control these lands so they can do what they want with the land.
And so the private farmers are essentially going to be losing their farms in the tens of thousands, not just a few.
So, you know, the climate scare, Sheila, I mean, I think a lot of people never appreciated when it started taking off the kind of impact it would eventually have.
I mean, the climate scare alone is enough to totally ruin Canada.
And I mean that seriously, because it will certainly ruin our fossil fuel industry.
And that's why it's so annoying when the Canadian Energy Center are promoting the climate scare.
As I said in my letter to the Ottawa Citizen, or sorry, to the Calgary Herald, it's very much like when we had this Cold War between us and the Soviet Union.
You know, they would infiltrate the peace movement with what they called useful idiots.
Yeah.
In other words, people who would actually try to actually de-weaponize the West.
Okay.
The Russians weren't going to de-weaponize, that's for sure.
They were actually trying to demilitarize the West, which would actually empower the Soviet Union.
They would have more strength to invade other countries, et cetera.
And they called those people useful idiots.
In other words, they thought they were doing a good thing, but they were in fact sabotaging their own country.
And sadly, Pierre Polyev, to a certain extent, I'm not saying he's an idiot, but he is being a useful idiot on this topic.
And similarly, the Canadian Energy Center, they are so frustrating.
Not only have I written to them, but quite a number of other people have shared their emails with me that they've written to the Canadian Energy Center and say, look, stop promoting the one thing that is the greatest threat to our fossil fuel future.
You know, they say we're in favor of fossil fuels, but oh no, we want, you know, we're going to, it's just so dumb.
So happily, I was surprised actually, because normally the Calgary Herald doesn't publish me.
They did publish it, you know, just a few days ago.
And so we've got all these useful idiots, you know, the oil companies, you know, the Canadian Energy Center, the politicians, they're all promoting what is potentially going to destroy our country completely.
And it's not just the oil and gas sector, as you said, it's agriculture as well.
It's concrete, it's steel, it's all the things that we use to actually make our modern society run will have to be cut back.
And what will happen?
They'll ship them all to China, okay?
Because China has no limits.
They can produce as much as they want.
And of course, the big joke of it is the wind turbines that we buy from China, the power source they're using to make the wind turbines material is coal.
Right.
You know, it might take a little bit for some people to get abducted by reality when, you know, when they move to net zero transportation in the trucking industry, and then your food that is already overly priced because of the restrictions put on farmers never comes to your grocery store.
And you have to spend a couple of days hungry.
Maybe then, maybe then somebody will get it.
Friends of Science Appeal00:04:21
Well, Jay Lear, who's my co-author in America Out Loud, and he's my, you know, we have the America Out Loud radio show.
He says that what he thinks is going to be needed is to have what happened in Texas happen over and over and over and over.
In other words, the middle of the winter, you're reliant on wind power like they were.
58% of the electricity came from wind just before the storm hit.
And suddenly wind went to zero.
They had 700 people die as a result of the blackouts caused by their over-reliance on wind power.
And Jay Lear thinks that this is going to have to happen over and over and over across the Western world before people wake up.
And they say, look, the idea that you phase out fossil fuels to help people, I mean, it's completely insane.
It's the exact opposite.
Tom, I could talk to you all day.
I think we're probably going to get kicked off our Zoom call.
How do people find the International Climate Science Coalition Canada?
And more importantly, how do they support the work that you do?
Because you are really up against the deep pockets of the environmentalist movement, so often foreign-funded.
Money just flows to them.
And you are one of just like a mere handful of organizations fighting to have some realism and reality and actual science inducted into the political science of the climate change argument.
Yeah, for sure.
And me being based here in Ottawa is great because, you know, I get insight to what's going on behind the scenes.
And we're planning actually to meet with a number of them.
I did meet with Roman Baber and briefly with Shere.
So we're going to be doing more of that.
But yeah, the group is called ICSC Canada and the webpage is icsc-canada.com.
And in the upper right-hand corner is a little window.
You can just fill in your email address.
You don't have to tell us your name or anything.
Just put in the email address and we'll start to include you in our monthly newsletters.
And we talk about all the media hits we've had, our plans for the future.
We've got some pretty incredible plans for the future, which I think people will really like to hear of.
So yeah, go to icsc-canada.com.
Don't forget your podcast.
You always forget your podcast.
And under this webpage, we have resources and you can see exploratory journeys.
Our last interview was talking specifically about the Ottawa climate plan, and that applies directly to Calgary.
Just get ready, Calgary.
You know, you're going to have the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty rammed down your throat, which is kind of sad when you consider it's the fossil fuel capital of Canada.
Yeah.
And the last thing, of course, is our the other side of the story, which if people go to AmericaOutloud.com, click on shows, you can hear our show.
And we do one of those every week.
So we're pretty active.
We go to 30,000 listeners.
So it's pretty good.
Oh, it's great.
Well, Tom, I want to thank you so much for being so generous with your time all the time and explaining these very complicated issues in a way that a normal layperson can understand.
I think that is a valuable thing that you do because I think the other side of the argument is often overly verbose in an attempt to confuse you and intimidate you from participating in these conversations.
That's right.
Conservatives, stop supporting the liberals.
Damn it.
From your lips to God's ears, Tom.
We'll have you back on again very, very soon.
Okay.
Bye-bye.
Well, friends, this brings us to the portion of the show where we actually want to hear from you.
Unlike the mainstream media who closes their comment section and limits who can reply to their tweets, I invite your viewer feedback.
I want you to tell me what we're getting right, what we're getting wrong, and what you think about the topics we're covering in the guests that we have on the show.
That's why I give out my email address at Sheila at RebelNews.com.
Put gun show letters in the subject line so it's easy for me to find because I select those emails at random.
So the more you write in, the more chance you have of me reading your letter.
But also, please leave a comment on our Rumble videos or wherever you find our videos.
I go looking there too for your comments if you don't want to send me an email directly.
Today, though, we're going back to the email and randomly selected, it's Bruce.
Again, Bruce, I think you live in Radway, Bruce Acheson.
Bruce On Plastic Bags00:03:52
Anyway, he writes to me and says, Hi, Sheila.
I believe I will donate $20 to Friends of Science.
Michelle does excellent work, so I feel I should support it.
Friends of Science does do excellent work, and Michelle works very, very hard.
That's my friend Michelle Sterling.
She's the communications director over at Friends of Science.
And they do incredible work on a shoestring budget, and they are up against the foreign-funded environmentalist movement in this country to just act as a counterbalance, a little dose of reality and practicality in this overheated and illogical debate about climate change.
Anyway, Bruce keeps going regarding single-use plastics, which is one of my favorite things to talk about, by the way.
Love single-use plastics and I think plastic is a perfect garbage because it's inert and you get to use it once for the thing that you get to use it for and then, if you're smart, you can incinerate it because it's a fossil fuel and you can use that for energy to create electricity anyway, Bruce says.
I often give shopping bags to my friend who has four cats.
She uses them for litter box liners.
You know, I don't know anybody who brings home a plastic shopping bag and then throws it in the garbage.
Every single person I know uses them for something else.
I've got one in the little bucket I use for a garbage can under my desk here.
I think everybody uses them for that.
I mean, I don't even remember the last time that I saw somebody with a small store-bought garbage bag in their bathroom garbage.
It's always a shopping bag, right?
Anyway, Bruce goes on to say, I also use worn-out Ziploc bags to hold things like electrical cables in.
Those rectangular margarine tubs are great for storing leftovers or to keep those mice out of my cereal.
Those are food-grade plastic and quite sturdy.
I donate small containers to my church so people can take home excess food from Sunday lunch.
Those Nesquick bottles are handy for powders like sugar and salt.
I use a larger one for dish soap.
This also explains why I never rose through the federal government ranks.
I make too much sense.
Yours in Sleepy Radway, Bruce and Delta the Cat.
Now, Bruce is next level in his personal upcycling, but I think most people do this.
I mean, Bruce is in Radway.
I'm also far out of the city.
So you do get creative about the things you would maybe recycle or throw in the trash because you're far from the city.
You don't want to run to town all the time that you need something.
So you get creative about the things you have lying around.
That's ingenuity.
And I think, though, however, not to maybe the extent that Bruce is, most people are like this.
People don't like to be wasteful and just throw things out, especially if you've already been made to pay five cents for your shopping bag.
You don't throw it out, you reuse it.
It's the same reason they make you pay five cents a deposit on a can of pop or a can of beer.
It's so that you want to get your five cents back out or at least your five cents worth.
Same thing goes with those grocery bags.
Instead of banning them, just let us continue to use them.
What sense does it make to ban my shopping bag on one side, but then now you're forcing me to buy plastic garbage bags to put in my little tiny bucket that I keep under the desk.
It doesn't make any sense and it actually doesn't prevent people from using plastic.
It just makes them use different plastic instead of reusing the stuff they already have.
Anyway, it's the liberal logic.
Who's to understand it?
Definitely not me.
Well, folks, that's the show for tonight.
Thank you so much for tuning in.
I'll see everybody back here in the same time, in the same place next week.