David Menzies argues climate change alarmism hit its "jump the shark" moment in February 2023, mocking extreme demands like reducing anesthesia use (a debunked study by Dr. Mohamed Fayed) and banning tampons—while hypocritical figures like Schwab, Gates, and Al Gore cling to luxuries. He critiques NDP leader Jagmeet Singh’s inconsistent opposition to Trudeau’s Liberals, questioning his stance on healthcare privatization amid past NDP leaders’ stronger alternatives. Feedback highlights accusations of exploiting addiction for non-profit funding, Calgary police enforcing illegal COVID mandates, and Ezra Levant’s absence next episode due to travel. [Automatically generated summary]
Tonight, have we reached the jump the shark moment when it comes to radical climate change activism?
I say yes, and I think I have the evidence to prove it.
It's Thursday, February 16th, 2023.
I'm David Menzies, and this is the Ezra Levant Show.
Shame on you, you sensorism bug.
We reached the jump the shark moment when it comes to climate change alarmism.
I truly think so.
And I believe I have the evidence to prove my premise.
Now, first things first, the phrase jump the shark means to reach a point where something stops becoming more popular or starts to decrease in quality.
This idiom usually refers to TV shows as it traces its origin back to a long gone sitcom.
But jump the shark can be applied to anything really, ranging from restaurants to automobiles.
For example, a while back, automotive writer Dan Neal used this phrase in his review of the mini Countryman, a supersized and somewhat jarring version of the beloved mini.
Neal adroitly pointed out that the bigger vehicle abandoned the company's design ethos and that, quote, with the countrymen, tiny sharks have been jumped, end quote.
Neil nailed it.
Now, as I alluded to, the genesis of Jump the Shark goes back to a 1977 episode of Happy Days.
It was a bizarre episode, no doubt inspired by the shark mania that followed the release of Jaws two years earlier.
The climax features the beloved Fonzie donning a pair of water skis, and he goes on to, well, you guessed it, jump over a shark that was being held captive in a holding pen.
Check out the preposterous video evidence.
It's the Thons.
I mean, was there ever any doubt that the uber cool Arthur Fonzarelli was going to end up as fish food?
Even so, what was more ridiculous, the very premise of the stunt or the fact that Fonzi was still wearing his trademark black leather motorcycle jacket while taking part in water sports so weird and cheesier than a bucket full of Bulgarian feta.
The point is, many argue that in the aftermath of this particular episode, Happy Days went into decline as a TV series.
Hence, jump the shark lives on decades later as a cheeky, pejorative term for a sudden and steep dip in quality.
As I said from the get-go, I believe that just recently we hit the jump the shark moment in terms of climate change hysteria.
Have patience, folks.
I'll get to that eventually.
But first, how about a post-mortem in terms of the various prescribed policies of those climate change alarmists who demand that we change our lifestyles so that we can collectively save the planet from supposed man-made doom?
Post-Mortem Of Climate Alarmism00:03:09
Which is to say we are all supposed to give up all the creature comforts that make living in the 21st century so enjoyable.
To paraphrase that Prince song, the Gretas and the Gores want us to party like it's 1699.
In fact, to quote the Gilligans Island closing credits theme verbatim, it seems that the climate alarmists subscribe to this set of lyrics.
Not a single luxury, like Robinson Caruso, it's primitive as can be.
Yep, not a single luxury because so-called luxury items are killing the planet, you see.
Indeed, instead of improving the livelihoods for those who live in the third world, the climate change cultists would rather we lower our own benchmarks and standards and make life miserable for those residing in the developed world.
They essentially want to undevelop the developed world.
Their mantra seems to be, misery loves company.
Indeed, that's the whole idea behind Earth Hour.
After all, you know, how on the fourth Saturday in March, we are all supposed to turn off our lights and all of our electrical devices from 8.30 to 9.30 p.m. and basically reflect on how good we had it just 60 minutes ago as we collectively and anxiously wait for this grotesque virtue signaling exercise to end, you know, so that we can go back to watching the hockey game or playing Super Mario Brothers.
Now, the last time I tried to take part in Earth Hour was some three years ago.
It was about as fun as a Joe Biden speech played in slow motion.
Check it out.
Oh my goodness gracious folks, let me tell you, I am deep, deep into the woods, far from civilization.
And you wouldn't even be seeing this image of me if it wasn't for my trusty flashlight, which, of course, by the rules of Earth Hour, I've got to extinguish so I can light up my candle.
But I'm telling you, this is like something out of the Blair Witch project.
It's so dark.
I'm all alone.
It's like when I lost my virginity.
Anyway, let's light up the candle.
Okay, folks, I hope you can see me.
The candle's lit.
And it's very, very quiet in here.
But as long as I have this candle lit, I can see, well, a few inches in front of me and it'll keep me warm.
I hope.
By the way, do you know anyone who takes Earth Hour seriously?
I mean, anyone who isn't currently confined to an insane asylum?
Now, aside from being deprived of power for an hour every year, the elitists don't like other things that make life pleasurable and convenient on a full-time basis.
For example, they hate the very idea of the ultimate freedom machine.
Climate Karens Hate Cars00:03:32
That would be the car, or more specifically, a fossil fuel-powered car.
Yeah, the climate Karens would prefer you take out a second mortgage and purchase an electric vehicle.
Oh, not a Tesla anymore, by the way, folks.
Elon Musk has fallen into their bad books now that he has thankfully reinvented himself as a crusader for freedom.
Alas, the climate change movement much prefers the feeble-minded who think in lockstep with their logic-starved policies.
So, EVs aside, many in the climate change movement would really, really rather you give up your automobile altogether.
They want us to walk or ride a bicycle or take public transit.
By the way, if you're taking public transit in Toronto these days, you might want to drop by Bass Pro and pick up some bear spray.
Yeah, I know the release of red pepper oil in aerosol form will certainly increase your carbon footprint a tad, but it sure beats being randomly stabbed to death by some deranged thug.
It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway, when it comes to the enviro elites preaching this kind of narrative of giving up our beloved stuff from Claus Schwab and Bill Gates to Al Gore and Greta Tunberg and David Suzuki.
This is yet again another case of do as I say, not as I do.
I mean, do you really think His Royal Excellency Hirsch Schwab would ever be found dead or alive on a public transit bus?
Oh no, he absolutely loves supersized carbon-spewing automobiles, especially those that are equipped with that pricey option known as a chauffeur.
And hey, if you happen to be a climate change activist residing in Ontario, are you serious about cheering on the extinction of the automobile?
By volume, Ontario is the third largest automobile producing jurisdiction in North America.
What industry would replace the auto sector and all of the good jobs that go with it if it were put out to pasture?
Mining for dilithium crystals, perhaps?
Of course, if you identify as a carnivore and like to chow down on the occasional burger, well, that's almost as sinful as driving a Maiden Brampton Dodge Challenger Hellcat when it comes to the climate change catastrophe cheerleaders.
You see, all those cows that are destined to be reincarnated as Big Macs and Whoppers, they tend to burp and fart a lot.
And this too causes global warming or something.
Funny thing is, long before the first Canada Packers plant was constructed, an estimated 30 to 60 million bison roamed the prairies in North America.
I guess there were no emissions coming out of those supersized critters in yester century.
Nevertheless, the climate change alarmists would very much appreciate it if you were to consider changing your eating habits, which is to say, would you like fries with that cricket and mealworm sandwich?
But beyond internal combustion engines and beef, oh, glorious beef.
As they used to say on those Ronco ads, but wait, there's more.
RubyCup Revolution00:02:09
More things to give up, that is, in order to save the planet.
I recently came across an online magazine that's called BestLife.com.
Clearly, that title does not represent truth in advertising.
Consider the article entitled 21 Habits That Are Bad for the Environment and subtitled, Ditch These Habits If You Want to Help Save the Planet and Reduce Your Carbon Footprint.
Folks, the so-called advice found in this article left my job residing on the linoleum.
Indeed, one so-called tip made the thank God I'm a biological man who identifies as a biological man.
That's because bestlife.com urges females to give up using tampons and pads.
Apparently, these products are killing Mother Earth too.
Quote, over half of the population is made up of women, and most of those women will have their period almost every month for about 40 years, meaning we use a ton of feminine hygiene products that create non-recyclable byproducts.
How much you may be wondering?
According to Julie Weigard Kajar, CEO and co-founder of RubyCup, the average person who has periods will use up to 12,000 disposable period products over the course of a lifetime.
A menstrual pad contains the same amount of plastic as four carrier bags.
A tampon takes 500 years to decompose.
Swapping pads and tampons for reusable menstrual cups like RubyCup or period underwear from brands like Thinks and NYX can drastically minimize your negative impact on the environment, end quote.
By the way, did you catch that line from the RubyCup CEO, quote, the average person who has periods, end quote, person?
You mean woman, don't you?
Dr. Fayed's Carbon Crusade00:05:54
How woefully woke can you go, Julie?
You are the chief executive officer of a feminine hygiene product company, and you're concerned that you might offend some transvastite out there who thinks he experiences menestration?
Incredible.
But more to the point, I googled RubyCup.
Let's put it this way: if I was a biological woman identifying as a biological woman, there's no way I'd be using the RubyCup on a monthly basis.
It's gross.
This same bestlife.com article then goes on to tie itself into a Gordian knot of illogic.
The author wants you to reduce meat consumption.
That's du rigueur these days.
But at the same time, the article warns people against importing stuff.
Hello, I live in Canada.
If I want to embrace a vegan diet, a la Greta Tunberg, where do I get my bananas and pineapples and oranges or any number of fruits and vegetables that don't tend to flourish here, especially in the wintertime?
And don't you dare suggest growing these edibles in greenhouses, you know, that whole greenhouse gas thingy?
So maybe importing things that are unattainable domestically, maybe that isn't such a bad idea after all.
How dare you?
Now, I would tell these climate change cultists to wake up and smell the coffee, but well, you guessed it, folks.
You're killing the planet when you kick back with that glorious morning cup of Joe.
You see, last month, researchers at the University of Quebec at Chikudemi published a study calling for consumers to embrace an adapted diet in order to combat the effects of coffee preparation.
Quote, limiting your contribution to climate change requires an adapted diet, and coffee is no exception.
Choosing a mode of coffee preparation that emits less greenhouse gases and moderating your consumption are part of the solution, the four researchers wrote, end quote.
Folks, my love for coffee is surely right up there with how an alcoholic looks upon beer, wine, and spirits, which is to say, it's an addiction.
I cannot function without it.
Now, I could prepare a concise intellectual response to these crackpot researchers and chikutami, who I bet you anything were drinking copious quantities of coffee as they toiled over their research paper.
But I'm a wee bit caffeine deprived today, so I'll let the late, great Martin Landau deliver a response to this proposed war on Java.
Fuck you!
Now, folks, this crackpot give up your coffee demand was going to be my suggestion for my climate change jump the shark moment.
But just days after the coffee study emerged, along came something even more insane, and it was crafted by a medical doctor, no less.
Here goes, quote, Dr. Mohamed Fayed, an anesthesia resident physician at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, presented a study he recently authored that analyzed how doctors could reduce anesthetics during surgery to reduce the carbon footprint of operating rooms worldwide during ASA's annual conference last week, end quote.
Folks, how would you like to go under the knife with this quack at your bedside?
And what is the doc trying to fix here when it comes to carbon footprints?
Because get this, inhaled anesthetics used during general anesthesia are estimated to be responsible for 0.01% to 0.10% of the total worldwide carbon dioxide equivalent emission.
That's right, not even one half of 1%.
Basically, Dr. Fayed wants you to suffer so that carbon dioxide goes down by an amount that doesn't even represent a rounding error.
But you know something?
Don't take my word for it that this lunatic suggestion is the jump the shark moment for climate change idiocy.
Rather, consider what the American Society of Anesthesiologists did earlier this month.
Namely, they wiped Dr. Fayed's study from its website.
That study is now akin to that season of Dallas that never took place.
It was all a dream, you see, or more like a nightmare, really.
The official reason for the scrubbing of this nonsensical study is that it was inaccurate.
But me being the cynic that I am, I think there was something more at play here when it came to deep sixing this pathetic paper.
Namely, isn't an anesthesiologist slamming anesthesia kind of like a dairy farmer denouncing milk?
Which is to say, I bet there were more than a few anesthesiologists who came to the conclusion that if anesthesia becomes this decade's version of DDT and is eventually done away with, well, connect the dots.
Is there any future left for those pursuing a career as an anesthesiologist?
Why NDP Leaders Struggle00:15:36
So there you have it, my friends.
That is your jump the shark moment when it comes to the inherent insanity that is being promoted by the climate change activists, a collection of loons, Marxists, and hypocrites.
Those who live in our civilization of milk and honey, who want you to give up your milk and honey, and for that matter, cars, meat, coffee, and anesthesia.
Somewhere, Henry Winkler weeps.
You know, friends, I can't really tell if Jagmeet Singh is in charge of the Liberal Party of Canada or if he's simply just a sycophant propping up Justin Trudeau.
But I guess at the end of the day, it really doesn't matter because it's his job as one of the opposition parties to hold the government of the day to account.
And he's definitely not doing that.
And I don't think it needed to be said, but somebody did say it.
In fact, he wrote it.
Joining me now is Lauren Gunter of the Edmonton Sun.
And he wrote a recent article called The NDP Leader Should Be Holding Trudeau to Account.
But he's not Lauren.
Why not?
He's not.
And it's kind of like a two-faced act for Jagmeet Singh.
As I wrote in my column, during the day, during parliamentary time, he's jag meet.
And he's, you know, he's falling, fawning all over the liberals.
And, you know, oh, no, we're not going to pull the government down.
That would be bad.
So we're going to prop them up, do whatever they need us to do to keep them in power.
And then at night, he goes home and he cracks open, takes out his phone, cracks open his Twitter app, and he's jaggernaut.
Oh, the liberals, they're terrible, they're awful.
They're in bed with the grocery store chains to increase prices for you.
They don't care about the little guy.
They're all for big profit.
And so, which of these two acts is the real Jagmeet Singh?
And I'm surprised, first of all, that he has any shred of self-respect left because he's done so many things that are against NDP principles in order just to keep the liberals in power.
But I also am surprised that his caucus and his membership aren't holding him to more account.
Like, where are ordinary new Democrats in all of this saying, you know, we need a new leader or we need our leader to get a backbone?
Or it just puzzles me so much.
How are they so afraid of another election that they're prepared to push down all of the things that they believe in in order to keep the liberals in power?
You know, that's a question I often ask myself when I look at the NDP.
I think there are people who are, you know, I would fundamentally disagree with them on almost everything, but they are NDP voters because they care about socialist principles.
And yet their own leader is disenfranchising them.
If they wanted to vote for the liberals, they would vote for the liberals.
So at what point, I guess, does he have a membership revolt on his hand or a caucus revolt on his hand?
When does this happen?
I'm so surprised by that.
And it can't possibly be that their party finances are in such dire straits because we've had one election after another after another.
That does wear on a party that has some trouble raising money.
But they all have the same trouble now, right?
There are no more big individual donations.
There are no more corporate donations.
There are no more union donations either, which is what really bothers the NDP, what makes it difficult for them.
But all the parties have that problem.
So it can't be the finances that are that bad.
And they must have, they must start to look at the electoral equation and say, gee, you know, if we always are mimicking the liberals, then people who aren't our committed voters, but our swing voters who might come to us when they get disgusted with Justin Trudeau.
And there are an awful lot of leftist voters who are disgusted with Justin Trudeau.
If we are always mimicking the liberals, then those people aren't going to come to us.
They're going to say, well, what's the point?
might as well vote for the liberal.
And that way, then, you know, they're also voting for the party in power.
The calculations just don't make any sense to me at all.
Wouldn't you really rather leave?
Maybe you only get that, you know, they only have a couple dozen seats in the commons.
Maybe you only get three dozen in the next election, but at least you fight it with some self-respect and dignity.
Where they're at now is they have neither.
And the thing that I think is really telling is that, so you had Trudeau and the premiers over a week ago have this summit on healthcare spending.
And one of the things that wasn't said, but was certainly rumored around the corners was that in healthcare spending now, the feds will not go after the provinces if the provinces allow private delivery of publicly funded health care.
So the governments will pay for the health care.
But as often happens now in Quebec and is increasingly looking like it's going to happen in Ontario, then there might be private hospitals or private clinics or private groups of doctors that provide the service.
And this just drives the NDP wild.
And there is no other issue, I think, that's more of a core for the NDP than publicly administered, publicly delivered health care.
The founder of their party, Tommy Douglas, was the first premier to bring in socialized health care in Canada when he became the national leader.
That was one of his big pushes.
Probably nothing defines the NDP more than publicly delivered health care, delivered by government unions, delivered by government bureaucrats, administered by politicians.
You know, the last people I would want to go to for medical health would be politicians and bureaucrats, but that's the NDP fundamentally believes that you cannot deliver equitable health care without bureaucrats and politicians being in charge.
And here's Trudeau with the premiers undermining that.
And even that doesn't get Jagmeet Singh to go after the liberals.
So I just don't understand when this cozying up, this kissing up to the liberal ends.
I'm not sure why it's happening.
I think maybe it's because the NDP are getting some of the things they want and that's good enough for them.
You know, they sort of got their national dental care policy done and that was their brainchild, if you can call anything that comes out of the NDP that and launched by the liberals.
But as a conservative, I cheer for the NDP sometimes because a strong NDP is what creates the vote split on the progressive side.
When the NDP offers something different than the liberals, conservatives do well.
I'm old enough to remember Thomas Mulcair.
Again, fundamentally opposed to him on just about everything, but at least I didn't think he was crazy.
And I think he offered something different, but we don't have any of that.
And McCair is a very intelligent guy.
I remember when he was cross-examining, he was using his lawyer skills to cross-examine Stephen Harper in the House of Commons on the prisoner exchange in Afghanistan.
And I was so impressed by his intelligence and his ability to change his line of attack as the government said things he hadn't expected.
And it was so interesting.
Jagmeet Singh couldn't do that.
I'm quite convinced of it.
I mean, I'd say bring back Jack Layton.
You know, that's the quickest way to get a conservative government would be to have a strong NDP leader like Layton.
I don't think the NDP will ever win power in my lifetime federally.
But boy, if you could get an NDP leader who could win 60 seats, then I think you're going to have a Pierre Polyev majority.
Yeah.
And I don't think in Canada they could ever win power, but they might be able to form official opposition if Canadians are wise enough to punish the liberals for what they've done over the last several years, almost a decade.
But what's the problem?
Is it the lack of talent on the NDP benches that is preventing a leadership change?
Because when I look at that, their talent pool, I think, well, maybe Jagmeet Singh is the best that they can do.
Yeah, I think you're right there.
And that for them is unfortunate.
I don't know if there are any, like typically with, you know, in American politics, the new leaders, the next group of leaders is groomed at the state level.
And you get governors and then senators who move up towards becoming president.
In Canada, we don't normally do that.
We don't normally turn premiers into prime ministers.
But we do look at people in the caucus and say, well, you know, there's a bright light that could come forward in a few years to run for the leadership.
And I just don't see that among anyone in the NDP caucus.
Yeah, there are no real young up-and-comers.
There's the old guard, the Charlie Angus of the party, but no real, not completely insane young members of the party.
There's Nikki Ashton, but I think she falls into that completely insane category.
So, you know, she has a profile.
She has run for the leadership.
She has stuck her head above ground and made a name for herself in certain circles in politics in Canada.
But she is as far to the left as anybody in all of parliament, not just the NDP caucus, but in all of parliament.
And so, yeah, I don't think that she's ready for prime time, as it were.
So that's, it is part of the problem that they lack anybody who could take Singh's place.
Now, lastly, I guess one of the names I hear floated to replace Jagmeet Singh is Rachel Notley.
Is that just fantasy football from the NDPers, or is that a real possibility?
No, but it's a problem for them, right?
Because what they're doing on the national level and what Trudeau is doing nationally is going to make it very difficult for Rachel Notley to win power again in Alberta.
And if Danielle Smith wins decisively, she doesn't have to win a huge landslide.
She doesn't have to win a Lawheed level or a Klein level landslide, but she wins 55 seats, you know, a good comfortable majority because Trudeau has pushed his just transition to a point where even people who are a little disgusted with the UCP are prepared to swallow hard and vote for them rather than the liberal, the liberals' friends in the NDP.
That makes it difficult for Notley then to run.
But I know she has that ambition.
She has that interest.
I don't know how deep it runs.
It's one thing to be flattered by being asked or being considered and your name floated.
It's quite another to have to put out the effort in order to run nationally.
And frankly, when Rachel Notley loses, and that is my prediction, people can write that down.
I do hope she makes that transition to be the federal NDP leader.
I think she's probably the most successful NDP politician in the entire country in at least a decade.
And I think, you know, it might bode well for the conservatives if she doesn't make that lateral move.
Would she win twice as many seats as Jagmeet Singh?
And that would be good for the conservatives federally.
From your lips to God's ears, Lauren.
Thanks so much for coming on the show.
You bet, Sheila.
We'll talk again very, very soon.
You bet.
Your letters to Ezra, read by David Menzies, up after the break.
Say, folks, my colleague Sheila Gunn-Reed, she was filling in for Ezra last night, and her monologue was on Alberta's new drug addiction policies.
Lots of feedback on that.
Tasman5555 writes, Vancouver gets most of Canada's drug addicts.
They come from back east.
Too cold there.
Well, you're right.
There are sections of Vancouver I wouldn't dare to venture into.
But why would Canada shame when it comes to drug addiction issues?
That would be some of the areas in Vancouver.
Why would that be the template to embrace in the rest of Canada?
Surely there are some better answers that we can embrace.
I still have hope writes.
I've worked on the downtown east side as a first responder on and off for nearly 20 years.
I have come to the conclusion that those in power use addiction and human suffering to steal tax dollars through non-profit societies.
It all needs to be shut down.
Well, you know something I still have hope?
I think you're on to something.
I think there's a whole industry concerned over homelessness and drug addiction.
And really, do you want it to all go away?
Do you want to present that kind of solution?
Kind of like the dog catcher.
You certainly don't want dogs running rampant all over the city, but you don't want any stray dogs not being around either, because then why would we need a dog catcher?
Jake Jakerson writes, just wondering, aren't the thugs that are playing at being police officers in Calgary far too busy enforcing illegal COVID mandates and arresting pastors and conservatives for doing what they've been doing forever?
To hell with the Calgary police non-service thugs, no better than bikers.
Well, you know, I think the Calgary Police Service, I bet there's good men and women in those uniforms, but the way they've treated Arder Polowski, the way they've treated Freedom Convoy movement participants, it has been downright shameful.
I'm not sure what the solution is.
Actually, I kind of am.
It's all about political will.
And given who's at City Hall right now, do you have any hope that things in Calgary are going to get better before they get worse?
I sure don't.
Well, folks, thank you so much for tuning in.
I believe Sheila Gunread will be co-hosting for Ezra tomorrow.
Ezra is traveling right now on very urgent business.
In the meantime, thank you so much for tolerating me.