Electric Car Obsession


Times Square Billboard

World Economic Forum Urges Public To Eliminate Ownership Of Private Vehicles

The World Economic Forum is advocating for the abolition of “wasteful” private vehicle ownership for the planet’s greater good as the organization attempts to advance its “Great Reset” agenda and transform the world so that the average person will “own nothing.”

“We need a clean energy revolution, and we need it now,” states a WEF’s July 18 article titled, “3 circular economy approaches to reduce demand for critical metals.”

“But this transition from fossil fuels to renewables will need large supplies of critical metals such as cobalt, lithium, nickel, to name a few. Shortages of these critical minerals could raise the costs of clean energy technologies,” the forum continues.

The unelected globalist group recommends the public “go from owning to using” by implementing “vehicle sharing initiatives” to decrease mass reliance on critical metals.

“The average car or van in England is driven just 4% of the time. While most already have a personal phone, 39% of workers globally have employer-provided laptops and mobile phones. This is not at all resource efficient,” the WEF states. “More sharing can reduce ownership of idle equipment and thus material usage.”

The WEF recommends the public abandon use of the vehicles they own and instead opt to share a ride by “car sharing and links to an article published by Tree Hugger to that details what “car sharing” entails.

Banning private ownership in its entirety is essential, according to the WEF.

“A design process that focuses on fulfilling the underlying need instead of designing for product purchasing is fundamental to this transition,” the WEF continues. “This is the mindset needed to redesign cities to reduce private vehicles and other usages.”

Earlier this month, the WEF also published a position paper claiming gas prices must increase to save democracy.

Policies must be implemented to increase the prices of alternatives to green energy, the WEF argues in the July 11 article.

See Also The Illusion of Eco Cars

If That Tesla Battery Could Talk


Time to Cross Examine Climatists

Kurt Schlichter explains at Town Hall Cross-Examining the Climate Change Cultists.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Well, I’m a lawyer. I question scientists for a living.

Now, I have no scientific training to speak of. I majored in communications and political science, so the only science I studied at UC San Diego had to do with the physics of foaming when I poured Coors into a glass, as well as the mechanics of human reproduction. Don’t expect me to discourse deeply on the heat retention coefficient of CO2 – I don’t even know if that is a thing, but it sure sounds sciency.

Instead, I hire scientists in most every case I try. Sometimes I hire several in different disciplines. The other side does too, and here’s the weird thing – at trial, the other side’s scientists always, always, disagree with my scientists.

A smart attorney wants a scientist who tells you what he really thinks and who has a solid, rational basis for his conclusions. You need to know if your case is strong or weak – if it is weak, you want to resolve it before trial.

But the fact is that two scientists with good credentials can look at the same set of facts and come to different conclusions. This happens all the time. So, how do you know which one is right?

Well, that’s where the lawyer magic comes in. See, our job is to punch some holes in what the other side’s scientists say. That’s what a lawyer does, and it is critical to the pursuit of truth. You have to test the testimony, because otherwise it is just a one-sided monologue. You know, like the cross-examination-free January 6th Kongressional Kangaroo Kommittee. Those amphibians made sure there was no cross-examination because they did not want their phony case questioned.

You want a lawyer who, besides making his own case,
takes the evidence from the other side and slices and dices it.

Cross-examination, it has been said, is the greatest engine for the discovery of the truth man has yet created. And when someone wants to prevent vigorous, even brutal cross-examination of his case, that’s a giveaway that it is weak.

And I’m looking at the climate change hoax. The weather cultists even have a uniquely dumb and offensive slur for people who dare test their evidence, such as it is: “Denier.”

The art of cross-examination is designed to illuminate the reasons not to believe the other side.

Expose the Bias

The actual order you do a cross in varies, but let’s start with attacking bias. Bias is huge. Bias is any interest in the testimony outside of simply offering the truth for the truth’ sake. If a person has an interest in a particular answer, then his testimony in support of that answer is questionable. Is he getting paid by someone with an interest in his answer? That can show bias. In the climate arena, is he getting climate change grants? Remember, it’s not just getting hired but the potential for getting fired that can show bias. “Assistant Professor Warmingnut, in fact, if you were opposed to the idea of human-caused global warming being an existential threat, you would have zero chance of ever getting tenure as a full professor at the University of College, correct?”

An awful lot of these science folk have a huge personal interest in providing a pro-climate hysteria answer, whether from gaining cash to saving their careers. And that matters. But for some reason we are not supposed to point that out because scientists are these neutral monks without human drives like greed, fear, and pride. Hang around some scientists for a while and see if you buy that.

Bore into the Supporting Foundation

Then you would test the foundation that supports their conclusion. You might point out that we have only a human temperature record going back a few hundred years. You could also point out the “heat sink” issue – urban areas tend to retain more warmth than rural areas, and measurements are often closer to urban areas than out in the boonies. They would talk about tree rings and ice cores and such, but you would point out that these are not direct evidence of the temperature like directly measuring it is – we think we can extrapolate from them how hot it was in 2000 BC, but it is really only an educated guess. And then you might question the various adjustments to the raw data that they make before presenting it.

Challenge the Conclusions Directly

You would also want to cross-examine the conclusions themselves. It’s pretty popular to claim that the recent heatwave in Europe proves global warming. But then, why doesn’t a cold wave disprove it? In fact, what set of facts would disprove the climate change theory? Isn’t the scientific method about generating a theory for a phenomenon and then testing it by trying to find facts that disprove it? So, what would disprove global warming?

None, of course. Everything always proves it. How sciency!

And while we are at it, since “global warming” has been replaced by “climate change,” what, precisely, is the climate we need to maintain? What is the “correct” temperature? Is the goal to stop all climate change? Do we need to counteract natural climate change? You do agree that climate does change naturally, right? All those Americans with those SUVs and BBQs were thousands of years from coming into being when the ice age happened, so what caused that? And what caused the subsequent global warming after it? Are those same phenomena absent today? If not, how much are they causing now?

There are lots of nits to pick. How about the constantly retreating goalposts? What is the current climate apocalypse deadline? Didn’t Al Gore tell us in the 2000s that we would be suffering a climate catastrophe right now in 2022? Florida is still above water, right? So, the scientists Al listened to were wrong, weren’t they? So, Dr. Warmingnut, you concede that scientists have been wrong about climate? The ones in the seventies projecting another ice age in a decade were wrong, correct? So why are the scientists today right?

Object to Adverse Implications

And then cover the implications. So, you are recommending a pretty radical program of ending the use of fossil fuels and getting rid of cows because they tend to act like Eric Swalwell in order to treat global warming? So, what, exactly, will be the effect of America doing that on the global part of the warming issue? Will it matter what America and Europe do if India and China maintain their current carbon footprints? And how much, in dollars and disruption, will your remedies cost? How does that compare to the cost of ameliorating some climate change effects like higher ocean levels and hotter temperatures?

And then you need to point out some macro issues with questions on the real agenda. So, Dr Warmingnut, can you name a single major climate change remedial initiative, such as higher taxes and increased bureaucratic authority, that does not correspond to something the political left wants to do anyway? Can you name one climate remedial initiative that supports a conservative objective? Does it strike you as odd that the people supporting climate change wanted all the things they now demand because of climate change long before climate change became a thing?

And does it seem strange to you that climate advocates like John Kerry are zipping across the Atlantic to party in Davos and folks like Barack Obama are buying beachfront property if this is an existential crisis?

I know, I know, shut up, denier!

I’m not a scientist. But I am a lawyer. My job is to dig out the truth through cross-examination. And it seems very telling that the climate change hoaxers are desperate to avoid any examination of their ridiculous assertions at all.

Footnote:  Jason Johnson wrote an extensive cross examination of global warming/climate change, pdf available here:   Global Warming Advocacy Science: A Cross Examination

Scientists who have been leaders in the process of producing these Assessment Reports (“AR’s”) argue that they provide a “balanced perspective” on the “state of the art” in climate science, with the IPCC acting as a rigorous and “objective assessor” of what is known and unknown in climate science. Legal scholars have accepted this characterization, trusting that the IPCC AR’s are the product of an “exhaustive review process” – involving hundreds of outside reviewers and thousands of comments. 

It is virtually impossible to find anywhere in the legal or the policy literature on global warming anything like a sustained discussion of the actual state of the scientific literature on ghg emissions and climate change. Instead, legal and policy scholars simply defer to a very general statement of the climate establishment’s opinion (except when it seems too conservative), generally failing even to mention work questioning the establishment climate story, unless to dismiss it with the ad hominem argument that such work is the product of untrustworthy, industry-funded “skeptics” and “deniers.”

This paper constitutes such a cross-examination. As anyone who has served as an expert witness in American litigation can attest, even though an opposing attorney may not have the expert’s scientific training, a well prepared and highly motivated trial attorney who has learned something about the technical literature can ask very tough questions, questions that force the expert to clarify the basis for his or her opinion, to explain her interpretation of the literature, and to account for any apparently conflicting literature that is not discussed in the expert report. My strategy in this paper is to adopt the approach that would be taken by a non-scientist attorney deposing global warming scientists serving as experts for the position that anthropogenic ghg emissions have caused recent global warming and must be halted if serious and seriously harmful future warming is to be prevented – what I have called above the established climate story.

See also Critical Climate Intelligence for Jurists (and others)


Trudeau Government Out Of Service

The view from National Post is Trudeau fiddles, while the federal government crumbles around him.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The Trudeau Liberals are failing to deliver even the most basic government services

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau visits children at the Okanagan Boys and Girls Club childcare centre in Lake Country, B.C., on July 18. PHOTO BY ARTUR GAJDA/REUTERS

The federal government is broken — but you wouldn’t know it from following the summer adventures of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

It’s no secret that the prime minister loves photo-ops, but he usually manages to at least tangentially connect them to some sort of issue. War in Ukraine? Time for a heavily photographed European tour. Outrage over residential schools? Someone find him a teddy bear and a well-lit place to kneel.

But his latest string of photo-ops don’t even bother with rhyme or reason as he tours the country seemingly at random, for no real purpose, doing basically nothing. One day he’s playing camp counsellor in the woods, the next he’s all smiles and no mask on a sightseeing train. Next thing you know, he’s picking cherries and chumming it up with fruit growers in British Columbia.

So far, no one’s been able to figure out quite why he’s doing this. He hasn’t used the trips to make any policy or funding announcements, wasn’t in town for fundraisers and the notion of a fall election seems absurd even by Liberal standards.

It’d be great if the media could ask him during one of his many photo-ops, but he’s forbidden journalists from posing questions. He wouldn’t want anything to distract from his carefully curated tableaus, and reporters have a pesky habit of wanting to talk about things other than children’s stories and fruit.

Meanwhile, across Canada, people are literally camping outside Service Canada locations in attempts to secure passports. Airports suffer from rampant flight delays and cancellations, lost luggage, long lines and staff shortages.

Pilots can’t get certified or re-certified because, according to Dario Matrundola, president of Canadian Flyers Aviation College, Transport Canada “completely dropped the ball.” In Quebec, hundreds of court cases are being postponed due to a shortage of judges.

Emergency rooms are closing due to staffing and capacity issues. Both hospitals in Saint John, N.B., hit capacity last weekend, forcing some residents to drive over an hour to receive emergency care. In Montreal, a children’s hospital was recently forced to turn away patients.

The immigration system is backlogged with over 2.7 million applications in the queue. We have stopped taking new applications to resettle the Afghans who helped our Forces and now face persecution from the Taliban.

Many Indigenous communities still don’t have potable drinking water. The federal government’s idea of solving what many believe is a housing crisis is to spend public money on building a paltry 260 new homes — a bad, government-centric response that helps almost no one.

The ArriveCAN app is glitching and ordering vaccinated travellers into quarantine. If you live in the downtown core of many Canadian cities, it’s impossible to miss the growing numbers of people sleeping, eating and even defecating on the streets.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Where is the Liberals’ new China policy that they’ve been promising since 2019? Or someone to fill the ambassador to China role that’s now been vacant for over six months? Is anyone even enforcing our Russian sanctions (when the federal government itself isn’t breaking them)?

It’s becoming harder to find areas of government that aren’t in crisis than ones that are. Chaos and dysfunction are seemingly everywhere. The Trudeau Liberals are failing to deliver on even the most basic government services.

Ironically, it’s the same politicians and political staffers responsible for these failures who can’t seem to fathom why voters are losing trust in Canadian institutions. They view frustration with government “gatekeepers” as unfounded and dangerous, rather than the predictable result of their negligence and general apathy toward average Canadians.

Canadians are frustrated that they cannot receive even basic government services in a timely manner, and that their vacation plans are being disrupted, after over two years of complying with coronavirus restrictions. But the Liberals can’t see that because they’re too busy patting themselves on the back for their supposed moral authority, and Trudeau doesn’t want to hear it while he tours the nation’s summer camps.

It’s often Conservatives who are accused of wanting to let government services erode, in order to usher in privatization. But under the Liberals, those services have all but collapsed.

If the left believes that big government is the solution to the problems that plague our nation, they couldn’t be doing more to undermine their own ideology. Rather than demand change, Liberal supporters seem determined to defend and deflect, sacrificing their party’s credibility to serve Trudeau’s cult of personality.

What Canada needs right now is for the prime minister to start demonstrating a real commitment to getting the federal government working again. That means focusing on real, tangible results, rather than taking an extended vacation. School children may be out for the summer, but as our head of government, Trudeau does not have that same luxury — especially when his government is in such a state of disarray.


US Feds Directing Big Tech Censorship? Discovery Begins.

Adam Mill explains in his American Greatness article Is the Government Directing Big Tech Censorship? Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Details in a case filed in a federal district court suggest government-directed censorship on social media and the most comprehensive interference in a domestic election in the history of the nation.

We’ve heard it a thousand times: “The First Amendment doesn’t apply to private social media platforms.” That statement, however, presumes the private company’s independence from government action. But what if the social media platform defers censorship decisions to the government itself? Can the government circumvent free speech protections by using a cut-out to censor citizen speech critical of its policies or preferred political candidates?

An explosive case filed in the Federal District Court of the Western District of Louisiana may shine a light on the federal government’s role in Big Tech censorship.

On July 12, U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty (appointed by President Trump in 2017) granted permission for plaintiffs to conduct discovery into whether federal agencies violated the First Amendment rights of Americans by allegedly directing social media platforms to censor disfavored viewpoints and content. These topics include, “Speech about the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origin, speech about the efficiency of masks and COVID-19 lockdowns, and speech about election integrity and security of voting by mail.” More importantly, these agencies stand accused of working with social media companies to suppress, “The Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2020 Presidential election.”

If true, the government-directed censorship constitutes the most comprehensive interference in a domestic election in the history of the nation.

According to plaintiffs, the alleged government-sponsored tech censorship is ongoing. Plaintiffs filed a “Motion for Preliminary Injunction,” requesting an order prohibiting government defendants from, “taking steps to . . . encourage, pressure . . . any social-media company or platform to censor, suppress,” etc., “. . . any speaker, content, or viewpoint expressed on social media.” The attorneys general for the states of Missouri and Louisiana brought the lawsuit against various federal agencies on behalf of residents of each of these states.

The government opposed the lawsuit arguing that the states lacked standing to challenge government efforts to suppress speech on social media platforms. The court denied this challenge noting the states have standing because the laws and constitution of each state guarantee their residents free speech. The court noted that the lawsuit alleged injuries which, “are ‘imminent’ and allegedly ‘on-going,’ due to allegations of social media suspensions, removals of disfavored viewpoints, and censorship.” Federal agency suppression of citizen free speech, if proven, violates the laws and constitutions of those states.

The plaintiffs seek to force the federal government to reveal “the identities of federal officials who have or are communicating with social-media platforms about disinformation, misinformation . . . or any form of censorship or suppression of online speech,” in addition to “the nature and content of such federal officials’ communication with such social media platforms.” The plaintiffs have also asked for permission to “serve third-party subpoenas,” on selected social media platforms seeking, “similar information about the identity of federal officials who communicate with them, and the nature and content of these communications.”

Anticipating bad-faith objections and legal gymnastics to obstruct discovery, the plaintiffs further requested the court to rule on all objections. The court found, “the requests are reasonable,” and that, “Missouri and Louisiana have shown good cause for expedited,” discovery to aid in the resolution of the requested preliminary injunction. The court granted permission to the plaintiffs to serve the federal agencies with written discovery and third party subpoenas on “up to five major social-media platforms,” regarding the alleged coordination between the government and the platforms to censor and suppress speech. The judge then granted a mere 30 days for the federal agencies to respond.

What’s more, the court informed the federal agencies that it would promptly rule on any attempts to thwart the requests. The court even established a schedule for ruling on the preliminary injunction.

In October 2020, immediately after the release of the Hunter Biden laptop stories, the Daily Mail reported Facebook told Congress that it censored the information after the FBI told the platform that the information came from a “hack and leak” Russian disinformation campaign. The New York Post, which exclusively reported on much of the information, fiercely contested this claim—providing a detailed account of how a computer repair store owner legally obtained the laptop. Indeed, the Daily Mail published copies of a receipt bearing Hunter Biden’s signature which appeared to confirm the Post’s account of the origins of the story.

While the public has known about a letter signed by more than 50 former intelligence officials characterizing the laptop story as Russian disinformation, this is something different. A confirmation that current government officials helped censor the story would represent a significant development in the saga. As noted by the Epoch Times, the media coverup of the Hunter Biden laptop story likely impacted the election outcome. If, as the plaintiffs allege, the social media companies acted at the direction of federal agencies falsely disputing the authenticity of the laptop, such a scandal would raise serious questions about the fairness of the 2020 election.

Footnote on Free And Fair Elections

Those who monitor elections internationally evaluate whether the process was both “Free” and “Fair.”  A free election is one in which all voters have unfettered access to all messaging by all candidates.  Violations include silencing opposition by putting them in prison or by destroying their media.  A fair election is one in which each eligible voter has one and only one vote counted.  Pieces of paper with marks on them are not ballots until it is determined that those marks were made by a lawful voter in the time and manner prescribed by the legislature. Only after that bar is crossed for every ballot is it possible to have an election.

Abortion Should Be Safe, Legal and Rare

Now in the US, it will up to lawmakers state by state to decide what if any limits to put on abortion procedures.  Why it matters is suggested by the image above.  The unborn has already his/her own heartbeat typically detectable by week six or seven, and by 12 weeks the rate reduces to a sustainable level for the rest of the pregnancy.

So the Supreme Court affirmed the Mississippi state law that prohibits abortion after 15 weeks.  Women in Mississippi have the right to choose to end their pregnancy in the first trimester, but after 15 weeks the unborn has a right to life.  There are many ways to practice birth control–abortion should be a last resort in extreme circumstances.

Much Ado About Marine Heat Waves

The latest promotion of this scare was published this week at Nature by Barkhordarian et al. Recent marine heatwaves in the North Pacific warming pool can be attributed to rising atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases.  This post will unpack the reasons to distrust this paper and its claims.  First the Abstract of the subject and their declared findings in italics with my bolds.


Over the last decade, the northeast Pacific experienced marine heatwaves that caused devastating marine ecological impacts with socioeconomic implications. Here we use two different attribution methods and show that forcing by elevated greenhouse gases levels has virtually certainly caused the multi-year persistent 2019–2021 marine heatwave. There is less than 1% chance that the 2019–2021 event with ~3 years duration and 1.6 ∘C intensity could have happened in the absence of greenhouse gases forcing. We further discover that the recent marine heatwaves are co-located with a systematically-forced outstanding warming pool, which we attribute to forcing by elevated greenhouse gases levels and the recent industrial aerosol-load decrease. The here-detected Pacific long-term warming pool is associated with a strengthening ridge of high-pressure system, which has recently emerged from the natural variability of climate system, indicating that they will provide favorable conditions over the northeast Pacific for even more severe marine heatwave events in the future.

Background on Ocean Warm Pools

Wang and Enfield study is The Tropical Western Hemisphere Warm Pool Abstract in italics with my bolds.


The Western Hemisphere warm pool (WHWP) of water warmer than 28.5°C extends from the eastern North Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean, and at its peak, overlaps with the tropical North Atlantic. It has a large seasonal cycle and its interannual fluctuations of area and intensity are significant. Surface heat fluxes warm the WHWP through the boreal spring to an annual maximum of SST and areal extent in the late summer/early fall, associated with eastern North Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activities and rainfall from northern South America to the southern tier of the United States. SST and area anomalies occur at high temperatures where small changes can have a large impact on tropical convection. Observations suggest that a positive ocean-atmosphere feedback operating through longwave radiation and associated cloudiness is responsible for the WHWP SST anomalies. Associated with an increase in SST anomalies is a decrease in atmospheric sea level pressure.

Chou and Chou published On the Regulation of the Pacific Warm Pool Temperature:


Analyses of data on clouds, winds, and surface heat fluxes show that the transient behavior of basin-wide large-scale circulation has a significant influence on the warm pool sea surface temperature (SST). Trade winds converge to regions of the highest SST in the equatorial western Pacific. The reduced evaporative cooling due to weakened winds exceeds the reduced solar heating due to enhanced cloudiness. The result is a maximum surface heating in the strong convective and high SST regions. The maximum surface heating in strong convective regions is interrupted by transient atmospheric and oceanic circulation. Regions of high SST and low-level convergence follow the Sun. As the Sun moves away from a convective region, the strong trade winds set in, and the evaporative cooling enhances, resulting in a net cooling of the surface. We conclude that the evaporative cooling associated with the seasonal and interannual variations of trade winds is one of the major factors that modulate the SST distribution of the Pacific warm pool.


So these are but two examples of oceanographic studies describing natural factors driving the rise and fall of Pacific warm pools.  Yet the Nature paper claims rising CO2 from fossil fuels is the causal factor, waving away natural processes.  Skeptical responses were already lodged upon the first incidence of the North Pacific marine heat wave, the “Blob” much discussed by west coast US meteorologists.  One of the most outspoken against the global warming attributionists has been Cliff Mass of Seattle and University of Washington.  Writing in 2014 and 2015, he observed the rise and fall of the warming blob and then posted a critique of attribution attempts at his blog.  For example, Media Miscommunication about the Blob.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Blob Media Misinformation

One of the most depressing things for scientists is to see the media misinform the public about an important issue.

During the past few days, an unfortunate example occurred regarding the warm water pool that formed over a year ago in the middle of the north Pacific, a.k.a., the blob. Let me show how this communication failure occurred, with various media outlets messed things up in various ways.

The stimulant for the nationwide coverage of the Blob was a very nice paper published by Nick Bond (UW scientist and State Climatologist), Meghan Cronin, Howard Freeland, and Nathan Mantua in Geophysical Research Letters.

This publication described the origin of the Blob, showing that it was the result of persistent ridging (high pressure) over the Pacific. The high pressure, and associated light winds, resulted in less vertical mixing of the upper layer of the ocean; with less mixing of subsurface cold water to the surface. Furthermore, the high pressure reduced horizontal movement of colder water from the north. Straightforward and convincing work.

The inaccurate press release then led to a media frenzy, with the story going viral. And unfortunately, many of the media got it wrong.

There were two failure modes. In one, the headline was wrong, but the internal story was correct. . . In the second failure mode, the story itself was essentially flawed, with most claiming that the Blob off of western North America was the cause of the anomalous circulation (big ridge over West Coast, trough over the eastern U.S.). (The truth: the Blob was the RESULT of the anomalous circulations.) That the Blob CAUSED the California drought or the cold wave in the eastern U.S. These deceptive stories were found in major outlets around the country, including the Washington Post, NBC News, and others.

Blob Returns,  Attribution Misinformation

When the Blob returned 2020-2021, Cliff Mass had cause to again lament how the public is misled.  This time misdirection instigated by activist scientists using flawed methods.  His post Miscommunication in Recent Climate Attribution Studies.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

This attribution report, and most media stories that covered it, suggested a central role for global warming for the heatwave. As demonstrated in my previous blog, their narrative simply does not hold up to careful examination.

This blog will explain why their basic framing and approach is problematic, leading readers (and most of the media) to incorrect conclusions.

For the heatwave, the attribution folks only examine the statistics of temperatures hitting the record highs (108F in Seattle), but avoid looking at the statistics of temperature exceeding 100F, or even the record highs (like 103F in Seattle). There is a reason they don’t do that. It would tell a dramatically different (and less persuasive) story.

In the attribution studies, the main technology for determining changed odds of extreme weather is to use global climate models. First, they run the models with greenhouse gas forcing (which produces more extreme precipitation and temperature), and then they run the models again without increased greenhouse gases concentrations. By comparing the statistics of the two sets of simulations, they attempt to determine how the odds of extreme precipitation or temperature change.

Unfortunately, there are serious flaws in their approach: climate models fail to produce sufficient natural variability (they underplay the black swans) and their global climate models don’t have enough resolution to correctly simulate critical intense, local precipitation features (from mountain enhancement to thunderstorms). On top of that, they generally use unrealistic greenhouse gas emissions in their models (too much, often using the RCP8.5 extreme emissions scenario) And there is more, but you get the message. ( I am weather/climate modeler, by the way, and know the model deficiencies intimately.)

Vaunted Fingerprinting Attribution Is Statistically Unsound

From Barkhordarian et al.

Unlike previous studies which have focused on linking the SST patterns in the North Pacific to changes in the oceanic circulation and the extratropical/tropical teleconnections2,12,17,18,20,24,26, we here perform two different statistical attribution methodologies in order to identify the human fingerprint in Northeast Pacific SST changes both on multidecadal timescale (changes of mean SST) and on extreme SST events on daily timescale (Marine Heatwaves). Evidence that anthropogenic forcing has altered the base state (long-term changes of mean SST) over the northeast Pacific, which is characterized by strong low-frequency SST fluctuations, would increase confidence in the attribution of MHWs27, since rising mean SST is the dominant driver of increasing MHW frequency and intensity, outweighing changes due to temperature variability1,2.

In this study, we provide a quantitative assessment of whether GHG forcing, the main component of anthropogenic forcings, was necessary for the North Pacific high-impact MHWs (the Blob-like SST anomalies) to occur, and whether it is a sufficient cause for such events to continue to repeatedly occur in the future. With these purposes, we use two high-resolution observed SST datasets, along with harnessing two initial-condition large ensembles of coupled general circulation models (CESM1-LE28,29 with 35 members, and MPI-GE30 with 100 members). These large ensembles can provide better estimates of an individual model’s internal variability and response to external forcing31,32, and facilitate the explicit consideration of stochastic uncertainty in attribution results33. We also use multiple single-forcing experiments from the Detection and Attribution Model Intercomparision Project (DAMIP34) component of Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP635).

From Barkhordarian et al. References


The IPCC’s attribution methodology is fundamentally flawed

The central paper underpinning the attribution analysis was assessed and found unreliable by statistician Ross McKitrick’s published evaluation. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

One day after the IPCC released the AR6 I published a paper in Climate Dynamics showing that their “Optimal Fingerprinting” methodology on which they have long relied for attributing climate change to greenhouse gases is seriously flawed and its results are unreliable and largely meaningless. Some of the errors would be obvious to anyone trained in regression analysis, and the fact that they went unnoticed for 20 years despite the method being so heavily used does not reflect well on climatology as an empirical discipline.

My paper is a critique of “Checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting” by Myles Allen and Simon Tett, which was published in Climate Dynamics in 1999 and to which I refer as AT99. Their attribution methodology was instantly embraced and promoted by the IPCC in the 2001 Third Assessment Report (coincident with their embrace and promotion of the Mann hockey stick). The IPCC promotion continues today: see AR6 Section 3.2.1. It has been used in dozens and possibly hundreds of studies over the years. Wherever you begin in the Optimal Fingerprinting literature (example), all paths lead back to AT99, often via Allen and Stott (2003). So its errors and deficiencies matter acutely.


Allen and Tett (1999, herein AT99) introduced a Generalized Least Squares (GLS) regression methodology for decomposing patterns of climate change for attribution purposes and proposed the “Residual Consistency Test” (RCT) to check the GLS specification. Their methodology has been widely used and highly influential ever since, in part because subsequent authors have relied upon their claim that their GLS model satisfies the conditions of the Gauss-Markov (GM) Theorem, thereby yielding unbiased and efficient estimators.

But AT99:

  • stated the GM Theorem incorrectly, omitting a critical condition altogether,
  • their GLS method cannot satisfy the GM conditions, and
  • their variance estimator is inconsistent by construction.
  • Additionally, they did not formally state the null hypothesis of the RCT nor
  • identify which of the GM conditions it tests, nor
  • did they prove its distribution and critical values, rendering it uninformative as a specification test.

The continuing influence of AT99 two decades later means these issues should be corrected. I identify 6 conditions needing to be shown for the AT99 method to be valid.

In Conclusion,  McKitrick:

One point I make is that the assumption that an estimator of C provides a valid estimate of the error covariances means the AT99 method cannot be used to test a null hypothesis that greenhouse gases have no effect on the climate. Why not? Because an elementary principle of hypothesis testing is that the distribution of a test statistic under the assumption that the null hypothesis is true cannot be conditional on the null hypothesis being false. The use of a climate model to generate the homoscedasticity weights requires the researcher to assume the weights are a true representation of climate processes and dynamics.

The climate model embeds the assumption that
greenhouse gases have a significant climate impact.

Or, equivalently, that natural processes alone cannot generate a large class of observed events in the climate, whereas greenhouse gases can. It is therefore not possible to use the climate model-generated weights to construct a test of the assumption that natural processes alone could generate the class of observed events in the climate.

Progressive Means Experts Rule

Ryan McMaken explains at Mises Why Progressives Love Government “Experts”.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images H/T zerohedge

In twenty-first-century America, ordinary people are at the mercy of well-paid, unelected government experts who wield vast power.

That is, we live in the age of the technocrats: people who claim to have special wisdom that entitles them to control, manipulate, and manage society’s institutions using the coercive power of the state.

We’re told these people are “nonpolitical” and will use their impressive scientific knowledge to plan the economy, public health, public safety, or whatever goal the regime has decided the technocrats will be tasked with bringing about.

These people include central bankers, Supreme Court justices, “public health” bureaucrats, and Pentagon generals.

The narrative is that these people are not there to represent the public or bow to political pressure. They’re just there to do “the right thing” as dictated by economic theory, biological sciences, legal theory, or the study of military tactics.  We’re also told that in order to allow these people to act as the purely well-meaning apolitical geniuses they are, we must give them their independence and not question their methods or conclusions.

We were exposed to this routine yet again last week as President Joe Biden announced he will “respect the Fed’s independence” and allow the central bankers to set monetary policy without any bothersome interference from the representatives of the taxpayers who pay all the bills and who primarily pay the price when central bankers make things worse. (Biden, of course, didn’t mention that central bankers have been spectacularly wrong about the inflation threat in recent years, with inflation rates hitting forty-year highs, economic growth going negative, and consumer credit piling up as families struggle to cope with the cost of living.)

Conveniently, Biden’s deferral to the Fed allows him to blame it later when economic conditions get even worse. Nonetheless, his placing the economy in the hands of alleged experts will no doubt appear laudable to many. This is because the public has long been taught by public schools and media outlets that government experts should have the leeway to exercise vast power in the name of “fixing” whatever problems society faces.

The Expert Class as a Tool for State Building

The success of this idea represents a great victory for progressive ideology. Progressives have long been committed to creating a special expert class as a means of building state power. In the United States, for example, the cult of expertise really began to take hold in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and it led directly to support for more government intervention in the private sector. As Maureen Flanagan notes in “Progressives and Progressivism in an Era of Reform,”

Social science expertise gave political Progressives a theoretical foundation for cautious proposals to create a more activist state…. Professional social scientists composed a tight circle of men who created a space between academia and government from which to advocate for reform. They addressed each other, trained their students to follow their ideas, and rarely spoke to the larger public.

These men founded new organizations—such as the American Economics Association—to promote this new class of experts and their plans for a more centrally planned society. Ultimately, the nature of the expert class was revolutionary. The new social scientists thought they knew better than the patricians, religious leaders, local representatives, and market actors who had long shaped local institutions. Instead,

Progressives were modernizers with a structural-instrumentalist agenda. They rejected reliance on older values and cultural norms to order society and sought to create a modern reordered society with political and economic institutions run by men qualified to apply fiscal expertise, businesslike efficiency, and modern scientific expertise to solve problems and save democracy. The emerging academic disciplines in the social sciences of economics, political economy and political science, and pragmatic education supplied the theoretical bases for this middle-class expert Progressivism.

In the Progressive view, business leaders and machine politicians lacked a rational and broad view of the needs of society. In contrast, the government experts would approach society’s problems as scientists. Johnson felt this model already somewhat existed in the Department of War, where Johnson imagined the secretary of war was “quite free from political pressure and [relied] on the counsel of the engineers.” Johnson imagined that these science-minded bureaucrats could bring a “really economic and scientific application” of policy.

“Disinterested” Central Planners

Johnson was part of a wave of experts and intellectuals attempting to develop “a new realm of state expertise” that favored apolitical technocrats who would plan the nation’s infrastructure and industry. Many historians have recognized that these efforts were fundamentally “state-building activities … [and that] their emergence marked and symbolized a watershed in which an often-undemocratic new politics of administration and interest groups displaced the nineteenth century’s partisan, locally oriented public life”. 

In short, these efforts sowed the seeds for the idealized technocracy we have today: unresponsive to the public and imbued with vast coercive power that continually displaces private discretion and private prerogatives.

Indeed, the Progressive devotion to expertise followed “the core pattern of Progressive politics,” which is “the redirection of decision making upward within bureaucracies.” Thus, in contrast to the populist political institutions of an earlier time, decision-making in the Progressive Era became more white-collar, more middle class—as opposed to the working-class party workers—and more hierarchical within bureaucracies directly controlled by the state’s executive agencies.

Who Should Rule?

In many ways, then, this aspect of Progressive ideology turned the political agenda of laissez-faire classical liberalism on its head. Liberals of the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian variety had sought to increase outside political influence in the policy-making process through elections and the appointment of party activists loyal to elected representatives. This was because liberals feared that an insulated class of government experts would function more in its own interests than those of the taxpayers.

The Progressives, however, imagined they could create a disinterested nonpolitical class of experts devoted only to objective science.

The fundamental question, then, became who should rule: insulated experts or nonexpert representatives with closer ties to the taxpayers.  We can see today that the Progressives largely succeeded in granting far greater power to today’s technocratic class of experts. The technocrats are praised for their allegedly scientific focus, and we are told to respect their independence.

If the goal was ever to protect public checks on state power, however, this was always an unworkable ideal. By creating a special class of expert bureaucrats with decades-long careers within the regime itself, we are simply creating a new class of officials able to wield state power with little accountability. Anyone with a sufficiently critical view of state power could see the danger in this. Interestingly, it was anarcho-communist Mikhail Bakunin who recognized the impossibility of solving the problem of state power by putting scientific experts in charge. Such a move only represented a transfer of power from one group to another. Bakunin warned:

The State has always been the patrimony of some privileged class or other; a priestly class, an aristocratic class, a bourgeois class, and finally a bureaucratic class.

It is not necessary, of course, to have full-blown socialism to create this “new class.” The modern state with its mixed economy in most cases already has all the bureaucratic infrastructure necessary to make this a reality. As long as we defer to this ruling class of “scientists and scholars,” the Progressives have won.

Background Why Technocrats Deliver Catastrophes

Progressive Judicial Bias on Display

Bruce Pardy explains in his National Post article Supreme Court undermined by chief justice condemning freedom convoy.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Confidence in the judiciary depends on whether people perceive courts to

be genuinely neutral, not merely within a narrow band of progressive consensus

The trucker convoy that protested COVID vaccine mandates in Ottawa in February has been both joyously acclaimed and bitterly criticized. According to an April 9 article in Le Devoir, Supreme Court Chief Justice Richard Wagner has added his voice to those who have condemned it. If the account in Le Devoir is accurate, his comments starkly illustrate the degree to which judges feel at liberty to embrace progressive consensus at the expense of judicial neutrality. In mid May, a group of lawyers filed a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council, arguing that Wagner’s criticisms undermine confidence in the impartiality of the courts, in particular on the issue of the government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act and the right to protest.

The trucks had been in Ottawa for two weeks when, on Feb. 14, the federal government invoked the Emergencies Act. It cited “the threat or use of acts of serious violence” as the rationale, even though the protests had been largely peaceful throughout and the government had received no intelligence about impending violence or the presence of weapons. Within a few days, police had cleared the trucks and supporters away and the bank accounts of several hundred Canadians had been frozen. On February 23, the use of the Emergencies Act was revoked.

At least four legal challenges to the government’s invocation of the act have been launched, one or more of which could easily wind up on appeal to the Supreme Court, with the chief justice sitting in judgment on the case.

In his interview with Le Devoir, Wagner characterized the protest on Wellington Street, where Parliament and the Supreme Court are located, as “the beginning of anarchy where some people have decided to take other citizens hostage.” The article reports Wagner as having declared that “forced blows against the state, justice and democratic institutions like the one delivered by protesters … should be denounced with force by all figures of power in the country.To become a judge means to take on onerous responsibilities. “Justice should not only be done,” Lord Chief Justice Hewart famously said in a 1923 UK King’s Bench judgment, “but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” The Canadian Judicial Council, which oversees the conduct of judges on the country’s highest courts, and which the chief justice of the Supreme Court chairs, states in its Ethical Principles for Judges that “statements evidencing prejudgment … may destroy the appearance of impartiality,“ and so judges “should avoid using words or conduct, in and out of court, that might give rise to a reasonable perception of an absence of impartiality.”In a 2015 decision in which Wagner himself participated, the Supreme Court agreed. “Judges are required — and expected — to approach every case with impartiality and an open mind,” the court wrote, and must be perceived to do so. Traditionally, judicial comment on political matters is regarded as inappropriate. In 2016, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg apologized for making “ill-advised” criticisms of Donald Trump, who at the time was the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

How then are the chief justice’s comments to be explained? At his first press conference in 2018 as the court’s chief, as reported in the Toronto Star, Wagner agreed that his court was “the most progressive in the world,” with a leadership role to play in promoting (progressive) moral values. Wanjiru Njoya, a legal scholar at the University of Exeter and formerly at Queen’s University in Kingston, has strongly criticized the fact that in the modern legal firmament, the range of what is considered reasonable has been narrowed to progressive ideals alone. In the courts and within the legal academy, as she puts it, the dominant perspective “delineates the boundaries of what progressives consider to be reasonable, measured, and balanced interpretations of the demands of justice.” Perspectives falling outside these boundaries, she says, are perversely defined as unreasonable and therefore regarded as not worthy of respect.

Through a progressive lens, in other words, impartiality means having an open mind to all reasonable perspectives — but only progressive perspectives are reasonable.

Progressivism is the ideology of collectivism, equity, wokeness, safetyism, and the managerial state. COVID has been progressivism’s perfect storm and sweeping pandemic bureaucracy its pinnacle achievement. Yet where the line is to be drawn between individual liberty and collective responsibility is a matter of legitimate dispute. Confidence in the judiciary depends on whether people perceive courts to be genuinely neutral, not merely within a narrow band of progressive consensus but on all matters of controversy within a pluralistic society.

Had the chief justice declared the truck convoy to be courageous, vaccine mandates illegitimate, and invocation of the Emergencies Act an outrageous violation of civil liberties, the federal government would justifiably perceive that he had prejudged the case.

Instead, his words reflect the government position that the protest was beyond the bounds of civilized behaviour and was properly crushed with state force. The question is not whether his views are correct, but whether they are premature and in the wrong forum. Should any of the Emergencies Act challenges make their way to the Supreme Court, the chief justice will sit in judgment on a dispute about which he appears to have already formed an opinion.

Having made his public comments, the chief justice could announce that he will recuse himself from the case to avoid a reasonable perception of bias. However, Wagner is not merely one of many federally appointed judges, but the chief justice of the highest court in the land. His opinion carries influence that cannot be nullified by simple recusal. The harm done to judicial impartiality on the issue of the invocation of the Emergencies Act cannot easily be remedied.

Bruce Pardy is executive director of Rights Probe and professor of law at Queen’s University. He was one of the lawyers on the complaint filed with the Canadian Judicial Council.

Update on Global Gene Therapy Mass Experiment

Just published Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs Stephanie Seneffa et al. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.


♦  mRNA vaccines promote sustained synthesis of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

♦  The spike protein is neurotoxic, and it impairs DNA repair mechanisms.

♦  Suppression of type I interferon responses results in impaired innate immunity.

♦  The mRNA vaccines potentially cause increased risk to infectious diseases and cancer.

♦  Codon optimization results in G-rich mRNA that has unpredictable complex effects.


The mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were brought to market in response to the public health crises of Covid-19. The utilization of mRNA vaccines in the context of infectious disease has no precedent.

The many alterations in the vaccine mRNA hide the mRNA from cellular defenses and promote a longer biological half-life and high production of spike protein. However, the immune response to the vaccine is very different from that to a SARS-CoV-2 infection.

In this paper, we present evidence that vaccination induces a profound impairment in type I interferon signaling, which has diverse adverse consequences to human health. Immune cells that have taken up the vaccine nanoparticles release into circulation large numbers of exosomes containing spike protein along with critical microRNAs that induce a signaling response in recipient cells at distant sites.

We also identify potential profound disturbances in regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance.

These disturbances potentially have a causal link to neurodegenerative disease, myocarditis, immune thrombocytopenia, Bell’s palsy, liver disease, impaired adaptive immunity, impaired DNA damage response and tumorigenesis. We show evidence from the VAERS database supporting our hypothesis.

We believe a comprehensive risk/benefit assessment of the mRNA vaccines questions them as positive contributors to public health.


In this paper, we call attention to three very important aspects of the safety profile of these vaccinations. First is the extensively documented subversion of innate immunity, primarily via suppression of IFN-α and its associated signaling cascade. This suppression will have a wide range of consequences, not the least of which include the reactivation of latent viral infections and the reduced ability to effectively combat future infections.

Second is the dysregulation of the system for both preventing and detecting genetically driven malignant transformation within cells and the consequent potential for vaccination to promote those transformations.

Third, mRNA vaccination potentially disrupts intracellular communication carried out by exosomes, and induces cells taking up spike glycoprotein mRNA to produce high levels of spike-glycoprotein-carrying exosomes, with potentially serious inflammatory consequences.

Should any of these potentials be fully realized, the impact on billions of people around the world could be enormous and could contribute to both the short-term and long-term disease burden our health care system faces.

In the end, billions of lives are potentially at risk, given the large number of individuals injected with the SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines and the broad range of adverse outcomes we have described. We call on the public health institutions to demonstrate, with evidence, why the issues discussed in this paper are not relevant to public health, or to acknowledge that they are and to act accordingly. Furthermore, we encourage all individuals to make their own health care decisions with this information as a contributing factor in those decisions.

The Implications

Joseph Shepherd takes it from there in his American Thinker article How the COVID Vaccines Kill

With each passing day, the news connected to the COVID shots grows worse.  That the injections don’t prevent COVID — or even its spread — has been known for months, and post-injection problems encompass almost everything that can go wrong with a body

“Not a single organ, not a single bodily function, is unharmed” after one of these shots, said Arne Burkhardt, a professor of forensics at Reutlingen’s Pathological Institute.

So little has been written about why “side effects” such as myocarditis have popped up that one can’t help but wonder: Does anybody understand how these shots work? 

In the space below, let’s pick three of the harshest complications and explore how COVID shots could be driving the mechanics of each.

1 – Myocarditis

The pale-yellow fluid of the Pfizer or Moderna vial contains billions of microscopic fat globs called lipid nanoparticles. Each is an incredibly tiny envelope, used to conceal the novel drug: messenger RNA. Once injected, the combination of nanoparticles and mRNA becomes a well-camouflaged predator.

According to Pfizer’s own data, less than half the nanoparticles stay in the arm where they were injected. Most slip through tiny cracks in muscle tissue and enter the bloodstream. Venous blood speeds them to the heart, which pumps and disperses them to the entire body.

Depending on the level of exercise, from 5 to 25% of these particles wind up in coronary circulation. Why is this important? Consider the rather large number of nanoparticles that must slip into human heart tissue: 50 to 250 million out of each billion that enter the veins of the arm.

Coronary circulation branches into microscopic capillaries that rush nutrients to heart muscle cells. And since the nanoparticles designed by Pfizer and Moderna masquerade as triglycerides, heart muscle cells are apt to snatch them out of circulation as food.

Now imagine the shock for any hard-charging heart cell that engulfs one of these particles. Expecting a meal, the cell unwraps the envelope, and voilà! Freshly unveiled messenger RNA seizes the cell’s protein-generating apparatus, forcing out a known toxin — the COVID spike protein.

Very soon, with urgent biochemical signals, the afflicted cell telegraphs news of its hijacking to the immune system, which will marshal what it takes to destroy the cell.

An immune-mediated attack on heart muscle cells is, of course, the very essence of myocarditis.

Foreign RNA takes control of a cell’s protein production, transforming these cells into enemies of the body, and the immune system converts them into useless scar tissue. The process is irreversible, as heart muscle cells do not regenerate.

According to CDC, myocarditis from COVID jabs is “rare” and “mild,” but where is the evidence for this proclamation? Pfizer’s data shows every shot — at least in part — entering the bloodstream, so CDC has interesting notions about the word “rare.” Clinical myocarditis is never “mild.” A phenomenon that kills thousands of heart muscle cells is better classified as “serious” or “severe.” And even if the subject doesn’t die right away, how is that person not permanently injured? And how is the process not cumulative with each subsequent jab?

Given that about 40% of CDC income comes from vaccine patents and products, how can we be assured these experts are not self-serving?

2 – Vascular Damage and Heart Attack Risk

Now let’s turn attention from lipid nanoparticles to their end-product, the COVID spike protein. Having been forced into production by messenger RNA, spike protein peels off cell membranes and drops into general circulation. From there, it stabs and deactivates ACE-2 protein, which is displayed on the innermost lining of blood vessels.

Deactivating ACE-2 has enormous consequences for the body: Its loss leads to oxidative stress on blood vessels, putting the patient at risk for organ damage and blood clots over time.

Can oxidative stress persist for months, or even longer? A study of spike-injected hamsters showed that damaged ACE-2 was not replaced by mammalian cells. Either the cells never sensed that ACE-2 was “spiked” or didn’t generate a signal to replace spiked ACE-2 with a fresher version. To put it a more scientific way: Injected spike protein down-regulated ACE-2, probably for as long as the cells stayed alive.

Does any of this apply to humans? Using the PULS lab score to study a large group of at-risk patients, investigators found that future risk for heart attack remained almost triple two and a half months after two mRNA shots.

3 – Neurodegenerative Disease

Is the COVID jab really associated with premature Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease? Evidence continues to mount, and spike protein is once again the culprit. Circulating spike targets the brain in a variety of ways:

♦  by exposing brain cells to unnecessary toxins through crowbar-like effects on the blood-brain barrier.
♦  by inducing susceptible proteins to misfold and become pathogenic.
♦  by attacking ACE-2 protein-rich environments in the brain.
♦  by forcing mitochondria (the energy-producing organelles of cells) into less efficient processes, so that injured brain cells take on the eerie characteristics of cancer and Alzheimer’s cells.

Long-term outlook

Messenger RNA technology has been around for over 20 years, and multiple vaccines have been attempted. Each failed because the experimental animals failed to thrive.

Last February, spike protein was found to inhibit type 1 interferon, the powerful regulator of the immune system. Hindering type 1 interferon reduces the body’s ability to defend against:

(1) malignancies

(2) autoimmune diseases

(3) viral infections

Over the next year, we will continue to observe how impaired interferon affects the great COVID shot experiment. But while we study the pathology, let us further develop the mechanisms associated with mRNA injections, so that new approaches to the injuries they inflict may be devised.



A Conservative View of Governance

This post extracts from the above interview a clear conservative view of governing a contemporary nation, in particular Canada. The visionary is Pierre Poilievre ( pronounced pwa-lee-evre), who is not from Quebec as you might expect. Adopted son of Saskastchewan teachers, he grew up in Alberta, served since 2004  as a Member of Parliament from that province, and is contesting for leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada.  Below is a transcript I produced from the captions in italics with my  bolds.

Let’s look at Canada at this moment: What are our problems?

The the central underlying illness is a monstrous growth in the power and cost of the state
at the expense of the agency and freedom of the people.

That is the override and then there are specific examples of how that plays out. Take monetary policy. There’s no way Justin Trudeau could get away with spending all of the money he has in the last two years if he had to use real cash. Because people would never accept the many thousands of dollars of tax increases that it would require. So he has basically turned our central bank into an ATM machine for his spending. They’ve created 400 billion dollars of new money in two years which has given us a 30-year high in inflation and bumped up boosted real estate prices by 50 percent.

How does that compare to previous expenditures by governments? Well if you look at the balance sheet of the bank of Canada during the Harper era (PM 2006-2015), even during the great global recession there was a minor bump in the assets it held. That indicates how how much money it was injecting. Whereas right now that figure has shot off the charts.

The balance sheet of the central bank is up something like 350 percent and all that cash is particularly in ballooned asset prices. That’s the unspoken story.

Here everyone thinks about consumer inflation which is horrible enough. But then there’s asset price inflation and what that’s doing is creating an aristocratic economy where the bigger the asset value you had before the inflation, the richer you’ve become after it. It is almost like the housing is attached to a balloon and it’s being lifted higher and higher up. And anybody who’s not already in the house will never be able to grab it and get inside.

It is all the result of this massive expansion of the money supply. So we’re basically seeing a transfer of wealth from the the have-nots to the have-yachts, as I like to say. And it benefits those in the managerial class, the CEOs whose stocks have been artificially inflated. They’ve been able to give themselves share buybacks with exceptionally low interest rates. So they can borrow money and then buy back shares which increases share value and gives them a bonus. These are the folks who own mansions and live in neighborhoods that are protected by zoning laws against anyone else moving in. They have done exceptionally well over the last two years.

And yet the people who are doing the nation’s work are now having their salaries destroyed by inflation. And then at the local level you have municipalities bringing in our zoning laws that prevent new construction. So they’re making invisible gates, creating gated communities. But the gates are invisible because it’s government bureaucracy that prevents construction.

So we have fewer houses per capita than any country in the G7
even though we have the most land to build on

What I’m proposing is stop printing money and start building houses. I’m going to tell the big city mayors that if they don’t remove their bureaucratic zoning rules and let builders build, then I’m going to cut back on some of their infrastructure funds. Because I think it’s going to need something that drastic to get these gatekeepers out of the way and actually build houses so that our youth have a place to call home.

But you know it’s across the economy. Ironically all of these big government interventions seem to hurt the most disadvantaged. Our immigrants come here as doctors and engineers but they can’t work in those fields because of occupational licensing, more protectionism.  Government is not enabling, they’re the gatekeepers. So I want to incentivize provinces to speed up recognition of foreign credentials so an immigrant doctor can actually work as a doctor.

And let’s remove the gatekeepers from our energy sector so we can build pipelines
and dig for resources and become energy self-sufficient.

And then remove the gatekeepers in speech. As you know the government is now pushing new censorship laws on the internet. I promise very clearly that I’m going to get rid of all of those laws and restore freedom of expression on the internet.  There is a great need to remove the governmental gatekeepers to restore our freedom. Let people take back control of their lives

Now let’s delve into economic policy. The OECD recently predicted that Canada’s economy will be the worst performing advanced economy over 2020 to 2030. How lovely for us. So compared to many other countries that in some sense are peers, that’s a pretty damn gloomy forecast right because at that rate 40 years out we’re going to be the worst performing advanced economy in the world.

So what can we do differently and let’s focus on energy in particular because that’s a killer topic for everyone in the world at the moment

What did the conservatives do wrong, what has Canada done wrong what have the liberals done wrong apart from printing money like mad men and instituting these arbitrary rules?

Well I would respectfully disagree on the conservative economic track record. If you look at the 2008-09 financial crisis, we came through better than any of the other G7 countries, certainly way better than the Americans. We didn’t have a housing crash nor did we have a banking crisis. Not a single bank was bailed out and we had very modest inflation, which never cracked four percent, and was above three percent for only one or two quarters in the entire 10-year period.

When Harper was around, unemployment stayed relatively low and you could buy the average house. At the time Harper left office, in Canada average cost of a house was 434 thousand dollars. It’s almost unimaginable now.

But turning to energy, we need to repeal C69, the bill that makes it effectively impossible to build an energy project in Canada today. Because it introduced a whole series of sociological questions into the process that make no sense. You know Trudeau has said that energy projects cause gender imbalances. And therefore when someone applies to build one they have to write a sociological report on what the pipeline or the mine will do for gender relations.

In addition to being ridiculous pop culture sociology, it introduces massive uncertainty for investors. Because they don’t really know how and why a project will be approved or rejected. And they don’t have seven years to sit around, so they’ll take their money and invest it in other parts of the world.  And that’s why the projects aren’t happening here.

We don’t mine lithium in Canada even though we have lots of lithium. In this electric car battery era, we’re importing lithium from China because they actually get projects built. However they burn coal to refine their lithium. So ironically we’re just inducing pollution in other countries when we buy electric cars that are made with lithium refined in that country. So if we could approve a lithium mine in Canada we could actually mine the stuff, refine it, manufacture it here.

We have the third biggest supply of oil on planet earth,
but we’re importing 130 000 barrels of overseas oil every day.

The solution is so obvious because right next door to the Saint John port where we bring in the oil, we have St John’s Newfoundland, capable of adding another 400 000 barrels of Canadian production. By just approving that production, we could ban foreign overseas oil from Canada all together. And that would mean the dollars wouldn’t be leaving our country for overseas dictatorships, but would be staying here paying Canadian wages instead.

On to natural gas. We have 1 300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. And you know what you have to do to get natural gas onto a ship? You have to freeze it down to a liquid. So with our cold weather, it takes a hell of a lot less energy to liquefy natural gas here in Canada.

And we have another geographic advantage: The closest point in North America to Asia is from BC; The closest point in North America to Europe is Newfoundland. So we have a shorter shipping distance, less energy needed to liquefy gas, and yet we haven’t succeeded in building a single major liquefaction facility in Canada despite the fact that in 2015 there were 18 proposed projects. Approve those projects and we could be bringing hundreds of billions of dollars of opportunity to our people, and particularly our first nations people.

But it takes getting those regulatory gatekeepers out of the way to let it happen.

How do you take on the woke crowd who like to say: What about the planet? What about the climate crisis? If you turn back to fossil fuels you’re going to demolish the globe. In the next 30 years we should be moving towards net zero. You’re going to doom the poor to catastrophe while you’re pretending to elevate them economically. You’re going to be like cut into ribbons by that crowd, and so let’s talk about climate change and the Paris accords and all that. You we want to promote canadian energy, and you made a case for liquefication, so what should canada’s position regarding climate change?

The development of our energy infrastructure as well as our resources are not the problem, they’re the solution.

For example we export our natural gas we can displace foreign coal burning electricity. The energy hungry Asian markets are desperate for non-coal sources of electricity, but they need things like natural gas to replace coal.

As well as having that gas, we also have the biggest supply of civilian grade uranium in the world right in Saskatchewan. That could be used to export to regenerate emissions-free pollution-free nuclear energy. We have an over-abundance of hydroelectricity in Manitoba and Quebec that we could be exporting to the northern united states to displace their coal-fired electricity. We could be using small modular nuclear reactors to de-carbonize the electrical grid.

As for the oil sands, right here in Canada we have carbon capture and storage techniques in in our home province of Alberta that are second to none.  For example White Cap Resources is a mid-sized company that says it’s actually a now a carbon negative company; in other words they bury more carbon in the ground than they put into the air.

So we have the technology and the resources to do it but right now what we’re doing is punishing our own resource sector to the advantage of heavily polluting foreign dictatorships with no environmental standards and who use the money to do great harm.

We would be better off to displace their energy with ours
and use that as a method of fighting for the environment
while enhancing the well-being of our working class at the same time.

Because we can make progress on the economic front and on the climate front at the same time. I would like to point out that America’s turn to natural gas has knocked their carbon dioxide output substantially down over the last 15 years, which is not a statistic you hear from the typical environmentalist types okay. If the world could turn to Canadian energy, as a consequence the net impact on the carbon economy would be positive.

If it means reduce reducing carbon carbon dioxide output and we could get wealthier in doing so, then why in the world aren’t the liberals already doing this?

It is hard to understand. I think it’s because their environmental policies seem mostly designed to give the state more control of the economy than they are designed to deliver an environmental outcome. By attacking the energy sector it gives them the ability to to create more of a command and control economy, which is what they believe in, and to redistribute wealth between industries and towards political friends in a very parasitical manner. You know we have a total nut as our environment minister right now.  Steven Guilbeault is bonkers and he’s against nuclear power. It’s not just oil and gas, he would get rid of nuclear as well. So I don’t know what would be left. Maybe he thinks all you have to do to get electricity is put a plug in the wall.

The Trudeau policies are definitely designed to basically make the entire media apparatus dependent on the funding and the good will of the state. The government bureaucracy determines what is considered to be a qualified journalistic company. And they pick and choose based on their own political views who then qualifies and therefore gets the subsidy. This is intended to again create more dependency on the government and curry more favor with the state.

I haven’t made an announcement on exactly how I’m going to fix that problem yet but stay tuned. I want to de-politicize that and basically restore the freedom of the press in this country again by getting the state out of it.

What do you think of Mr. Trudeau?

So i think he’s an egomaniac and everything he does is comes back to his egomania, even his political ideology.. When you think about his his expansionist role of the state, it never comes back to serving an individual objective, only to make him more powerful or his legacy more grand.

Let me give you a few examples. So he slashed the amount you can put into a tax-free savings account but then he simultaneously increased the amount you were forced to pay into the state savings plan. He killed multiple pipelines then he invested state money in a pipeline. He attacked parents’ ability to take care of their own children by by removing tax fairness for families of the stay-home parent and then he brings in a government program to replace it.

In all cases what he does is take away the ability of business or individuals or families to do things for themselves and then require they do things through him and through the state.

His ideology is always about creating a pretext in order to justify the state garnering more control over every aspect of your life: how you raise your kids; how your business functions; what you see and say on the internet.

What actually happens in socialist models is that the rhetoric about economic equality never actually comes to pass. It was used as a tool to mobilize the masses, but ultimately the outcome was to concentrate power more in the hands of the political elite. Look government is really legalized force. So if you believe in big government, you believe in expanding force relationships always favoring the powerful. And so in reality those who have more political power then benefit from a bigger government. And those people are all rich and disproportionately powerful in the system.

So when this big beast called government gets bigger and more powerful, those who have the ability to steer that beast are the ones who are going to profit from it.

I think that we’re we’re divided right now in Canada because of a deliberate strategy of divide and conquer governments that want to enhance their control. They have to turn citizens against each other they have to make you afraid of your neighbor, your co-worker, your trucker, so that you’ll turn to the state for protection against your fellow citizens. That’s the oldest trick in the book: divide and conquer.

Control is by its nature divisive because it’s a zero-sum game. If one gets more control another must have less freedom. While the contrary is not the same. If your neighbor gets more freedom you don’t get less freedom. It’s likely you’ll have more as well

So if your friend has more freedom of speech, well you’ll have freedom of speech. If you are the immigrant who has the freedom to work as a doctor, then you’ll have the freedom to have a doctor. If the local small businessman has the freedom to function without red tape, then you’ll probably have the freedom to buy his products more affordably or your teenager might get a job. If a Muslim or Jewish person gets more religious freedom, then the Christian does as well.

That’s why freedom is a unifying principle: it brings people together because it allows each of them to be masters of their own destiny without taking anything from each other. We fight over control whereas we fight for freedom, that is the difference.

I believe we can bind up the nation’s wounds by reinstating the ancient freedoms that we inherited from our ancestors

And so I really see my role as quite an unimportant one: I’m here simply to restore what already belongs to Canadians by virtue of their 800-year inheritance of liberties going back to the Magna Carta.  I’m just among the the common people who are custodians of that freedom while we’re alive. You know Edmund Burke said it’s a contract between the dead and the living and the yet to be born. We’re the living generation having the duty to pass on that inheritance. I want to re-kindle that inheritance and pass it on to my kids and so they can pass it on to their kids. I’ll pass on one day and fade away into the past, but hopefully we’ll have secured the freedom that we inherited for many more generations to come. That’s what I mean when I want to give people back control of their life in the present, and to extend it into the future.