“Miss Smith, as you said, we are in an ideological battle.”
Those were my opening comments to Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who nodded in agreement as we continued our January meeting with her on the environmental, economic, reliability, agricultural, and health dangers of industrial wind factories. The current debate on renewable energy is not a mere question of energy choices, but an existential battle for this province and its citizens’ future. In response to a question on soaring electricity costs last year, Smith responded to a reporter: “This is what happens when ideology runs the power grid.”1
In the Alberta Utilities Commission’s decision last year on a Foothills Solar project, it stated that one could infringe on the rights of individuals “to the extent that is necessary for the overall greater public interest.”2 The question is ultimately whether there is a crisis that justifies the imposition of industrial wind factories on the people, property, and wildlife of this province…
A Climate Narrative
The threat of censorship, silly labels such as “climate-denialist”, and the collusion of the mainstream media who long ago abandoned independent thinking, have created a politically correct climate around so-called “global warming.” But as we exhaustively pointed out in Hot Air — Behind the Wind, not only is the “climate change” narrative ridden with fraudulent data and outright lies, but it’s clearly driven by an ideology rather than an ecological crisis. And that ideology has nothing to do with the environment:
But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore…Ottmar Edenhofer, UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, dailysignal.com, November 19th, 2011
No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.Former Canadian Minister of the Environment, Christine Stewart; quoted by Terence Corcoran, “Global Warming: The Real Agenda,” Financial Post, December 26th, 1998;
from the Calgary Herald, December, 14, 1998
This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution… It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.Christine Figueres, former Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, November 2nd, 2015; europa.eu
This “transformation” has been labelled the “Great Reset” by the World Economic Forum and its global partners, and is fully embraced by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his radical Environment Minister, Steven Guilbeault, as well as other globalists.
And so this is a big moment. And the World Economic Forum… is going to have to really play a front and center role in defining “Reset” in a way that nobody misinterprets it: as just taking us back to where we were…John Kerry, retiring U.S. Climate Envoy and former United States Secretary of State; The Great Reset Podcast, “Redesigning Social Contracts in Crisis”, June 2020
So, I think this is a time for a ‘Great Reset’… this is a time for a reset to fix a bunch of challenges, first among them the climate crisis.Al Gore, American politician and environmentalist who served as the 45th vice president of the United States; June 25th, 2020; foxbusiness.com
This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a “reset”.Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Global News, Sept. 29th, 2020; Youtube.com, 2:05 mark
I don’t recall voting for either a “Great Reset” or a radical climate agenda (such as “net zero” emissions by 2035) — do you? And yet, our children are being daily terrorized by an agenda that is being refuted by a growing body of climatologists and scientists who see through the fear-mongering and failed apocalyptic predictions — such as Nobel laureate, Dr. John Clauser:
The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience… There is, however, a very real problem with providing a decent standard of living to the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my opinion, is incorrect climate science.May 5, 2023; C02 Coalition
The cost of this ideology for average Canadians, and particularly Albertans, is also mounting. The Trudeau government is expected to collect nearly a half-billion dollars in sales taxes on the carbon tax this year alone, with plans to continue jacking up the fuel tax.3 And yet, honest research continues to expose the pseudo-science behind the Liberal’s agenda.
The Warming Claims are Cooling Off
More than 90 percent of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) temperature monitoring stations have a heat bias, according to Anthony Watts, a meteorologist, senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute, and director of a study that examined NOAA’s climate stations.
And with that large of a number, over 90 percent, the methods that NOAA employs to try to reduce this don’t work because the bias is so overwhelming.Anthony Watts, January 29, 2024, The Epoch Times
The problem lies in data taken from surface temperatures in ever-expanding urban centers. “The few stations that are left that are not biased because they are, for example, outside of town in a field and are an agricultural research station that’s been around for 100 years,” says Watts, “their data gets completely swamped by the much larger set of biased data. There’s no way you can adjust that out.”
Meteorologist Roy Spencer agrees. “The surface thermometer data still have spurious warming effects due to the urban heat island, which increases over time.”4
In a new paper published by the American Meteorological Society in its Journal of Climate, three scientists, including Atmospheric Professor Yi Huang of McGill University, have reduced by nearly 40% the claimed basic amount of warming caused by a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide – a figure commonly used to promote the global warming scare, writes the Daily Sceptic. In addition, they cast doubt on the ability of CO2 to heat the atmosphere beyond the levels already passed in the pre-industrial age. “Transmissivity in the CO2 band centre is unchanged by increased CO2 as the absorption is already saturated,” the scientists note.
Even Hannah Ritchie, a data scientist at the University of Oxford who still supports “global warming” claims, said recently, “the total doom is an exaggeration… It has become common to tell kids that they’re going to die from climate change.”5
Steve Forbes goes further:
…the apocalyptic language surrounding the climate has done a deep disservice to humanity. It has led to incredibly wasteful and ineffectual spending. The psychological costs have also been immense. Many people, particularly younger ones, live in fear that the end is nigh, too often leading to debilitating depression about the future. A look at the facts would demolish those apocalyptic anxieties.Forbes magazine, July 14, 2023
Not in the Public’s Interest
Which brings us back again to whether it is justifiable or “wasteful spending” to take up enormous tracts of prime agricultural farmland for mass solar and wind factories that are costly, unreliable, and a scourge on the environment. And for what? To reduce carbon dioxide that is not only not a threat to Earth but is actually greening the planet, according to yet another study?6 If there really is ‘no climate emergency‘, according to over 1880 climatologists, scientists, and researchers who have signed a declaration to that effect, can the rights of individuals be overridden for Trudeau’s and Guilbeault’s fantastical green dreams?
We say no — and urged Premier Danielle Smith to declare, once and for all, a moratorium on industrial wind factories. Because, not only do wind turbines (ironically) cause surface warming, but they destroy migratory birds, severely impact bat populations and risk local extinction of insects; they cause sterility and birth defects in animals, drive humans out of their homes, and have a short and unreliable life-span. They disrupt “pristine landscapes“, lower property values, and upend power grid reliability.
How is this in the “overall greater public interest”?
It’s time to reject the absurd and baseless climate change narrative and return to common sense. Alberta has an abundance of natural gas. It can be burned cleanly. The infrastructure is already in place. Moreover, unlike wind factories that require taxpayer subsidies, the province’s oil resources produce wealth, not only for the province but for the rest of the country who rely, in part, on Alberta’s transfer payments for their social programs.
It doesn’t take a genius to know what the right thing to do is. But as I’ve said before, fear is a terrible counsellor… and many are those who are guided by it.
- see What Happens Ideology Runs the Grid
- Decision 27486-D01-2023, April 20, 2023
- January 29, 2024, lifesitenews.com
- January 29, 2024, The Epoch Times
- January 31, 2024, Daily Mail
- cf. “the global greening was still present in 2001–2020, with 55.15% of areas greening at an accelerated rate…compared with 7.28% of browning.” Chen et al., January 2024, sciencedirect.com
Mark Mallett is a former award-winning reporter with CTV Edmonton and an independent researcher and author. His family homesteaded between Vermilion and Cold Lake, Alberta, and now resides in the Lakeland region. Mark is Editor in Chief of Wind Concerns.