Meet Councillor Warren
Councillor Pat Warren believes that the threat from Climate Change is real and that mankind’s reliance of burning fossil fuels is a significant factor. Is she correct or has she been “captured”?
The climate is always changing.
As I look out my window to watch the snow fall on this cold day in late November, I marvel that the Earth’s seasonal shifts have reliably continued through the Ages and will do so long after I’m gone.
The coffee tastes especially good this morning. Maybe it's because the cup and drink is warm and I am sensing the cold of the snow that blankets my property.
Ward-2 Councillor Pat Warren has publicly stated her belief that “the threat from Climate Change is real”. She loudly proclaimed this in a City Council meeting in August before a packed audience of City constituents many of whom guffawed in disbelief at her public outburst. She also claimed in a recent e-mail exchange that her belief is informed by credible, reliable and official sources of information, but didn’t name them.
I can only guess.
To me, the official sources to which she refers are likely to be exclusively government sources and media outlets that are partially funded by government sources.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is considered the pre-eminent source of Climate Change science. Its periodic reports are referenced by government leaders and institutions globally as the most credible source of information in the topic. Any organization that is independent of tax-funding who refutes the IPCC claims is generally attacked and discredited by those “official” sources. Any individual who doesn’t trust the IPCC reports is called a “Climate Denier” which is an epithet commonly used to stifle any attempts to open a public discussion on the topic.
I respect Councillor Warren’s personal beliefs but not when they affect her public capacity as an elected representative. When those personal beliefs inform how she will vote on items of public policy involving Climate Change, they affect 100% of the 78,000 residents of the City of Kawartha Lakes including those who don’t hold her personal convictions.
I question if she is fairly representing everyone in the City, particular those who are struggling under the rising cost of living and, particularly, those consumer categories that depend on reliable and affordable energy.
Carbon taxes, for example, are the result of government policies. They are a real, present and serious threat to our Energy Security. I wonder how much consideration was given to this threat when those policies were passed.
The survey says …
In a conversation with another elected official, I asked how he treats the Climate Change topic when required to vote on issues that are related to it. He referenced a survey which reported that 85% of repondees believe that the Climate Change threat is real and some 10% believe it is an urgent matter. He then stated that he represents “the will of his constituents” and believes the survey to be representative of commonly-held beliefs.
I would like to see that survey and get answers to the following questions:
Who commissioned and funded the survey?
How many people completed the survey?
Where was the survey conducted and on which demographic populations?
When was it conducted?
What were the questions asked (the specific wording is important)?
Who reported the survey results to the public and what exactly was reported?
Propaganda is real.
While Councillor Warren may believe that the Climate Change Crisis is real, I believe that government-funded and -promoted propaganda is more real and a much more serious threat to the public. The difference between her and I is that she can directly influence public policy and I am just one of the 78,000 residents that she and the entire City Council were elected to represent.
The above questions about the survey is worth considering. If the survey population, for example, was comprised entirely of grade 12 students within the City of Toronto, an 85% result is predictable. Public Education has promoted the claims of climate change threats for a generation. The salary and employment benefits of every teacher who has promoted that narrative is tax funded. All levels of government have built an entire Climate Change Governmental Complex economic sector since climate hysteria was launched into the media and policy stratosphere when former US Vice President Al Gore famously injected it into the public psyche as the chief “authority” in the sensational film An Inconvenient Truth. (Gores credentials as an “expert” are stated in a footnote to this essay.)
Consider also that the survey may have been commissioned and funded by a government source, and its questions crafted by government officials who sought a specific outcome. If the same survey was conducted on a population like Ontario’s rural farmers, the results would likely have been very different.
It is admirable to represent the “will of the people”?
My friend, who spoke of the 85% survey, said that he was elected to represent the will of his constituents.
What if the survey was actually a government funded instrument of state propaganda intended to reinforce the perpetual propaganda reported by the IPPC over decades?
What if the survey results simply reflect the success of the many campaigns of state propaganda which have shaped the beliefs of an entire generation of young people?
All of today’s youth were taught by government teachers. I wonder how much critical thought each teacher invested in the credibility of the Climate Change Crisis theory. It is also worth considering that public Education is just one component of the massive Climate Change Governmental Complex in all of its many instutional manifestations.
Regulatory Capture.
In a recent Trish Woods Is Critical podcast, Trish and her guest discussed how “regulatory capture” has gained a stranglehold on many corporations in recent years.
Maybe the will of people like Councillor Warren and my friend is a actually a manifestation of the result of “state propaganda capture” at the level of individual elected officials?
Can the explanation for their official positions on Climate Change be found in my theory, informed by Dr. Mattias Desmet, that their minds have been captured by a mass formation psychosis which has been government backed and perennially perpetrated on our nation’s citizens?
I will leave you with those questions to ponder as I go back to watching the snow fall!
Footnote.
Al Gore is a politician and environmental activist who served as Vice President of the United States from 1993 to 2001¹. He has been involved with environmental issues since 1976 when as a freshman congressman, he held the "first congressional hearings on the climate change, and co-sponsor[ed] hearings on toxic waste and global warming"⁴. He is a Visiting Professor at Middle Tennessee State University in Murfreesboro, Tennessee³.
I could not find any information about Al Gore's academic credentials as they relate to the science of climate change. However, he has been a vocal advocate for climate change awareness and has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, jointly with the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, for his efforts to raise awareness about global warming¹..
Source: Conversation with Bing, 2023-11-28
(1) Al Gore | Biography & Facts | Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Al-Gore.
(2) Al Gore - Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore.
(3) Al Gore – Biographical - NobelPrize.org. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2007/gore/biographical/.
(4) Timeline: Al Gore | Environment | The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/oct/12/climatechange1.
(5) Getty Images. https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/former-vice-president-al-gore-signs-an-inconvenient-sequel-news-photo/825594942.
I am new here. I have a couple of elephant in the room questions:
How is Geoengineering not in this equation somewhere? Does the absolute spraying in our skies that are producing 2 and 3 weather systems at once now need to be explained to Pat Warren? Dane Wiggington and many others now have been shouting this from the rooftops for many many years and nobody is listening.
Main stream news has recently talked about it. It has been spoken about in our parliament in early 2023. Why is this not in this discussion?
Cynthia Chung's "Escaping Calypso's Island" is a great place to start shifting peoples minds who have bought into this Malthusian climate emergency tactics:
Here is the 22 min video link: https://risingtidefoundation.net/escaping-calypsos-island/
The transcript of my favorite part is below:
An 1989 set of climate predictions from NY director of UN Environmental Program, Noel Brown, concluding that:
“Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels, if global warming trend not reversed by 2000.”
1956 John Holdren, Pres Barack Obama's top science advisor had a particularly dire prediction according to close collaborator Paul Elrich's book "The Machinery of Nature" where he wrote as Univ of Calif physicist John Holdren has said
"It's possible that carbon dioxide climate induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020."
Before the universities and media told the general public that the experts predicted rapid catastrophic global warming, it told the general public that the experts predicted catastrophic global cooling this claim became popular in the late 1960s and through the 1970s such as:
• the Guardian headline in 1974:
“Space satellite shows new Ice Age coming fast”
• and the New York Times in 1978:
“International team of Specialists finds no end in sight to 30-year cooling Trend in northern hemisphere”
Throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s Paul Ehrlich renowned ecologist who has spoken for over 50 years on fossil fuels the author of best-selling books and winner of the Crawford Prize what has been called the Nobel Prize of environmentalism predicted that:
“Resource depletion including fossil fuel depletion plus an increasing population
would lead to a population bomb and mass starvation unless dramatic
government measures were taken.”
in 1970 Paul Ehrlich predicted that:
“Worsening air pollution is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
in 1971 Ehrlich said:
“By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a group of impoverished Islands inhabited by some 70 million hungry people.”
and in 1974 he wrote:
“America's economic Joyride is coming to an end there will be no more cheap abundant energy no more cheap abundant food.”
The Club of Rome predicted in the limits to growth published in 1972 that continued to growth in consumption would exceed the available resources of gold
silver copper zinc natural gas and petroleum; instead, we have seen an increase today with improved reserves of fossil fuels.
Improved reserves mean the amount of coal oil gas that is considered viable to produce given today's technology market conditions and knowledge. (aka technological advancements).
Renowned ecologist Kenneth Watt another designated expert predicted:
“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it is only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
Kenneth Watt had also predicted in 1970, when global cooling catastrophizing was the trend that:
“Because of the particles emitted into the air by burning fossil fuels, scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support the following predictions in a decade: “Urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution by 1985 air
pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching Earth by one half.”
In 1989 Bill McKibben wrote:
“A few more decades of ungoverned fossil fuel use and we burn up, to put it bluntly, and the choice of doing nothing, of continuing to burn evermore oil and coal is not a choice! In other words, it will lead us if not straight to hell then
straight to a place of similar temperature.”
To acknowledge the strand of inaccurate climate catastrophe predictions that not a single catastrophic prediction has come true over this 50-year course yet many of these same voices continue to be respected in their ongoing predictions of climate catastrophe. This is not meant as a cheap or biased remark it is a factual remark, and if we want to look at the real science behind such claims. such false
predictions and projections must be held accountable by a scientific standard.
This is even more relevant and significant to acknowledge today since we are unlike decades ago shaping law and policy in order to respond to these
ongoing predictions and projections of what is claimed to be a human-made
climate crisis.
For instance, the solution that is being proposed by the European Union is the
goal to achieve Net Zero by 2050; which means to be completely off of fossil
fuel use in less than 30 years from now with a plan to be 100 sustainable on
zero carbon emitting energy not including nuclear energy this will most clearly affect the well-being and health of billions of people.
Thus, we should ask ourselves the following fundamental questions before
diving headlong into this:
1. Is it possible for zero carbon emitting energy primarily renewable energy to replace the reliance on fossil fuel energy and why hasn't this been achieved already?
2. Is renewable energy really environmentally friendly in its production use of land and other resources and waste disposal?
3. How is climate crisis defined?
4. What are the justifications behind the claim that the Earth is experiencing a climate crisis that is catastrophic climate?
5. What are the justifications behind the claim that fossil fuel use is contributing to a climate crisis?
We should really take the time to look into the scientific evidence to back this claim especially since there is a very long history of crying wolf in climate catastrophe.
It is reckless to base large political and energy policy on something that has a track record of being 100 percent wrong thus what is the evidence today that is being presented to justify such policies as Net Zero by 2050.
What is behind the proposals for how energy production and the energy market are going to be organized to meet the 2050 goal?
Can we truly live on earth such that all humans can flourish and have access to a
high standard of living, or do we need to compromise in this?
Can only some humans flourish at the evident cost of others?
Can we truly live on earth such that both humans and nature can flourish?
Do we live in a zero-sum world with limited resources and if we do not how
does this affect how we should be regarding our relationship to others and
the planet?
Please support the research at Rising Tide Foundation
https://risingtidefoundation.net