STOP Institutionalized FEAR MONGERING

I will deliver a deputation at a CKL City Council meeting regarding persistent fear-mongering by our public institutions. With only 5 minutes to speak, it will be a condensed version of this post.

To SERVE & PROTECT?

Does our City Council have a duty to use its authority to defend and protect our most vulnerable citizens including our children and most gullible adults? I ask this question in relation to two words — Climate Change.

At a recent public City Council meeting, Sue Shikazi, Health Promoter of the Haliburton, Kawartha, Pine Ridge District Health Unit, delivered a Powerpoint presentation concerning a Climate Change Health Vulnerability Assessment Overview (”Assessment Overview”) identified as COW2023-07 7.1.

I object to the premise upon which this Assessment was conducted. Its entire focus is based on the theory that “Climate Change”, and its alleged manifestations as threats to public health, are real and deserving of public spending and attention by government institutions. The Assessment Overview is entirely based on poorly-defined claims and inadequately-proven allegations making it an unjustified expenditure of public resources.

The Assessment Overview is a prime example of institutionalized fear mongering. It promotes harmful, fear-inducing messages that seep into greater society and are repeated by teachers in classrooms, students on schoolyards, on social median platforms, mainstream journalism and in places like public City Council meetings. Institutionalized fear mongering is as endemic in modern society as the Covid-19 virus has become.

This is a mental health issue.

On the About Us page of the The Haliburton, Kawartha, Pine Ridge District Health Unit website is the statement:

‘Our staff provide programs and services to help keep our community healthy by preventing illness, protecting against disease, and promoting healthy lifestyles. We work with other agencies, health care providers and partners to address social conditions so that everyone can have an equal opportunity to be healthy.’

Mental health is part of their mandate. Yet, this District Health Unit promotes misinformation about Climate Change which creates anxiety and depression in our most vulnerable populations. Every employee of that Unit must listen to Episode 2390 of the Tom Woods Show called ‘The State is making you mentally ill’. It features a personal testimony of American historian C.J. Killmer and his struggles with depression and alcohol abuse during the COVID-19 years as he suffered from anxiety and depression from the constant COVID-19 fearmongering. The Climate Crisis propaganda has the same affect on many vulnerable people, and especially on children. Shame on anyone who claims to be a “Health Promoter” and distributes anxiety-causing misinformation.

The issue.

In Sue Shikazi’s presentation to Council, the term ‘Climate Change’ was used as the catchall cause of several public health threats ranging from claims of unusually high temperatures on some summer days to increases in the incidence of flooding, droughts and forest fires.

While all of these identified health threats have numerous root causes which were not even mentioned in her presentation,  only the vague notion of “climate change” received all of the blame.

Chapter 1 of the full ‘Climate Change Health Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessment’ report, found at www.hkpr.ca, offers an introduction upon which Ms. Shikazi’s presentation to Council was based.  This chapter offers several definitive statements from various government institutions about the alleged threat of climate change without a single reference to the uncertainty about these claims. Likewise, no mention was made of books like ‘Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t and Why It Matters’ by Steven E. Koonin, and others written by many excellent and highly authoritative authors. Koonin offers broad and detailed science-based coverage of the Climate Change topic while Ms. Shikazi and her associates offer the two magic words “climate change”.

The ability to predict future weather extremes reliably is beyond our current technological capabilities. Listen to this discussion between host Noah Krazitz of the AI Podcast and Anima Anandkumar, Bren Professor at Caltech and senior director of AI research at NVIDIA. This brilliant and highly respect AI scientist recently spoke at the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology by institution. During this podcast, Anima admitted revealed that …

…applying the most advanced tools of Generative AI, even with an AI boost (in newer algorithms and computer processing power), to predict natural events like hurricanes or heat waves is very challenging because of the sheer number of variables and unknowns.

Nowhere is this level of uncertainty ever referenced in Ms. Shikazi’s presentation. In presentations to the public concerning their welfare, omitting at least a comment concerning the uncertainly that top scientists identify concerning the Climate Change theory is tantamount to misinformation.

Some historical perspective is worth considering.

The term ‘global warming’ preceded the term ‘climate change’ in the popular lexicon. https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html?ssp=1&setlang=en-CA&safesearch=moderate

A prompt to ChatGPT explaind that:

“… in the 1980s, the terms global warming and climate change became more common. Scientifically, ‘global warming’ refers only to increased surface warming, while ‘climate change’ describes the totality of changes to Earth’s climate system 1. However, the term “global warming” is still used in scientific literature and public discourse [2][2].”

All levels of government have since joined a dangerous march to achieve the utopian dream of a Green economy which amounts to a war on life-sustaining fossil fuels. The Government of Canada has enacted Net Zero policies to radically reduce greenhouse gases (specially CO2 and methane) that humans produce from burning fossil fuels. 

Net Zero policies rarely, if ever, acknowledge that climate has always changed over the entire history of Earth well before human industrialization. They ignore the many climate-changing forces that have existed for millions of years and are still active and dominant today. Finally, they also overlook the inconvenient fact that the extent of mankind’s influence on Earth’s climate is still not well understood.

Too many public policies have already been enacted in ignorance of the what the science actually says. They were inspired by politicized reports prepared by government-funded scientists whose bias is baked into their salaries, benefits, pensions, subsidies, and career tracts. It is not generally public knowledge that all institutionally-reported projections of future global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations (in PPM) are derived by calculating the average of over 40 different climate models that don’t agree with each other. (Source: Steven E. Koonin’s book “Unsetted”)

The specific objection to COW2023-07 7.1

The Assessment Overview offers no value to the public. It provides no clear definition or delineation of the term “climate change”, or any specific elements of it which can inform and guide policymakers to address the specific root causes of the purported “Climate Change” threats.

Let’s consider FOREST FIRES as one of those named threats in the Assessment Overview. The presentation would have been potentially credible if it showed scientifically-proven data and facts related to Ontario’s reported forest fires to back its claims of climate change as the cause. In the absence of such data, several unanswered questions arise such as:

What proportion of all reported forest fires were directly caused by elevated CO2 levels as compared to all other causes? Ideally, the report would have included a table showing: the number of fires that were allegedly caused by a significant CO2 rise; fires ignited by man (such a campfires or poor forest management practices); fires from lightening strikes; fires from every other know cause. This information is essential to establish an informed context for elected officials when considering policy options.

What scientific proof is available to prove that a statistically significant rise in global CO2 concentration is directly responsible for igniting forest fires? As a friend comically quipped: “Gene, have you ever witnessed a CO2 molecule strike a match to burn down a forest?” A silly question, yes, but it makes the point that the alleged mechanism of action (MOA) is never explained with scientific proof in these fear-mongering reports. As such, reports like the Assessment Overview amount to nothing more than lies and misinformation at the expense of taxpayers. You would expect that people who work in public health might know the value of MOA, wouldn’t you?

The climate change political landscape explained.

In the first chapter of my book, ‘What to do about Climate Change’, published only as a Kindle ebook on Amazon in early 2023 due to the many web links I provided to strengthen my arguments, I describe three classifications of citizen with respect to their knowledge and concern about Climate Change.

First, I identify the ‘Climate Alarmists’ who believe that a real climate change threat exists. They tend to be very vocal and passionate in espousing their beliefs. Many will actively lobby politicians and unelected public officials to spend tax dollars and create restrictive regulations to make everyone pay to soothe their climate-related phobias.

Second,  the ‘Climate Crisis Skeptics’ (like me) object to the spending of public resources to address what they are convinced to be a non-issue.

Third, the ‘Climate Change Agnostics’ are too busy with the priorities of daily life to concern themselves with the topic.

No one knows for certain the proportion of CKL citizens who would self-identify within these classifications. A REFERENDUM would answer this question and guide City Council regarding policy decisions. A true assessment of the public’s preferences and priorities related to this topic is needed.

Trust and confidence in our elected Mayor and Ward Councilors.

I don’t know the members of City Council very well and I certainly don’t know into which of the three classifications above each one would self identify, with the exception of Councillor Warren. As it stands, my impression is that the majority of City Council members fall into the first classification and vote according to Alarmist views. This, of course, leaves all Skeptics and Agnostics without a “climate” voice at City Council and they are destined to submit to all taxes and regulations relating to the Alarmists’ preferences.

If my impression is true, then genuine representative democracy is on shaky ground within the City of Kawartha Lakes.

Council members may claim that they too must submit to orders from higher levels of government. While this may be true, however, it is a weak excuse. They should stand up to those provincial regulators and declare that it is Council’s top priority to defend and protect the legitimate interests and preferences of the CKL residents who elected them.

With respect to COW2023-07 7.1, it is my considered view, and that of other concerned constituents of the CKL, that spending public money, time and resources to encourage reports like the Assessment Overview is irresponsible and dangerous.

All to often, such initiatives and their reports lead to a string of more public spending boondoggles that primarily serve to validate the former ones. Without any scientific proof cited to validate the associated claims that the magic words “climate change” imply, reports like this Assessment Overview are useless and will never produce real value for taxpayers.

Unless and until a robust scientific explanation proves the alleged climate change threats are real, no practical, rational or actionable public policies can be established other than what has already been established - to throw more good money after past that was badly spent.

Proposals to Council.

With the above in mind, I am proposing in this deputation that City Council:

1. Spend no additional time, money or resources on the Assessment Overview or any initiatives of climate change disinformation like it.  Our energy security is vastly more important than the alleged and disproven “climate crisis’.  The money and resources spent on projects like this Assessment Overview all amount to a waste of public resources and tax expenditures that our citizens cannot afford in the era of rising cost of living. They must all be discouraged and it can begin here at our City Council.

2. Represent the interests of ALL CKL constituents, not just those who align with your personal beliefs about Climate Change. There are 78,000 residents of the City of Kawartha Lakes and hopefully every one of our elected representatives will represents all views on this topic fairly and without undue bias.

3. Council hold itself to the highest possible standards when the Climate Change topic arises. Do not accept “climate change” as a magic phrase that must automatically command your serious attention and consideration. Verifiable and specifically related scientific proof must accompany any documented request for consideration by City Council.

4. Answer the two questions posted below and publish Council’s response on Kawartha Lakes Jump In site.

Questions for City Council to answer.

Rationale: Our members of City Council are often asked to consider proposals which claim certain threats to public safety and security caused by the Climate Change theory. To increase the confidence of CKL constituents in the ability and willingness of Council members to address these requests fairly and knowledgeably, we ask the Mayor and Council to answer a few simple questions to reveal their scientific understanding and resourceful use of actual scientific sources. Their answers must reference only actual scientific research papers which have been published in reputable scientific journals and exclude any reference to other government reports that have not been backed by such specific research studies.

The following two paragraphs lay out the context for the two questions provided.

The Internet is a vast source of information that provides information that challenges the magic in those two words “climate change”. For example, according to https://pulsegrow.com/blogs/learn/co2 ‘The Ultimate CO2 Guide for Indoor Growing’, the optimal level of atmospheric CO2 for plant growth ranges from 600 to 1500 PPM. These levels represent the best industry practices for greenhouses growers. They are much higher than outdoor CO2 levels of ~415 PPM.

Proponents of the Climate Crisis theories often attribute the rising levels of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 to be the cause of environmental threats such as forest fires.

With the above information available, can Mayor Elmslie or any City Councillor answer these questions:

1. If the rising of atmospheric CO2 levels above the current 415 PPM are alleged to cause forest fires, please describe the mechanism of action at the molecular level and explain why greenhouses do not burst into flames when CO2 levels exceed 600 PPM?

2. Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the UN, made this statement which was referenced by Ginny Colling in a recent deputation to Council: “… we have entered the era of global boiling”. If this claim is true, then why doesn’t a pot of water begin to boil inside a greenhouse when CO2 levels 1500 PPM are reached, and why should we trust the hyperbolic proclamations coming from globalist institutions like the United Nations?

Final Comment.

I acknowledge that I am not a climate scientist. I understand that no member of City Council is either. I have, however, earned an Honours Bachelor of Science degree and completed formal studies in Physics, Chemistry, scientific research and applied research statistics. These studies have prepared me to be a well-informed layman who can competently read and assess scientific papers as well as arguments made by actual scientists like Nobel Prize laureate John Clauser.

There are many excellent books and podcasts that feature experts like Alex Epstein who can shed much more light than I on the enormous value that burning fossil fuels has been to human flourishing, safety and longevity. I recommend ‘Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas--Not Less’ by Alex Epstein, a highly acclaimed authority of human adaptation to earth’s naturally dangerous climate. You can also listen to him speak about this book in Episode 2392: “Alex Epstein: Don’t declare a ‘Climate Crisis’ “

Finally, I am placing my trust in you, the CKL City Council, to respect my knowledge, views and recommendations without bias and that they will not be subjected to abrupt dismissal by any Councillor without respectful consideration. When Mayor Elmslie stated to me in a recent email that Councillor Pat Warren, a known promoter of the Climate Crisis narrative, is “entitled to her personal opinions”. I agreed, then I replied that her personal convictions should not excuse her from her duty as an elected Councillor to represent all citizens and their personal views with genuine consideration and respect.