January 16th, 2021

Points to ponder regarding climate change hysteria

By Lethbridge Herald on October 28, 2018.

I would like to suggest that those frightened by the current hysteria regarding carbon-based climate change consider :
1. The petition signed by over 31,000 scientists decrying global warming as a fraud (www.petitionproject.org). I’ll warn you up front, Edward Teller (father of the H bomb) is a signee.
2. Chinese carbon emissions versus the rest of the world. Quite simply, the increase in carbon emissions from China over the last five years is greater than the top five nations who have reduced emissions (the U.S. is the largest emission reducer). The point being, carbon taxes are reducing North American living standards, while at the same time promoting higher standards of living in regions unconstrained by emission controls. What’s the point of reducing carbon if the reductions are being neutralized by other carbon emitters? Is carbon-based climate change only a threat to North America?
3. The discrediting of the cold fusion claims of Martin Fleishmann and Stanley Pons, which may be the greatest scientific fraud ever committed by academia and government. The MIT and Stanford rebuttal (backed by the U.S. government) has already been exposed as fraudulent. Thousands of experiments have since confirmed the initial claims. One example is the Parkhomov Dog Bone experiment. The field is now called LENR (low-energy nuclear reactions). Another LENR research project is the ECAT by Andrea Rossi. Serious research has been done.
4. The petro-dollar. The reserve currency of the world is the U.S. dollar, which exists because Saudi Arabia was convinced to denominate all oil transactions in U.S. dollars. No carbon emissions, no petro-dollar. All the promoters of carbon reduction should be very, very careful what they wish for, especially those living in Canada, and Alberta.
5.  Al Gore, who was key to raising the man-made global warming alarm, is an oil man (Occidental Petroleum), who made billions trading carbon credits, and personally benefited from coal plant and coal mining reductions (less coal means more oil and gas demand). For him to benefit personally from advocacy of hardship for large swathes of humanity is repugnant and immoral.
Mark Tompkins

Share this story:
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

But what a great way to tax us to death Mark and then claim its for the environment. The revenue potential is endless and sell the line its revenue neutral to boot!


This letter containing falsehoods and misrepresentations is a clear example of the kind of deliberately harmful commentary designed to disrupt meaningful public discourse.
The writer’s first point is mostly false and designed to create the impression that there is a big controversy about the cause of climate change (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/). This was not a poll of climate scientists. It was a poll of selected US individuals most with only undergraduate degrees in science, almost none of them with training in climate science. Almost all active climate scientists agree on the role of human causes in climate change.
The second point is not relevant, just because a major country is slow to embrace solutions is not a reason to reject the idea of human caused climate change. We have to embrace and encourage adoption of actions that move us in the right direction. Very recently it appears that China is getting on board, despite the giant steps backward in Trump’s america. (http://www.theworldin.com/article/14435/edition2018chinas-climate-awakening)
The third point is a conspiracy theory, cold fusion has been shown to NOT work. This is an area of pseudoscience now.
Fourth, Trump’s policies, not carbon reduction, have more to do with declining confidence in the US dollar internationally (https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/dollar-reserve-currency-1.4820164)
Fifth, this is a logical fallacy in respect to arguments about the causes and cures for climate change. Isaac Newton fudged data and believed in flagrant delusions, but it is still pretty clear that gravity exists.


well explained, grin.
using the sleazy exploits of al gore (how does he not contest what was obviously a rigged election result in 2000?…by being bought off via the dirty carbon trade game)… does not undermine the pressing facts that demonstrate human effect on climate. the planet is an engineering marvel; an amazing balance of systems to keep it working to support life. without human ignorance and hubris it would sustain itself, save for a massive barrage of interstellar rocks or the sun switching off. but, like any engineering feat, it cannot sustain having chunks torn from it thoughtlessly, nor can it sustain having toxins exposed and dumped where they do not belong. it is one thing to have behaved stupidly, but quite another to not recognise one’s stupidity and not try to right a wrong.

Seth Anthony

@ Biff

It’s not that the earth can’t sustain itself, but rather it’s the people can’t sustain themselves.

As I wrote before:

Our political system, our education system, and our economic system is a disgrace. So much so, that the system as a whole is unsustainable and will inevitably fall like the house of cards that it is. At that point, first world countries will face mass starvation and death. Perhaps then, a new paradigm will surface from the destruction.


it seems we mostly agree, seth. true enough, the planet will outlast present human stupidity. however, where i am not certain we agree, is on the point that our present mistreatment of the planet is a catalyst for the misery and demise of pretty much all life forms on the planet. the curious thing is that i feel less pain for the humans than i do for the other life forms. i suppose it is because most all other life on the planet is pretty much at our mercy.