CLIMATE CHANGE NARRATIVE EXPOSED
(Note to today's email alert readers.  A good friend wrote, "Why are you 'happy' to report on these stupid events?"  We said we were being facetious but glad it inspired him to write us!  🙂  -dh)
 

ALERT-ALERT-ALERT

In addition to energy-threatening national policies (Column left), citizens must always be alert to dangerous political acts that repel local investment, job creation and overall prosperity.  We would be happy to quote any political party revealing such poor energy leadership.  Today we thank one party and two news organizations for shedding light on such poor leadership that Alaskan industry investment could be, in our opinion, discouraged for years to come.  -dh

Commentary: As the week ends, we bring our readers many of the latest links dealing with climate change activism and the threat it is to natural resource development and prosperity of energy producing nations, states and provinces.  Climate change strategies have resulted in disapproval of 1) the Keystone XL pipeline, and 2) the delay or death of Shell's Alaska exploration program, and 3) blockades of a number of Canadian pipeline and energy programs, and 4) attempts to kill the consumer friendly, North American "clean coal" industry, and 5) even a 'keep it in the ground' natural gas strategy–among many others.  

Video Introduction

See our evidence and follow the money and power: is Climate Change a strategy designed to kill capitalism?  -dh


Updated Links and Commentary: ​

Tip Of the Iceberg: The Climate Change Cabal Links

More 'killing capitalism' cabal links


COMMENTARY

Some say there is "scientific consensus" that 1) climate change is harmful, and 2) man made, and 3) that hundreds of billions of dollars transferred from developed to undeveloped countries via United Nations facilitators will improve climate change metrics.  If 'scientific consensus' exists, how could the impressive list of scientists below, and many others, demonstrate how the Climate Change narrative is a hoax?  Doesn't the five step scientific method suggest that a reasonably challenged hypothesis should be reexamined?                  -dh 

Washington D.C. and Ottawa administrations are drinking climate change Kool-aid.  Based on that philosophy they govern, legislate and regulate in ways that impoverish the lifestyles of their citizens and endanger the security of their countries while redistributing domestic wealth and power to foreigners.
 
Indeed, the Enviro-Industrial-Governmental Cabal has even recruited a number of oil companies into its devious plot to redistribute income and power at the expense of energy companies and their consumers. 
 
All we ask is that Northern Gas Pipelines' cadre of critical thinkers review these links and increase their specific knowledge of an ideology that cannot "save the earth", but which can certainly kill capitalism, freedom and their cherished culture.                -dh
 

Video Introduction:
Professor Ian Plimer, author of one of the most comprehensive books on climate change, addresses  the global-warming/climate-change narrative in this 15-minute video (Upper right column).
 
The video enables viewers to judge the validity of the climate-change, alarmist message simply by applying some common sense, critical thinking.
 
Professor Plimer gives us the reason why we must denounce projects to capture and store carbon dioxide (“CO2”) and projects conducted in an attempt to accelerate the natural sequestration of CO2.
 
Recognizing CO2's role in greening the planet, it would be reasonable to conclude that such projects could conceivably give mankind the power to transform the planet into a desert.
 
Furthermore, the history of the planet's decreasing store of CO2 clearly reveals the absurdity of the belief that we can stabilize the planet's ever-changing climate by restricting our emissions of CO2.
 
 
 
 

 

The Scientific Method

If 'scientific consensus' about 'Climate Change' exists, why do the scientists below, and many others, believe it to be a hoax?  Put another way, is the claim of 'consensus' in and of itself a hoax?  

Conspiring leftists would say, "You're overreacting.  You are paranoid.  The individuals below are wing nuts."  

Think.  

If Leftists, to win an argument, must call names or demonize, are they really representing a scientific perspective, the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.   No.  As Professor Plimer, suggests in the video above, scientific methodology is not much enhanced by the rather subject concept of "consensus".  

We would add a lay opinion that the science we respect is about research, study, duplication of results, testing of hypotheses, peer review, open minded willingness to explore other, more promising hypotheses.   A seeker of truth, must be prepared for a hypothesis to be found illogical, incorrect.  Anyone who refuses to reconsider reasonably questioned hypotheses, resembles a sophist more than a truth seeking scientist; don't you think?    -dh