SHEILA GUNN REID ｜ Ottawa is Considering the Priciest Climate Plan in North America
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
163.34967
Summary
Two people have been arrested in connection with the wildfires that have claimed at least two lives in Greece. But as always with these sorts of things, climate activists are standing on the graves of the dead to push their anti-human agenda, blaming the annual fire season in Greece on your SUV.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Arsonists burn the forest down and politicians blame your SUV. That's a neat little trick.
00:00:19.240
And is the City of Ottawa bringing in one of the most expensive climate plans in all of North America?
00:00:24.600
I'm Sheila Gunn-Reed and you're watching The Gunn Show.
00:00:30.000
Two people have been arrested in connection with the wildfires that have claimed at least
00:00:49.400
two lives in Greece. But as always with these sorts of things, climate activists are standing
00:00:54.520
on the graves of the dead to push their anti-human agenda, blaming the annual fire season in
00:00:59.800
Greece on your SUV. But this isn't some sort of international problem. Friends, the same
00:01:04.860
thing happened in BC just a few years ago. The annual BC wildfire season was blamed on
00:01:11.040
climate change by the media and politicians, as though they are hard of remembering that
00:01:15.940
fire seasons are called fire seasons because they happen almost every year. But the police
00:01:20.640
in BC had other culprits in mind when they determined that at least 29 wildfires between 2014 and 2018
00:01:26.800
were actually arson. These activists are an arsonist's best friend providing alibis
00:01:31.860
for the fire bug and blaming your car and first world lifestyle instead of, you know, fire starting
00:01:37.120
maniacs. But why do politicians do this, giving aid and comfort in the media to really dangerous
00:01:43.120
criminals? Well, it's so that they can use a dangerous tragedy to bring in expensive climate
00:01:49.120
change policies. Do you want expensive unreliable electric buses and expensive unreliable so-called green energy?
00:01:55.860
Or do you want the forest to burn down and kill people? Those are the choices the politicians
00:02:01.060
tell us. It's all motivated by fear, however, largely unfounded. Joining me today to cut through
00:02:06.760
the fear straight to the facts is my friend Tom Harris from the International Climate Science
00:02:11.420
Coalition Canada in an interview we recorded yesterday afternoon.
00:02:15.820
Joining me now from his home in Ottawa is good friend of the show, good friend of Rebel, and my friend
00:02:36.920
Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition Canada. Tom, thanks so much for joining me.
00:02:43.760
I wanted to ask you, because you're an expert in the field, I think, and I've talked to Michelle
00:02:49.840
Sterling from Friends of Science about this sort of thing. Every time there is some sort of weather
00:02:56.380
related event, catastrophe sometimes, in some instances you'll see climate activists standing
00:03:03.080
on the graves of people to push their agenda. It's forest fires right now. Forest fires in Canada,
00:03:09.000
forest fires in Greece, even when they catch the arsonists, they're like, nope, nope, it's climate,
00:03:15.180
it's climate change. The weather gods are out to get you and it's because of your SUV and not the fire
00:03:20.880
bug they literally just arrested. Yeah, it's pretty silly. I mean, Greece has had wildfires ever since
00:03:27.240
Homer with the Iliad. I mean, you know, you see them referenced throughout history. And the whole idea
00:03:33.400
that global warming causes wildfires is actually upside down. The fact is, as it warms, you have
00:03:39.560
more precipitation because there's more evaporation. As CO2 goes up, the pores in plants' leaves, which are
00:03:46.820
called stomata, don't have to stay open for as long. And so they lose less water to the environment,
00:03:52.580
and so the soil stays moister. And as a consequence, you have actually less fires when CO2 goes up.
00:03:58.860
So they're exactly backwards. But of course, the fact is, these are being started by arsonists.
00:04:04.480
And you know, it's interesting, in the United States, for example, they estimate that 84%
00:04:08.920
of wildfires are started by humans. Okay, so it's, it's, obviously, if, if humans are starting it,
00:04:16.560
that's the problem. It has nothing to do with climate change. People have to realize that,
00:04:20.640
you know, before North American, before we started to actually stop the fires, fires were a normal part
00:04:27.680
of nature. And what would happen is a crown fire would rip through the forest, and it would burn
00:04:33.580
off all the dead brush and the underbrush, but it wouldn't kill, would not kill the trees. And as a
00:04:39.720
consequence, that was actually stopped when Europeans came to North America. We find that in sedimentary
00:04:46.600
records, we can see that there were more fires before Europeans came to North America than there are now.
00:04:52.360
And the trouble is, to actually compensate for the fact that we're stopping these crown fires,
00:04:58.140
what you need to do is you need to clean the underbrush, you actually have to have forest
00:05:02.300
maintenance. But the environmentalists said, Oh, well, that's not natural. So they forced the
00:05:07.280
governments to not do it in many places, especially in places like California. And as a consequence,
00:05:12.720
when a fire does hit, it has lots of kindling. So what you have sometimes occurring is what's called
00:05:20.200
a base fire, which is so bad that it actually burns into the ground. And when they actually think
00:05:26.060
they've eliminated the fire a few days later, it'll break out again. So it's not that extreme weather or
00:05:32.740
climate change is causing these wildfires. It's extreme stupidity. Because the bottom line is that
00:05:39.480
if you don't let nature do what it normally would do, which is cleaning the underbrush with these
00:05:44.400
crown fires, then you have to do it yourself. And that's what they have to do. Now in British Columbia,
00:05:49.760
the estimate is it would cost well over $5 billion to start doing this kind of cleaning. So they're just
00:05:56.460
not doing it. It's much easier for a politician to simply blame it on climate change. But it's simply
00:06:05.300
Well, and I think there's something to be said for proper logging techniques. When you suppress
00:06:12.400
burns in the forest, natural burns in the forest, you end up with a forest that's all the same age
00:06:20.320
that ends up burning at the same rate, as opposed to different parts of the forest that are different
00:06:26.420
ages. And so the fire burns itself out. Now we have forest fires that are enormous because
00:06:34.800
we've basically in some parts of the world outlawed logging and outlawed underbrush clearing.
00:06:40.320
And then so you end up with this aging forest that is just a tinderbox. And I think if we were more
00:06:45.740
engaged with some logging practices and logging out the forest and replanting it, it would
00:06:55.900
Well, that's right. And also people have to realize that fires are a part of nature. I mean,
00:07:00.740
there's some trees that germinate when there is fire. Before Europeans came to North America,
00:07:06.200
there were fires that were so big, they would cover a whole state, for example, in the United States
00:07:11.780
with fire. I mean, they would burn until they hit a natural barrier like the Mississippi River or the
00:07:17.700
Rocky Mountains. So controlled burning is another thing they should be doing. So the idea that you can
00:07:23.600
stop all fires, not do the underbrush clearing, and not have wildfires, come on. It's silly.
00:07:31.300
All you've got to do is park your SUV, Tom. You know it.
00:07:34.420
Exactly. But I think, you know, it is interesting that they must have timed the release of the IPCC
00:07:39.780
report to appear at the same time as, you know, wildfire season. Because of course, if you look at
00:07:46.220
many of the news reports talking about this IPCC report, which is quite ridiculous, we can talk about
00:07:51.400
that in a sec. The main image they're using on The Guardian and all kinds of newspapers is wildfires.
00:07:57.880
Oh, my God, the earth is getting hotter. So we're going to have more wildfires. Well, a degree or two
00:08:02.060
isn't going to make any difference. I mean, what does make the difference, though, is if you have
00:08:06.860
arsonists, of course, but also if you don't have proper force maintenance. So this is typically,
00:08:12.600
you know, IPCC, they use it as a lever to get attention and excitement. I mean, think about it.
00:08:18.360
When Murray Strong, back in the 70s, was warning that there was only 10 years left to avoid
00:08:23.740
catastrophe, he was talking about global cooling. And Rajanda Pachari, he said, if we didn't have,
00:08:29.840
you know, incredible action by 2012, it was like the end of the world. They do this all over and over
00:08:35.360
and over. I mean, the forecast, it's always 10 years away. They never come true. And of course,
00:08:41.640
the reason is because they're basing all of this on their computer models. And it's interesting that
00:08:47.080
just last week, leading IPCC scientists said that they have to admit that their models are running
00:08:53.440
hot. Well, over a 30-year period, until about 2017, the models were forecasting three times the warming
00:09:00.900
that was actually occurring. So you would think, having admitted that their models are running hot,
00:09:06.860
and they're basing these reports on those models, that they would have held the reports back and
00:09:12.160
change the reports. But no, they go issuing them completely. I just wanted to read you one really
00:09:17.140
amazing quote from, you know, from an IPCC expert. This is Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard
00:09:24.800
Institute for Space Studies. He told the journal Science, he said this, it's become clear over the
00:09:31.400
last year or so, that we can't avoid this admission. You end up with numbers for even the near term that
00:09:37.180
are insanely scary and wrong. So they're admitting that their models are way overheating the atmosphere
00:09:44.620
than reality. But then they expect us to believe their reports based on these models. You know,
00:09:50.620
the report doesn't even have, if you look at their summary for policymakers, and I'll send you a graph
00:09:55.420
of that. Please do. Yeah, they actually don't show that there was a medieval warm period or a Roman
00:10:01.360
warm period with temperatures that were similar or even greater than today. They don't show the Little
00:10:06.500
Ice Age. You know, these things are just basic stuff that's not there. One of the things that
00:10:11.360
really bugs me about all of these IPCC reports is their use of one key word. And that's the word
00:10:18.280
unequivocal. Okay, I've actually pulled out a statement from the report in which they actually
00:10:24.940
use the word in a way that isn't even possible. It's not only wrong, but it's not even possible.
00:10:30.620
They use the word unequivocal 33 times in this new report, the working group one report about the
00:10:38.040
science basis of climate change. And here's one of the quotes, for example, and I'll send you this
00:10:42.640
warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in
00:10:49.260
global average air temperature and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice,
00:10:54.360
and rising global average sea level. Now, there's two really major problems with that.
00:11:00.960
They're talking about observations of global average air and ocean temperatures. Well, you don't
00:11:06.620
observe average temperatures. What you do is you take thousands of measurements around the world,
00:11:12.620
and you manipulate it in some way so that you can get what they call an average temperature. It's
00:11:17.140
really just a statistic. It's not really a temperature. So that's wrong. You can't actually
00:11:21.940
observe average anything, average sea level, average. So it doesn't make any sense. But, you know,
00:11:28.540
some time ago, I reached out to two philosophers who actually study the logic of science. One of
00:11:35.400
them was Professor Stephen Goldman from Lehigh University, a philosophy professor who actually
00:11:40.580
supports the climate scare. And he said statements like this are flawed. Okay. He says this, he says,
00:11:47.420
it's an attempt to persuade extra logically. Strictly logically, no observations can lead to an
00:11:54.640
unequivocal interpretation. And of course, unequivocal means there is no other possible
00:11:59.940
explanation. It must be true. You know, unequivocal applies to two plus two equals four. Okay.
00:12:07.060
Mathematics. It applies to chess. We know how the knight moves and the queen moves. Those are things that
00:12:12.400
actually are unequivocal. But science is never unequivocal. It's always based on our interpretation
00:12:18.860
of our observations. And he says for this, talking about the IPCC, and remember, he agrees with them
00:12:25.380
that we have a climate scare, a climate crisis. He says, reasoning from evidence is inductive logic.
00:12:31.440
As for unequivocal, that's never the case in inductive logic. And he goes on to say global averages
00:12:37.820
are not observations. You know, so, and if you ask other scientists, of course, philosophers like David
00:12:44.240
Wojcik, on the other side of the debate, he actually said that last quote, I misquoted it. Goldman said the
00:12:50.580
first quote about it not being possible. And Wojcik said the business about, you know, it's just is not
00:12:57.580
possible as well. So they're both agreeing. They're both agreeing that the statement doesn't make any
00:13:01.760
sense. The report also said that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are
00:13:07.800
responsible for about 1.1% degrees Celsius of warming since 1850 to 1900. So what they're saying
00:13:15.900
is that all of the warming essentially, that we've seen, and it's not a great deal of 1.1 degrees in
00:13:22.000
the last somewhat greater than a century, is due to human activity. And their IPCC working group co-chair
00:13:29.320
named Valerie Masson-Delmont from France, she said, it has been clear for decades that the earth
00:13:36.660
climate is changing. Well, duh. That's the only constant of climate. It always changes.
00:13:42.400
Yeah. And here's where she goes completely off the rails. And the role of human influence on the
00:13:48.880
climate is undisputed. Well, come on. I mean, there are scientists all over the world with the
00:13:55.260
intergovernmental panel on, sorry, the non-governmental international panel on climate
00:14:00.100
change. You know, and I'll send you a link to that because these are reports that come out,
00:14:04.400
which have thousands of peer-reviewed studies showing there's huge debate in the climate science
00:14:09.920
community. So, you know, they come across with these very, very absolute statements, which even their
00:14:16.500
own scientists would have to admit don't make any sense. You know, one time I asked Michelle
00:14:21.600
Sterling from Friends of Science, why are these climate models so wrong? And she said they come,
00:14:29.000
they have the fear and inaccuracy built into them because they use the, people will hear the term if
00:14:38.160
you follow climate science, even in the most vague of ways, RPC 8.5. Right. And that's the doomsday
00:14:45.320
scenario. And that's their starting point for their climate model. That is if we burned everything
00:14:51.060
in the ground, if we filled the earth up with people and all we did was just fire up the dirtiest
00:14:57.780
coal-fired electricity without scrubbers, with no technology, with no carbon, with nothing.
00:15:03.800
And we just let all this particulate along with carbon emissions into the air. That's the basis for
00:15:10.260
their climate modeling. So when they say we have 10 years left, yeah, I guess we do if that's your
00:15:15.280
base point. Yeah. Well, that's plausible. Yeah, exactly. And you know, one of the things I think
00:15:20.280
is weird is they have various possible scenarios, which would actually make sense, but they do choose
00:15:26.300
that high level to generate all these exciting headlines. So you have two factors. First of all,
00:15:31.520
the models are overheating the atmosphere and the scientists themselves are saying that I just quoted
00:15:36.100
one of them from the NASA Institute for Space Studies in New York. So the models are wrong.
00:15:42.660
They're overheating the atmosphere. They take the most extreme, totally unrealistic input. And then
00:15:48.920
people are surprised that they're saying, oh, there's going to be like five degrees or something
00:15:52.440
warming, which would be serious. But the fact is, I think that between now and the end of the century,
00:16:00.300
you know, we might see another degree, something like that. And the cost, I mean, the cost is really
00:16:06.300
incredible. Jan Lomborg, you might remember from the Copenhagen Consensus Center in Denmark,
00:16:11.540
he actually calculated that if every country that's in the Paris Agreement met their targets and kept
00:16:18.740
those targets right to the 2100 year mark, the cost would be between one and $2 trillion US a year,
00:16:27.560
a year. So we're talking about like, in the order of $100 trillion. And you know what the change in
00:16:33.600
temperature would be? If you believe the IPCC models, it would be one third of one degree Celsius
00:16:39.460
by 2100 for the cost of hundreds of trillions of dollars. So I mean, the whole thing is just
00:16:47.620
ludicrous, even if you do believe their models. You know, and again, with the IPCC, this report,
00:16:56.280
it was initially leaked to journalists. So if you really cared about, you know, if you thought that
00:17:03.320
this were scientifically sound, you would not leak it to journalists who are true believers in climate
00:17:09.500
science, as they may see it, you might want to leak it to skeptical journalists and skeptical
00:17:15.780
scientists to say, look, our work is rock solid, it's indisputable, but that's not what they did.
00:17:21.280
They leaked it to their de facto communications teams in the mainstream media.
00:17:26.640
Yeah, exactly. And those are the people who will not ask the basic questions. And one of the basic
00:17:32.840
questions is simply this, the IPCC was formed in 1988. And it had the original mandate to study the
00:17:40.860
causes of climate change. And that would include the sun and all the natural effects. And you know,
00:17:45.820
it's interesting, I pulled out a quote from their first report. And their first report actually occurred
00:17:51.220
at a time before they became corrupted. And here's what they said in 1990. Okay, and this they were
00:17:57.620
still doing what appears to be an honest job. It is not possible at this time to attribute all
00:18:03.180
or even a large part of the observed global mean warming to an enhanced greenhouse effect on the
00:18:09.220
basis of the observational data currently available, which of course is true. And I mean, that's still
00:18:13.960
true. But what happened in 1992? Now remember, that was a 1990 statement by the IPCC. In
00:18:20.800
1992, Ryan Mulroney and George Bush and others signed the Rio Declaration down in Brazil. And what they
00:18:29.600
decided then was that the IPCC would be supporting the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was
00:18:36.160
the treaty they signed. And they had agreed that climate change was this huge crisis. So the IPCC's
00:18:43.240
mandate was changed to not look at all climate change, but to only look at human causes of climate
00:18:50.220
change. And that's how it's been ever since 1992. And that is a complete distortion, of course, because
00:18:56.420
if there is no significant human effect, then the raison d'etre for the IPCC disappears. There's no reason
00:19:04.540
to have it because their mandate is to study supposedly dangerous human-caused climate change. And, you know,
00:19:10.960
it's interesting because the Framework Convention and other UN documents, they often define climate change
00:19:17.120
as being caused by humans. So of course, they're going to find that climate change is caused by humans
00:19:23.280
because they define it that way. You know, they say it's in addition to natural variability. Well, yeah,
00:19:29.500
but natural value variability is climate change. Otherwise, we'd all be under two kilometers of ice
00:19:34.900
because we'd still be in the last ice age. So the process was corrupted way back in 1992. And it's a shame
00:19:41.680
because the IPCC could have been a useful organization if they'd been allowed to continue
00:19:46.860
with their mandate of looking at all causes of climate change. But they don't. So you're really
00:19:52.600
fundamentally, you can't trust them because they exist to support the Framework Convention. And they say
00:20:01.800
Yeah, I mean, what was a scientific organization engaged in scientific pursuits is now a political
00:20:09.480
organization engaged in political pursuits. I mean, you and I have been to these climate change
00:20:14.160
conferences. It's always some micronation telling the world that they're going to be underwater right
00:20:19.260
away. And the only way to fix that is give me some money.
00:20:22.280
Yeah. Well, you know, Richard Lindzen from MIT, I worked with him on occasion. And he says that when he
00:20:28.060
was involved in the process, he actually witnessed green runners going from room to room to room
00:20:33.320
to make sure that the scientists were staying on script. Okay, so it's a very controlled process.
00:20:39.480
And you're not welcome if you don't agree with the politically correct mantra. So the whole idea
00:20:45.780
that this is the world's leading science group, come on, it's silly. But you know, one of the problems
00:20:51.380
is that we have governments around the world who are basing very expensive policy decisions on what the
00:20:58.040
IPCC are saying. And you know, here in Ottawa, we're about to release a report. And people can actually
00:21:03.400
sign up, I'll send them the report as soon as soon as it's ready, it should be ready in the next week or so.
00:21:09.020
If they go to climate, I got to get it right. I ICSC dash Canada.com. If you go to ICSC dash Canada.com,
00:21:19.800
you have a little window where you can put your email address in and I'll send you the report as soon as
00:21:23.920
it's ready. But we're finding some pretty amazing things. I mean, if you actually look at the amount
00:21:28.900
of money that they're spending, they will have to increase the city's annual budget by 37% just to
00:21:36.880
cover their climate plan. Okay. Say that again. That is outrageous to me. That's nearly 40%.
00:21:43.280
Yeah. And they're saying this will be translated unless they get really significant help from
00:21:49.660
senior levels of government, which are all broke right now. But unless they get very significant
00:21:54.560
help, they're going to have to increase property taxes by 37% in Ottawa, you know, and this is to
00:22:02.200
bring about things which are quite literally impossible. They're basing it on the idea, for example,
00:22:08.620
that Ottawa is getting a lot hotter. They talk about the average summer temperature in Ottawa is
00:22:14.280
hotter. But if you actually look at how that's calculated, it turns out that the average summer
00:22:19.280
maximum is not increasing in Ottawa. In fact, there are places like Hogsback near Ottawa where the
00:22:26.260
temperature has been dropping. What's happening is the minimum temperature at night is going up somewhat.
00:22:31.380
So the average is increasing. But the actual hot, hot, hot, you know, mid middle of the day, it's just not
00:22:39.000
happening. So what they want to do is they want to move our transportation and our heating entirely to
00:22:45.620
electric. Oh, no. Yeah. The thing is crazy is right now, electric vehicles are 1% of Ottawa's stock. So they want
00:22:55.580
to go from 1% to 100%. They want to eliminate all the driving in the downtown core to the market, for
00:23:03.000
example. This is going to ruin the market. I mean, a lot of people simply won't go. They have the idea
00:23:08.140
that they can get as many as 20% of the Ottawa population to walk and ride bicycles. Now, if you
00:23:15.760
look at even Victoria is not even close to 20%. And it has the best climate in Canada for walking and
00:23:23.660
bicycling. Right now, it's less than 10% in Ottawa. And they want to go all the way to 20%. Also, the
00:23:31.140
other thing here, they want to cover the city with 36 square kilometers of solar panels, you know, to try
00:23:39.980
and meet their 100% renewable target. And it's interesting, the Ontario Society of Professional
00:23:44.700
Engineers, here's what they say about recycling solar panels. They say Canada's regulations do not
00:23:51.040
currently make the recycling of solar panels mandatory, nor do they provide guidelines for
00:23:56.540
the use or disposal of panels that have reached the end of their lifespan, which is very short,
00:24:00.960
typically 20 years. With the number of Canadian solar farms on the rise, we must bear in mind that
00:24:07.540
there is a real need for thoughtful approaches to eventual decommissioning. Well, that's an incredible
00:24:13.480
understatement. Because by 2050, Canada is expected to produce 650 tons of solar panel waste, and 650
00:24:24.200
tons. Compare that with 350 tons, which we produced in 2016. So we're going to be going up from a few
00:24:33.160
hundred tons to hundreds of thousands of tons. And we have no recycling plan. And you know, a lot of times
00:24:40.360
when they just throw it into toxic, into dumps, the toxic materials leaks out into the into the
00:24:47.640
watershed, you know, and so even if you don't care about the impact on birds, because of, you know,
00:24:54.200
the wind turbines, they can't dispose the wind turbine blades properly either. I mean, there's just so many
00:24:59.600
things. And to pay the amount of money that we're talking about, which is approaching 60 billion dollars
00:25:05.880
on the part of a city that's only a million people, I think we probably have the most expensive climate
00:25:11.440
change plan in the world, you know, for a city. And, you know, Parker Gallant, who's an electricity expert, he
00:25:19.040
said, the only way this is going to happen is if Ottawa disconnects itself from the Ontario hydrogrid. Because with
00:25:26.240
that much wind turbine power, which is 710 industrial scale wind turbines, much higher than the peace tower, not only are you
00:25:33.880
going to have to cut down all the trees, you know, in the in the green belt, because you can't put them
00:25:39.000
too close to houses, and they can't be too close to each other. What he's saying is it will destabilize
00:25:44.360
Ontario hydro's grid, having so much flaky, unreliable, inconsistent power. So he's saying Ottawa is going to
00:25:51.280
have to disconnect themselves from the Ontario hydro grid. So this plan is truly ludicrous. And we go through
00:25:58.260
the numbers, we talk about, you know, the assessed property value, how taxes are going to rise, we go
00:26:05.060
through the whole thing. So yeah, people should sign up at icsc-canada.com. And we'll send them the
00:26:11.120
report, we'll be blasting it out to the media as well, because people got to wake up. And you know, their big
00:26:17.360
push for electric buses is going to leave a lot of people standing on the street corner at minus 30.
00:26:22.300
until what internal combustion bus finally comes, because these buses, they break down all the time,
00:26:30.660
they've tested them in Germany, they don't make their expected range. And Germany is nowhere near
00:26:35.560
as cold as Ottawa. Can you imagine relying on an electric snowplow to clear the roads in Ottawa,
00:26:42.900
like my head is just swimming. Yeah, the horrors that you've explained. And all I'm thinking is,
00:26:47.920
boy, I hope to God, the state of New York ramps up their electricity production, because Ottawa is
00:26:53.300
going to have to buy a ton of it, their bad ideas and the poor Ottawa taxpayer, Tom, what's give me a
00:27:01.120
rough range what you think the average property tax cost is for an average single family house in
00:27:10.000
Ottawa? What does that look like? Well, if we talk about a house of $400,000, for example,
00:27:14.720
property tax now is $4,035. Bob Lyman did these calculations for us. He's saying that unless
00:27:21.100
there's very serious government aid, this is $4,035 per year. He's saying that it'll go up to $5,528
00:27:31.740
per year. So that's the 37% rise just for this climate plan. So, you know, otherwise,
00:27:40.040
they're going to have to cut services enormously unless they, you know, if they don't want to
00:27:43.880
increase the tax. So Ottawa already has been cutting back on our snow removal. It's not safe
00:27:49.320
at times. You know, we're not properly icing or de-icing the sidewalks. So at the very least,
00:27:55.140
with our aging population, we should be spending more on snow removal. And the idea that snow's going
00:28:01.220
away, you'd laugh. Ecology Ottawa had a presentation a few years ago in the Aviation Museum called The End of
00:28:08.180
Snow in Canada. They had skiers on stage who were all kind of moaning about the end of snow. And I
00:28:13.580
went to the mic and kind of reminded them that actually snow cover is being gradually rising for
00:28:18.280
decades. So, you know, that went over like a lead balloon, of course. I was really kind of swore I'd
00:28:25.300
get out of here. But that's what we're going to do. We're going to simply tell them, look, here are the
00:28:30.680
facts, here are the numbers, here's the cost for no impact whatsoever. Ottawa's sacrifice will be for
00:28:37.300
nothing. Well, and let's not even, let's throw the property tax hike out the window. And on top of
00:28:44.520
that, you're looking at some of the world's most expensive electricity after the fact. That's right.
00:28:50.400
And it's absolutely nothing about it that's green. It is not green. It is among the dirtiest energy
00:28:56.220
sources on the planet. It kills millions of birds and bats every year, the wind turbines, the solar
00:29:01.740
factories when they make them in China, incredible pollution. So these are not green energy sources.
00:29:07.880
And this is something that is, you know, they say they want to have a green, resilient city. Well,
00:29:11.720
it won't be resilient, we'll be out of power, and it won't be green.
00:29:16.780
Tell us again, how people can support the work that you do with the International Climate Science
00:29:21.180
Coalition Canada. Right, they should go to the web to icsc-canada.com. And they can donate directly
00:29:29.560
there too, if they'd like. But at the very least, we hope people put in their email address so we can
00:29:34.160
update them when our report is ready in a week or so. I would encourage people to donate to you,
00:29:39.160
because as we head into the next federal election, we are going to see these green groups get tons of
00:29:46.360
money dumped on them. A lot of it coming from outside of the country to influence Canadian
00:29:50.760
politics. And you're just out there telling the truth about what it's going to cost your family if
00:29:55.100
these governments pursue these wild and crazy green ideas. And, you know, for people in the West,
00:30:00.300
you say, that's happening in Ottawa. I don't care. I think all bad ideas come from Ottawa.
00:30:04.840
Just wait, because pretty soon the Edmonton mayor and the Calgary mayor will say,
00:30:09.220
yo, look what they're doing in Ottawa. Let's do that too. That's how this stuff happens. It spreads
00:30:13.220
like a plague across the country. Yeah, it's nuts. Well, Tom, I want to thank you so much for coming
00:30:19.280
on the show. And, you know, you're always such a pleasure to talk to. Frightening at times. But
00:30:24.860
I want to thank you so much for your time. And we'll have you back on again very, very soon.
00:30:36.620
I don't know about you, but I'm so tired of society being motivated by fear of a doomsday.
00:30:41.980
We're constantly told we're all going to die of climate change and then now of COVID. The good
00:30:47.160
news is the doomsdays never seem to come. And it's time for society to stop living by flawed
00:30:52.580
modeling and predictions and start living in freedom and with hope. Quit scaring people.
00:30:58.680
And let's quit being scared. Well, everybody, that's the show for tonight. Thank you so much
00:31:03.020
for tuning in. I'll see everybody back here or wherever I am at the same time next week.
00:31:07.980
And remember, don't let the government tell you that you've had too much to think.