Rebel News Podcast - SHEILA GUNN REID ｜ Ottawa is Considering the Priciest Climate Plan in North America

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 1.00

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 0.98

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 1.00

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

00:06:02.840 ridiculous. They have it upside down as usual. 0.88

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

00:06:52.280 mitigate some of these enormous wildfires.

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. 0.98

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 1.00

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

00:19:59.420 that it's a catastrophe that's coming.

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 0.88

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.

00:30:28.640 Okay, thank you.

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.

00:31:11.980 We'll be right back to it.

00:31:24.560 Bye.

00:31:31.000 Bye.

00:31:35.460 Thank you.

Rebel News Podcast - August 12, 2021

SHEILA GUNN REID ｜ Ottawa is Considering the Priciest Climate Plan in North America

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript