May 06, 2015

"Climate scientists are effective at predicting the polar opposite of what is actually going on"

Lauren SouthernRebel Commentator

Lauren Southern is back! She's switched her attention from feminism to climate science -- so "greens" and global warmists, beware!

If you remember Southern from her world-famous "Why I Am Not a Feminist" video -- now with over 500,000 views -- you know what you can expect:

In less than six minutes, she refutes plenty of climate change hysteria, using scientists' own findings and statistics.

You'll want to share this video with the environmentalists in your life!


JOIN for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

READ Ezra Levant's bestselling books debunking environmentalist propaganda against the energy industry:

Groundswell: The Case for Fracking

Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada's Oil Sands

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-10-18 21:04:30 -0400
Sick of climate change… If that happens, feral humans will be a bigger threat after civilization falls; Along with all of those nukes which are suddenly up for grabs. Think the equally ridiculous zombie apocalypse will be bad?…

In other news, scientists are going to use the Large Hadron Collider to get this; Make contact with a parallel universe…

Apparently smashing protons together wasn’t good enough. Now it is to be done with higher speeds and larger particles, and voila! All the results should be mystically different now. Just needed ‘More POWER!’ (grunt grunt grunt)

I think the angry mad scientists are finally giving up on climate change and are now working to improve their talents for pseudo-science elsewhere. It also helps to explain the costly 2 years it took to recondition the collider I suppose…
commented 2015-06-13 06:13:09 -0400
The reason a lot of conservatives don’t believe in global warming is pretty simple. It’s just partisan politics. Environmentalists are hippies, and we find them emasculating and we just don’t like them for cultural reasons. In order to avoid cognitive dissonance, we elaborate on our impulsive judgements and add pseudo-science justifications later on to make our prejudices seem more rational. Maybe in an existential way, we don’t like environmentalists because they threaten our jobs, but our employment levels are more threatened by a combination of technological automation and outsourcing of jobs overseas, so environmentalism is an economic boogieman in the long run.

Ironically, even many people in the fossil fuel industry recognize the reality that is global warming. The scientists who work for big oil companies are chemists, physicists and geologists, and they all have a good understanding of how global warming works. It’s not believing, it’s knowing.

Even if you don’t believe that carbon emissions warm the atmosphere, it does not take a genius to see that adding carbon into the air means more carbon will infiltrate the oceans, which acidifies the oceans which wreaks havoc on ocean life and hurts the economy (via damage to the fishing industry) in myriad ways

Secondly, mineral and hydrocarbon extraction means we’re adding other elements into the environment. Extraction of coal and burning of coal puts radioactive elements into the environment and releases mercury into the environment. 30% of mercury in our atmosphere and oceans is produced by man made activities such as industrial scale extraction and consumption of coal fuel. Mercury is a pure chemical element which means it cannot be created nor destroyed and will last forever. Therefore, if it’s in our oceans, it biologically concentrates up the food chain into bigger and bigger fish until we humans eat the fish and cause ourselves to fall victim to said poisoning. Unlike carbon, mercury can’t be “recycled” or sequester into more sustainable forms that benefit us and society. Mercury is a very stable element, which means it stays in its basic form, which is toxic and gets into everything, unlike Choline, Mercury doesn’t seem to naturally bond with a lot of other elements to turn into a harmless mineral. While the carbon in our air can eventually be sequestered back into the earth, Mercury will stay around for a very long time in a form that is toxic to us.

Thirdly, even if you don’t care about the environmental implications of fossil fuels, we need to realize we need to evolve past the hydrocarbon era. We’re holding ourselves back by not evolving into a nuclear society. Nuclear power releases nearly no radiation into the environment if not any radiation at all, when compared to coal which releases radioactive ash into the air and environment.
commented 2015-05-15 20:43:09 -0400
My thoughts
1. We are still in the warming period between two ice ages and we have not hit the normal temperature maximum.
2. A new normal is just a new normal. The new normal might be better than the old normal.
3. Canada will undoubtedly benefit from global warming so buy investment properties up north for your grand-children.
4. Weather forecasts for weekend rain are very often quite wrong. How can they predict what will happen in 50 years?
5. I support minimizing pollution, but not carbon taxes like the Kathleen Wynne carbon tax grab.
commented 2015-05-14 09:48:42 -0400
Private property theft via rules/regs control, government housing (fenced compounds) slave labour! Sound familiar?
commented 2015-05-11 16:44:06 -0400
The man made global warming religion is a con job whose pupose is to enrich the high priests if this religion. The famous hockie stick does not show the increase of temparture as function of the CO2 in the atmosphere but the net value of assets of Al Gore and other high priest of this religion as function of time that this religion rules supreme
commented 2015-05-10 16:22:46 -0400
Most people simply do not undestand the Sceintific Method. The Complete and Utter Failure of the AGW “Hypothesis” lies in the FAILED model predictions.
“Even with the best models, warmest decades, most CO2: Models are proven failures.
This beautiful graph was posted at Roy Spencer’s and WattsUp, and no skeptic should miss it. I’m not sure if everyone appreciates just how piquant, complete and utter the failure is here. There are no excuses left. This is as good as it gets for climate modelers in 2013.

John Christy used the best and latest models, he used all the models available, he has graphed the period of the fastest warming and during the times humans have emitted the most CO2. This is also the best data we have. If ever any model was to show the smallest skill, this would be it. None do."

Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics said, “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.” To continue to push this failed hypothesis proves just how unscientific cLIEmate UNscience has become. And to Mark McEwan, “Skeptical Science” has zeo credibility. This is how the most viewed Climate Blog rates the failed cartoonist popaganda site.

Skeptical Science – John Cook
  • Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.
commented 2015-05-10 00:19:53 -0400
Absolutely great report from all the research you have provided. A lot of the points you stated I have questioned throughout the last few years which you not only summarized very well, but also had some of the answers to my questions. Very well done and I hope that your work does not just end here, but be provided to all our politicians here in America and also to the presenters to the UN and into the global prospective. You have summarized the important points and shown that the predictions that were made by some of the scientists in the environmental industry have been totally false and I totally believe that “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” will be the biggest fraud ever perpetrated on the
planet for years to come. If the environmental industry really cared about reducing CO2, why wouldn’t they put their efforts into trying to convince the real polluters, like China, India and Russia to reduce their emissions, if that, in fact, is caused by humans, which has not been proven to date, and forget about our minimal emissions made in America. Keep up the good work and don’ let it stop here.
commented 2015-05-08 03:38:40 -0400
Excellent report, Lauren. The Great Global Warming Delusion can and must be refuted by speaking the truth over and over until even the dumbest global warming zombie finally realizes that he/she has been conned into believing one of the most destructive lies ever perpetrated on our society. What is the origin of that lie? Do a search on “Call it the mystery of the missing thermometers” and read the article by Richard Foot that was published in mainstream newspapers around the world in January 2010. It is fast disppearing from newspaper websites, so do it now before it’s gone.
commented 2015-05-08 01:50:35 -0400
Lauren, another great video. Thank you again for sharing your views. It’s nice to see another likeminded, young woman who isn’t too intimidated to express her opinions on important, highly divisive and controversial issues of the day. I am in complete agreement.
In fact, I’m familiar with all the facts you cited in support of your statement that climate scientists are very adept at predicting the opposite of what actually occurs. The problem is simple: too much reliance on computer-generated climate models combined with pure, human arrogance, misdirected by a progressive elite that is entirely consumed with furthering an agenda focused on social engineering and economic conditioning, all at the expense of individual liberty and the subversion of human scientific and technological ingenuity.
The fact is, it’s far easier to predict the course of human politics than the global climate. Dynamic disequlibrium, baby. Except in the case of Alberta, recently electing an NDP majority government after 44 straight years of progressive conservative rule. And look what happened? Hell froze over. The day after the election, Albertans awoke to nearly a foot of fresh, heavy, wet snow on the ground, on the 6th of May.
Judy, we agree on something Lauren says! Hooray! As a sidebar, Lauren does acknowledge the 1970s sensationalism around “global cooling”.
Rick, Santo, great comments. Rick especially, I’ve come to a similiar conclusion concerning a relation between the end of the Cold War and the spread of anthropogenic global warming alarmism.
Lauren, my only criticism is that regardless of which term you use (“global warming” vs. “climate change”, the latter being an obvious exercise in re-branding), you should insert the word “anthropogenic” or human-induced, or something, just to be clear about what you mean. I know what you mean, but when arguing with liberals, you have to be careful with your language and really make an effort to spell things out.
Mark, the whole point of her video was to demonstrate the existence of scientific facts that dispute or tend to contradict the dominant, politically-correct, belief-centred opinions on anthropogenic global warming (I refuse to call it “climate change” — as I understand it, the Earth’s climate is always changing, constantly.) What you seem to be advocating is called the “precautionary principle”, which sounds great, but is logically invalid, as the position advanced by the anthropogenic global warming hegemonists is one of immediate and drastic action, whereas so-called skeptics propose more of a conservative, wait-and-see approach. Following the precautionary principle, the burden of proof is on those who support drastic action despite certainty of risk vs. those who favour caution and inaction based on uncertainty of risk. Properly applied, the precautionary principle forbids itself, in the words of Michael Crichton (State of Fear is a MUST read for anyone who even considers weighing in on the politics of global warming.)
I’m a strawberry blonde/brunette, btw, not that it matters.
Another great video, Lauren.
commented 2015-05-08 00:20:46 -0400
What we’re not wrong about is that weather variations are being used to propel a whole industry. The climate change industry. Climate changes, the effects of man on these changes is questionable, either to mitigate or worsen. Seems really omnipotent to me. Earth will shake off our misuse like fleas off a dog. Oil is such a minuscule portion of the problem. Get China to cut out coal fired factories, if you want to make a dent in air pollution. The co2 greenhouse argument is now up for revaluation, but the “industry” won’t hear of it.
commented 2015-05-07 19:22:03 -0400
Again. I’m conservative, but the fact that this video made it on to this site, and that no one in the comments even seems interested at all in thinking about how scientists respond to the statements made here … make me think that we’re just not thinking critically or honestly about this. Yes, I like oil money, and I benefit from it pretty directly, but I see next to no evidence that we’re seriously considering whether we might be wrong on this, and is an indication that we lack integrity on this issue.
commented 2015-05-07 00:15:05 -0400
Doesn’t anyone here remember this?

I do remember it well…we were really worried about it…Yup the global cooling was a SERIOUS SCIENTIFIC CONCERN in the 1970’s…but the government couldn’t MAKE ANY MONEY ON IT….so somehow they changed it and now they can charge us for carbon dioxide (and to think we were breathing out CO2 even then…and it took them this long to find a way to charge us for breathing)…

I must confess that I whispered (REALLY quietly, I promise) to someone a few years ago that they would soon be charging us for the air we breathe…BUT THEY MUST HAVE HEARD ME!…what a nightmare! (@ Mark and @ Rick Sloan) SO sorry……I really tried to whisper it softly…they must have been bugging out homes back then too!…be really careful about what you say in the privacy of your home…they seem to have antennas on their heads in government :) always looking for ’what’s in YOUR pocket’…

Canada produces 1.48% of the total world’s carbon dioxide emissions…so we hardly need a carbon tax…it’s just another excuse to steal more of our money, folks.
commented 2015-05-06 23:45:36 -0400
Climate has been changing since time began. Didn’t we have an ice age about 10,000 years ago when big woolly mammoths and sabre tooth tigers roamed North America ? Climate warmed on its own or we would be covered with ice,and I do not think cavemen burned any fossil fuel then to cause global warming.Throughtout history earth has had warm and cold spells which occurred naturally.
commented 2015-05-06 23:23:17 -0400
I’m all or climate change ! I’ve had enough of these cold winters….when do we start
commented 2015-05-06 23:14:00 -0400
Climate has been changing since time began . Didn’t we have an ice age about 10,000 years ago when big woolly ellefant
commented 2015-05-06 21:08:52 -0400
Well the climate hasn’t changed in Edmonton. I was boarding a plane in May 2002 and it was snowing just like today
commented 2015-05-06 21:03:33 -0400
Plus… she’s cute and alot easier on the eyes than Ezra. No offence. Ezra is cute too, just cute in a pitbull kind of way.
commented 2015-05-06 21:00:59 -0400
She’s takes a soft hearted approach. The kind that resonates with those beginning to question their religious beliefs in global warming. Just might do the trick for those sitting on the fence.
commented 2015-05-06 19:17:14 -0400
Well presented case, Lauren! However, you will only be able to convince those that are on the fence already. The global warming religious fanatics live on a “the sky is falling” Henny Penny emotional roller-coaster and no amount of facts, logic or common sense will convince them. I guess though, that we have to keep on trying.
commented 2015-05-06 18:42:44 -0400
Mark. The only reason they even continue with line of badgering the public (the UN climate guru’s can’t explain why the earth hasn’t warmed in the past say 20 years), is so governments can price carbon. I never thought I would see the day when governments would tax breathing.
Well just watch them.
commented 2015-05-06 17:19:27 -0400
I’m a conservative and all, but I’m starting to think we’re just wrong on this one. I mean, how many of us have actually looked at the responses to the arguments Southern makes above? offers many responses. Yes, there is much to critique in the general liberal outlook, but it is possible that they are mostly right on this one? I just don’t think we’re taking that possibility seriously, here.
commented 2015-05-06 15:42:05 -0400
Great comments I should have said I like blondes I like red heads, I like brunettes AND I love ladies and I really love smart ones like Lauren
commented 2015-05-06 15:28:27 -0400
@ Joan…actually not everyone can be blonde…gentlemen can be only be blond…THAT MUST BE WHY THEY PREFER BLONDES

THEY HAVE BLONDE ENVY!!! (thanks Freud) Hah!

…but JOAN! Have you ever considered what the Ontario sex curriculum is going to HAVE to do with the English language? Wynne you need to OVERHAUL the curriculum to get BLOND fixed! I mean girls were blonde and boys were blond…but what do we do with 6 GENDERS? We’re going to need a lot MORE SPELLINGS for blond(e) for each gender…AS IF PEOPLE CAN GET THE TWO VARIATIONS STRAIGHT! what about blondie for lesbians…blon-blod for two spirited…etc? any ideas? This sex curriculum has a lot more ramifications than we were expecting! Wynne, the teachers will love you…just think of all the overtime figuring this out! (and the poor kids!)

Now Lauren, WAY before your time, in the dinosaur days when I was growing up, we were warned that we were likely going to enter a new ice age…I kid you not!!!

That was the great fear of my early days…so I got really confused when global warming came in…these scientists don’t have a clue…I am still waiting for one or the other…AND SINCE WHEN DID GLOBAL WARMING BECOME CLIMATE CHANGE?…One thing is sure, REALITY NEVER seems to fit the theories of modern scientists…i.e. living red blood cells in dinosaur fossils…OOPS! get out the old calendars again!
commented 2015-05-06 15:18:17 -0400
Great comments. The only ‘inconvenient truth’, is that its not happening the way they say it should. Someone should have a long chat with Premier Wynne and Trudeau about that. Oh wait a minute … they don’t care as long as they can use the misinformation to tax us to death or put windmills up in our back yard.

As a sidebar note. I think we should adopt a ‘you first’ policy for politicians. If they want to implement things like windmills and the like, it should go in their back yard first (at no cost to the public of course) and see how they like it.
commented 2015-05-06 14:44:32 -0400
Good Job! Since snow is supposed to be a rare occurrence, it must be cotton covering Edmonton this First Day on NDP rule.
commented 2015-05-06 14:44:08 -0400
Hey Fraser – I’m the last one to criticize typos as my auto correct, even though disabled, has a mind of its own. Scary.
commented 2015-05-06 14:42:43 -0400
Judy – anyone can be a blonde but not everyone can have blonde eyebrows. I was going to say hey, Lauren, did you hear that – you are more inteligent? But now I don’t have to. :-). Ta.

I’m a strawberry, myself. Now let’s see – do brunettes, blondes or redheads do better in climate that is always changing? Which colour hair has the most control over the Earth whizzing through space? Over evolutionary changes, earthquakes and tsunamis?