August 28, 2019

Liberals scramble for new icebreakers ⁠— but warn the Arctic is melting (GUEST: Michelle Stirling)

Sheila Gunn ReidRebel Host | The Gunn Show

In 2008 former Vice President Al Gore predicted the Arctic would be ice free in five years. Two decades later, Canada is buying more ice breakers to deal with increased Arctic ice conditions.

Last year it was announced that Canada would be acquiring three new icebreakers from Norway and then spend $600 million to retrofit those ships for Canadian conditions.

Then earlier in August, Trudeau announced that his government was opening up the search for a shipyard to build completely new icebreakers.

Yet Canada's Environment Minister keeps telling us that if we don't pay a carbon tax, the Arctic will be no more.

My guest tonight is someone who adds fact and figures to counter the constant fear mongering from the Left on climate change: Michelle Sterling from Friends of Science.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2019-09-01 21:29:53 -0400
Please tell me Andrew, why didn’t Mann disclose his data and go to trial years ago and put that tired old incompetent windbag away quickly instead of dragging it out and getting his claims permanently dismissed and costs ordered against him?
😜
commented 2019-09-01 21:20:40 -0400
Oh so Mann brought a frivolous case? Dr. Ball called him a fraud and stated he belonged in the state Penn and not Penn State. Serious allegations which would be libelous if not true. If Mann thought they were frivolous and laughable, he should have just ignored them. He didn’t and instead he engaged Dr. Ball and in doing so put his reputation and the hockey stick theory at stake. He failed to disclose his data and his case was dismissed. It is now Mann who will not be taken seriously and just to put the icing on the cake he will have to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to Dr. Ball. Not bad work for an 80 year old windbag who got the best of a world leading “climate scientist”.
I do agree, however, that Buddhism has many merits.
😎
commented 2019-09-01 14:24:30 -0400
Yeah, Mann lost, because it was always a frivolous lawsuit. Ball’s a windbag that nobody takes seriously (see Weaver ruling), so he couldn’t have slandered him anyway. Mann’s data was never refuted here. It’s hard to refute data you don’t have.

If I was going to study religion, I’d probably look into Buddhism. They have some interesting ideas, plus there’s just way less smiting.
commented 2019-08-31 22:22:07 -0400
Andrew, Mann has never produced his data and that has been the beef against him for years and that is confirmed by the fact the court dismissed his action for failure to produce his data.
Dr. Ball won because he successfully defended Mann’s defamation action. Mann lost because he did not prove defamation and he had to pay Dr. Ball’s. Mann lost big time. It is just that simple.
If you are a scientist might I suggest that you find a different line of work because this one really isn’t working for you. Maybe you might try theology.
😎
commented 2019-08-31 21:45:08 -0400
ROBERT MCCLELLAND commented 17 hours ago
Sure Andrew Mann has published papers, but he has steadfastly refused to release his underlying data. His peers have never had the opportunity to fully review his numbers”

How do you know he hasn’t? He didn’t enter the evidence into court because he didn’t have to.

" Further, any scientist knows his hockey stick theory is poppycock. "

I’m a scientist, and i think the concept has merit. Yes, the world has warmed sharply in the last century, which is what the “hockey stick” claims.

“Mann’s claim of defamation was dismissed”

I agree, but that’s still not vindication for Ball’s claims. “Lost” and “dismissed” are two different matters. The legal costs are because of anti-SLAPP legislation.

“:Unlike you and your claim that babies are parasites”

Ah, I guess climate change doesn’t exist because parasitologists never said it was real, eh?
commented 2019-08-31 04:54:01 -0400
Sure Andrew Mann has published papers, but he has steadfastly refused to release his underlying data. His peers have never had the opportunity to fully review his numbers. When he had the opportunity to confront an 80 year old retiree in court with his evidence, he was a no show.
Any fair minded person knows what that means, Mann is well aware he doesn’t have a case. Further, any scientist knows his hockey stick theory is poppycock.
The issue of defamation and the issue of damages are quite separate. First one must establish defamation, then one must move on to prove resulting damages. Mann’s claim of defamation was dismissed consequently his claim for damages was also dismissed and he lost so badly he has to pay Dr. Ball’s legal bill.
Dr. Ball’s body of work is not at issue, but he was ready and able to stand and fight in court while your Climate Hero ran away like a scared little boy who knew he was going to get thumped.
You keep trying to spin it Andrew, but it was a devastating loss for Mann.
commented 2019-08-31 00:46:29 -0400
ANDREW STEPHENSON
Hmm. Looks like Mann has published more than a hundred such peer-reviewed articles. -———-
Unlike you and your claim that babies are parasites.

Speaking of lack of credibility…. The pot seems to be calling the kettle black.
commented 2019-08-30 18:03:58 -0400
ROBERT MCCLELLAND commented 3 hours ago
No Andrew, once again you are quite wrong. Defamation is defined as “the action of defaming the good reputation of someone. There is no need to prove actual monetary damage.”

That’s odd, because Mann was claiming monetary damages. At any rate it’s difficult to prove damages have occurred at the best of times – as in it’s very rare for even strong suits to win — let alone a guy like Ball who has been found in the past, to not be credible enough to actually damage people’s reputations.

ROBERT MCCLELLAND commented 3 hours ago
A scientific theory is not worthy of being considered credible until a scientist submits his data for peer review, until then it is little more than a fairy tale.”

Hmm. Looks like Mann has published more than a hundred such peer-reviewed articles.

https://www.michaelmann.net/content/published-articles

What is Tim Ball’s recent publication record like? It looks like he hasn’t’ published anything peer reviewed in more than a decade.
commented 2019-08-30 14:44:25 -0400
A scientific theory is not worthy of being considered credible until a scientist submits his data for peer review, until then it is little more than a fairy tale.
commented 2019-08-30 14:38:25 -0400
The tooth fairy exists because it has never been disproven in court.
🤣
commented 2019-08-30 14:27:14 -0400
No Andrew, once again you are quite wrong. Defamation is defined as "the action of defaming the good reputation of someone. There is no need to prove actual monetary damage.
The theory that there is a tooth fairy has never been disproven in court either, the people who believe in the tooth fairy are just like Mann, they can’t prove it either.
commented 2019-08-30 14:11:13 -0400
ROBERT MCCLELLAND commented 18 hours ago
Andrew, in law Dr. Mann’s position that Dr. Ball’s comments constituted defamation have been entirely refuted his case was dismissed."
in what way, though? To be defamatory your comments have to cause the other actual monetary damage. If your comments are too ridiculous to be taken seriously, they can’t be damaging. This is how Ball “won” the Weaver case.

“His thesis concerning climate change was also discredited due to the fact he could not present the data to support it.”

A blank piece of paper can’t be discredited. See first response – the accuracy of Mann’s predictions were not on trial here, but whether Ball’s accusations that he belonged in a “state pen” were defamatory.

ALBERTA MAGA commented 12 hours ago
Andrew Stephenson please tell me you are not stupid enough to believe that if you or i or anyone developed a clean renewable or infinite source of energy, that could be given freely to the world without the Elites being able to tax it or use it as leverage for power, that they would allow that and you would not end up dead? "

Not only would the “elites” want to make money for their inventions, it is a fundamental expectation of capitalism that they do so. Giving it away for free is rather socialist, no?

That being said, how do you tax solar panels?
commented 2019-08-30 10:16:12 -0400
Poor Andrew fails to comprehend that Mann has be defeated in law and discredited in the eyes of the scientific community by defying his legal and scientific obligation to release his data. He has been completely and utterly defeated.
😎😁👍✌
commented 2019-08-30 09:51:13 -0400
LIZ ROSIE commented 19 hours ago
“Andrew is invested in many ways…Where the hell does he come from?”

This apparent ‘person’ you mention, the troll, is a lefty, liberal, progressive, whatever, and liberalism is a mental disorder. How that works is, you need to have the mental disorder, in order to buy into all the evil lies and self-destructive BS of the left!
Because the left ALL have the same mental disorder – liberalism – you will never be able to turn them from their delusions and irrationality…and certainly not with the facts, logic, reason, common sense and moral absolutes – all of which they threw away when they traded them in for their moral relativism!
You can’t make people see the truth…if you ain’t lookin’ for the truth, you will never see the truth, and informed, intelligent and moral people like Michelle Stirling, Mark Morano, Tim Ball, etc., can share all the facts and wisdom they posses until they are blue in the face, and none of it will penetrate the locked and sealed door of the lefty mindset!
Then you have the lefty trolls like the ones who plague THEREBEL with their disruptive shit-disturbing nonsense, lies and BS – they enjoy doing the Devil’s work for him, and they actually do know better, it’s one of their many, serious character flaws that drives them to treat other people so terribly – so the question goes begging…are these depraved degenerates psychopaths…or merely sociopaths…and what should we do with them…knowing that?
commented 2019-08-30 01:51:50 -0400
Andrew Stephenson please tell me you are not stupid enough to believe that if you or i or anyone developed a clean renewable or infinite source of energy, that could be given freely to the world without the Elites being able to tax it or use it as leverage for power, that they would allow that and you would not end up dead? All those same virtue signalling elites only want power , they do not care for one second about the world.
commented 2019-08-30 01:44:20 -0400
Andrew how is that Polar Bear BS working out LMAO!
commented 2019-08-30 01:42:49 -0400
Andrew Stephenson glad to see you bring up the point of satellite data because so many of the Green clowns like to say things like “Lowest Levels ever recorded” to make fake news. In many cases Ever Recorded or Measured only means since the 70’s, yet the globalists make it out like they have data from the beginning of time.
commented 2019-08-30 00:13:31 -0400
The refit and building of new icebreakers is an election promise to whichever province that gets the contract. I see the building going to the Maritimes and the refit going to Quebec. If “Poo Doe” believes Quebec is more votes, reverse my prediction of who gets what. No matter what, it will be a bribe to vote the Libs in.

If Barbie and Baby Doc truly believed that the planet will bake because of a minor increase in CO2, or that CO2 is the main if not the only source of warming, then why buy icebreakers? Shouldn’t they be planning for farming and planting trees in what is now tundra but soon to be savanna or grassland? I guess they are as confused as Al “Mr. Internet” Gore.
commented 2019-08-29 22:26:22 -0400
mike krchnak commented 9 hours ago
all knowing andrew has once again enlightened the the masses with a post so profound, i mean…..wow! How could the common folk ever understand such complex weather events, here it is again…..“Um, even if the ice melts completely in summer, which is what they’re talking about, it still freezes in winter…”
Did you you all get that, ice melts in the summer and is formed in the winter…….I’m shocked.
-———
LOL.. Mike.. I believe Andrew S. is Trudeau or one of his corrupt crew..
commented 2019-08-29 20:39:45 -0400
The article is quite clear Andrew, Arctic ice coverage is the same as 60 years ago even though CO2 levels are much higher. Meanwhile the Antarctic ice pack is increasing in size.
Sorry, Canada is buying ice breakers because they know the ice isn’t going anywhere.
commented 2019-08-29 20:35:17 -0400
Andrew, in law Dr. Mann’s position that Dr. Ball’s comments constituted defamation have been entirely refuted his case was dismissed. His thesis concerning climate change was also discredited due to the fact he could not present the data to support it. You cannot say his theory was not discredited when did not present the evidence to prove said theory although he had nine years to do so. For all we know he has no data and pulled his projections out of thin air. Face it Andrew your climate hero is damaged goods.
commented 2019-08-29 20:03:38 -0400
Trudeau will award a contract to build Icebreakers to people who will, if not already, become his friends. He will profit on the deal. Next he will copy the UK and increase the Carbon Tax…The great myth of global warming continues to make Gangsters rich,
commented 2019-08-29 17:12:49 -0400
we need the boats when the liberals take their holidays up north. that way they can dive into the ice laden ocean and die.
commented 2019-08-29 14:19:19 -0400
Andrew is invested in many ways I am sure. His religion of subjective truth is being threatened. Has he even addressed anything Michelle Sterling has talked about here? No, because he has no arguments to dispute anything Sterling (or Tim Ball) presents. Most who post here are invested in exposing those who use trumped up ‘science’ to control the populace and threaten modern western society. Why is Andrew so dedicated to being an apologist for those who want all of this control over us using manufactured science? He’s dedicated. It has to be something more than that he is just an asshole. He’s as motivated to destroy this country as we are to protect it. Where the hell does he come from?
commented 2019-08-29 14:01:48 -0400
“The environmental movement—which 30 years ago essentially was an inoffensive coalition of legitimate conservationists—for these purposes appropriates useful idiots like the Prince of Wales and outright charlatans like Al Gore…. "

Pretty much, Conrad. As I’ve been saying, show me a drum-beater for the Apocalyptic AGW narrative and I’ll show you a parasite or a fool.
commented 2019-08-29 13:51:09 -0400
all knowing andrew has once again enlightened the the masses with a post so profound, i mean…..wow! How could the common folk ever understand such complex weather events, here it is again…..“Um, even if the ice melts completely in summer, which is what they’re talking about, it still freezes in winter…”
Did you you all get that, ice melts in the summer and is formed in the winter…….I’m shocked.
commented 2019-08-29 13:47:26 -0400
ROBERT MCCLELLAND commented 10 hours ago
The Arctic sea ice is unchanged from 60 years ago.
”https://realclimatescience.com/arctic-sea-ice-unchanged-from-60-years-ago/" rel="nofollow">https://realclimatescience.com/arctic-sea-ice-unchanged-from-60-years-ago/"

The decline from twelve to six million square miles in the 50s, then the current levels of about 3, suggest rather the opposite,

Yes, they thought there would be an ice age in the early 60s. The earth’s orbital trends are gradually reducing solar influx, and both historical and proxy data indicate that the climate was warmer in 6000 BCE than in 1900 CE.

Changing climate patterns – it is warmer in the early 21st century than the “climate optimum”, now, having in the last 50 years reversed entirely 8000 years of slow cooling, and improved data (they had no satellite data, and modeling was literally done on pen-and-paper in the late 50s) have changed scientific opinion.
commented 2019-08-29 13:42:10 -0400
ROBERT MCCLELLAND commented 10 hours ago

Mann admits he lost, he is only quibbling about whether he lost for delaying the case or whether he lost for deliberately withholding data contrary to a disclosure order. "\

Sure. But neither situation really validates Ball’s position. Mann could have sued a tree stump then have the case dismissed for the exact same reason of not providing sufficient evidence.