April 08, 2016

More hot air: Trudeau, Obama vow to “reduce air emissions” — but what does that even mean?

Tim BallRebel Columnist

In his recent US speech, Prime Minister Trudeau said, "Let’s not live in fear of the world." He is talking about not fearing the influx of migrants. I for one don’t live in fear of the world. Rather, I live in fear of leaders who don’t understand the world and legislate based upon naive ideologies that ultimately fail miserably wherever they are tried.

The migrant problem exists because of failure of leadership in all countries. After meeting with President Obama, they announced a plan that illustrates the problem.

The White House statement said:

“Building on a history of working together to reduce air emissions, Canada and the U.S., commit to take action to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, the world’s largest industrial methane source, in support of achieving our respective international climate change commitments,” “To set us on an ambitious and achievable path, the leaders commit to reduce methane emissions by 40-45 percent below 2012 levels by 2025 from the oil and gas sector, and explore new opportunities for additional methane reductions.”

What does reducing “air emissions” mean? Everything in the air is emitted from somewhere.

Do they intend to reduce oxygen because it is a corrosive gas that causes rust?

Apparently, they don’t realize that CO2 reduction reduces plant growth, which reduces oxygen levels.

Methane is the second most prevalent greenhouse gas emitted in the U.S. from human activities and is much more efficient at trapping radiation than carbon dioxide.

This is a complete falsehood, carefully worded to sound like the truth by inserting the phrase “from human activities.”

The three major greenhouse gases (GHG) are water vapour (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), and methane (CH4). By volume of GHGs they are, 95 percent, 4 percent and 0.36 percent respectively.

They ignore water vapour by accepting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assumption that the amount of H2O humans produce is insignificant relative to the total atmospheric volume. They do this because they don’t know how much H2O is in the atmosphere or how much it varies in space in time.

The same is true of methane. They don’t know how much methane is coming from natural sources. They only discovered in 2006 that plants and especially the rain forests are a major source of methane.

In fact, the human portion of atmospheric methane is a fraction of the total.

The claim that methane is “much more efficient at trapping radiation than carbon dioxide,” is completely and deliberately misleading.

This refers to the Global Warming Potential (GWP); a necessary deception to maintain the narrative because methane is a fraction of the total GHGs. The charade is exposed by answers to questions on the US Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) website:

Why do GWPs change over time?
EPA and other organizations will update the GWP values they use occasionally. This change can be due to updated scientific estimates of the energy absorption or lifetime of the gases or to changing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases that result in a change in the energy absorption of one additional ton of a gas relative to another.

Why are GWPs presented as ranges?
In the most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), multiple methods of calculating GWPs were presented based on how to account for the influence of future warming on the carbon cycle. For this Web page, we are presenting the range of the lowest to the highest values listed by the IPCC.

If the numbers were based on physics and real data, they would not change over time.

The focus on industrial methane is purely political just as it was in the 1980s and 90s. Then, methane was identified as the global warming culprit in the attack on cows, especially beef cattle. Leading the charge were animal rights groups and environmental exploiters including Jeremy Rifkin.

The problem is methane levels weren’t increasing, and the IPCC is the source of that information: (Figure 1)


(Figure 1)

The determination to find a human cause was obsessive and created tunnel vision. A list of targets included:

* Termites: forest clearing in Africa supposedly created more termite habitat; then they discovered their termite numbers were overestimated by a factor of four.

* Beaver: fur industry decline supposedly resulted in decreased trapping, more beaver, and beaver ponds, flooding land and creating methane -- except in the end, the actual numbers and area proved insignificant.

* Cattle: there was an increase in cattle, especially in North America. However, they ignored the parallel decrease in ruminants such as bison, elephants, and others. Those decreases are regrettable, but a fact in proper scientific assessment.

(They also left out the 250 million sacred cows in India, and the increase in Asian rice paddies, which are the second largest source of human-produced methane.)

* Permafrost: global warming was supposedly causing permafrost to melt, thereby releasing more methane -- except Russian and other scientists contradict this claim.   

This is all worse than pseudo-science -- it is deliberate deception to create "science" for a political agenda.

Yes, I live in fear, but not of the world. I am scared of uninformed politicians who exploit environmentalism to produce policies based purely on ideology. It is blind faith that fits Mencken’s comment that:

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”


You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-04-12 02:17:25 -0400
Godo, why don’t you tell us what you don;t agree with specifically, in the info Tim Ball has laid out in this article. What can you debunk for us on this page, or did you just post here to try to discredit him by spreading a lie.
commented 2016-04-12 02:10:42 -0400
The point is, Godo, that there are many conflicting opinions and that in itself proves that the science is not settled. You’re link is an ipcc report and they are the ones dictating what truth we are supposed to adhere to. There is a lot to read out there regarding whether or not climate can be noticeably adversely affected by man’s activities on the planet.
I have been reading every article I can on the subject of AGW for years now and have formulated my own opinions on whether man’s activities have much affect and I don’t think it does. My opinion only matters to me, no reason it should matter to you. One thing I know for sure is that Anthropogenic climate warming is being used as a political football, of that there is no doubt. One more thing I know for sure, Tim Ball does not get paid by fossil fuel interests, and if anyone is misguiding the public about climate change its the ipcc, because its their way or the highway.
commented 2016-04-11 21:19:47 -0400
Tim Ball is a retired geography professor who gets paid by fossil fuel interests to misinform the public about climate change. His statements are not supported by the vast majority of peer-reviewed scientific articles in reputable scientific journals. Many of Tim Ball’s claims can be debunked by basic science. For real information I suggest https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/, https://www.skepticalscience.com (links to many primary research articles), or your nearest university library.
commented 2016-04-11 12:22:17 -0400
@ Bill Elder – “So do I Justin, and you frighten me.”

Bill, it’ll all be okay so long as we all “rethink elements as basic as space and time!”
commented 2016-04-11 12:16:50 -0400
Frank Mann challenged, “Drag out some evidence to refute the reigning conspiratorial scientific community. Let’s openly measure each side—fact for fact or fiction for fiction.”

and Liza responded to the challenge and ask Frank to “Frank, what do you think of the points Tim Ball has brought forward here?”

Two and a half days later, Frank Mann has still not responded.

Frank making a stupid comment and then running away? What a surprise! What a shocker!
commented 2016-04-11 11:31:00 -0400
When the climate issue gets to a political level, scientific terminology and fictional political narratives are used interchangeably that’s why statements like this should be worrying to reasoning objective thinkers: “What does reducing “air emissions” mean?” – exactly it is a purposely nebulous label to dissimulate fact and agenda. Oldest political trick in the book – wiseguys called it bafflegab

Here’s today’s care bear gaffe:
“I live in fear of leaders who don’t understand the world and legislate based upon naive ideologies that ultimately fail miserably wherever they are tried.”

So do I Justin, and you frighten me.
commented 2016-04-10 15:01:50 -0400
It’s going to be interesting for people in 100 years to read about when everyone thought there was such a thing as anthropogenic climate change. If the planet is still here that is and if its not it won’t have a damn thing to do with anything man did or did not do.
commented 2016-04-09 17:47:28 -0400
There is an easy solution .
No more Immigration.
commented 2016-04-09 17:47:28 -0400
There is an easy solution .
No more Immigration.
commented 2016-04-09 16:30:29 -0400
Both Junior and Obama need to be careful about their statements regarding the reduction of methane production by humans. After all, they produce methane from both ends of the digestive tract.
commented 2016-04-09 13:32:56 -0400
We would be a lot better off if the money the new religion of AGW spend to keep the ‘industry’ well oiled (pun intended)was used instead to prepare for the inevitable variables mother nature throws at us. There are things we can be doing to mitigate damage done by the tantrums of nature, but not a damn thing we can do about those tantrums happening in the first place. Sorry, man doesn’t have that much influence over the inner workings of the planet, its atmosphere or the extreme weather which is inevitable and cyclical in the climates normal variations. Preaching the omnipotent theory that man made climate warming exists on any noticeable level is just a political tool and has nothing to do with concern for the planet. I’d like to see the hucksters brought to justice, for the damage they have already inflicted on us with the stupid costly ineffective policies already in place and affecting our lives daily.
The Emperor has no clothes. They need to be outed.
commented 2016-04-09 11:13:56 -0400
mann i noticed you are great at drinking lieberal kool-aide and calling people out who can actually think for themselves and form an opinion but you never have a counter argument to show you actually know anything. there is nothing more dangerous than a brain washed lieberal and the ecco nuts with their shrill screaming that the sky is falling with all their made up facts and mann what do you think of suzuki’s carbon foot print he is the biggest tax money sucker hypocrite in canada
commented 2016-04-09 06:48:17 -0400
There is a never a mention of the environmental impact of shipping – 16 ships the size of the Maersk triple E class burning strait bunker sea oil create more pollution than ALL of the worlds automobiles combined annually- and there are over 99,000 ocean going vessels worldwide. http://www.takepart.com/video/2015/04/23/cruise-info-graphic Our current government run from behind the scenes by radical left wing Gerald Butts , former head of the world wildlife federation, is completely and totally anti oil.
commented 2016-04-09 01:51:46 -0400
of course there wrong, all things that rot generate methane, there is a huge amount at the bottom of the ocean in a frozen state, and cows , sheep , and chickens by far out do any other sources….., only a control freak would even try and scam this one off…….pair of ass holes.
not being afraid of something is not entitlement to bring that thing home with you like a lost puppy. fundamentalists are a danger to themselves and everyone around them, i am not afraid if they get in my face i will blow there fucking heads off like chickens or pigs. they will be deported of mass killed in some toxic accident……at a mosque…..or two…
commented 2016-04-09 01:26:39 -0400
Frank go cover up and enable abuse of women like the CBC does LMAO!
commented 2016-04-09 01:25:48 -0400
Frank Mann we aren’t the ones who got caught in the ice that was supposed to have melted LMAO! And polar bear numbers increased even though people like you said they were being wiped out and sorry there is more ice it has not all melted by 2013 like you idiots said and there have been less harsh weather events unlike the lies you believe LMAO! Now go live without and lead by example stooge.
by the way what ever happened to that ICE AGE these same types said was coming?
commented 2016-04-09 01:16:51 -0400
So been there done that. Its time people do some of their own homework, that is how well informed opinions are formulated. Each person has to decide for themselves after looking at both sides what the answer is or more importantly what the answer is NOT. There are several threads on the Rebel Frank Mann which have lots of info and debate back and forth about the specifics.(that makes 3 Manns now, Micheal, Mik and now Frank). Lots of info out there. I suggest you start with ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ on youtube, easy to find. Scientists who question the validity of AGW.

Frank, what do you think of the points Tim Ball has brought forward here?
commented 2016-04-09 00:02:54 -0400
Ha, ha.
Opinions are really cheap when they come from dull normals suffering from simple superstitions.
Drag out some evidence to refute the reigning conspiratorial scientific community. Let’s openly measure each side—fact for fact or fiction for fiction.
Drag this outfit up a few notches.
commented 2016-04-08 23:29:33 -0400
I haven’t heard the Donald say too much on the subject, but he has a fairly logical mind so I imagine he would cut through the crap.

When these guys talk about green house gases and that nasty CO2 and methane, why don’t they ever mention the percentages of each, and that H2O is the biggest percentage? You would think they would start considering that their models are not realistic after so many failed expectations.
commented 2016-04-08 18:55:04 -0400
I’m just worried that the Donald will murdered before he can be elected president.
commented 2016-04-08 15:49:33 -0400
Lisa Rose… There is someone challenging the PC establishment, his name is Donald Trump. I for one am hoping he will be the next leader of the free world and that he will blow up the nonsense preaching of the so-called progressives now in control. He is one with the means to not be bought off by the man made climate change lobby.
commented 2016-04-08 15:20:07 -0400
God’s plan trumps anything that these dimwits have planned!
commented 2016-04-08 14:46:48 -0400
Peter, yes the longer it goes unopposed the more momentum it gains. The more people, politicians and industries that buy into it, the harder it will be to stop. Nobody will even care eventually whether they have been scammed or not, it will be too big. That is what they are counting on.
commented 2016-04-08 14:39:40 -0400
The Western Worlds Leaders are at this time, all people who have been manipulated into their positions by the UN.

Climate change is a false flag being used as an excuse, by the UN, to change our way of life and control us. Climate change is a lie.

As long as we allow Morons like Trudged to misrule us, with the help of his friends, the Muslim Scum, we are accepting our early demise from this earth.
We are also paying him to commit this genocide on us.

I just dream of a Time Lapse Video showing a bullet entering Trudeau’s head and blowing away the back of his scull.

Yes Justin, I hate your stinking guts.
commented 2016-04-08 14:04:26 -0400
I’m a passionate denier and won’t ever stop calling that scam what it is. We can’t take it lying down.
commented 2016-04-08 13:00:45 -0400
Liza, as long as there are so very many people, politicians and ecogroups that benefit monetarily and politically from this AGW scam there is no way that enough people can stand up and call bullshit because the majority benefiting will just shout them down with “climate denier” and “the science is settled”. Its the biggest scam ever perpetrated.
commented 2016-04-08 12:44:43 -0400
“This is all worse than pseudo-science — it is deliberate deception to create “science” for a political agenda."

These guys don’t have a right, and should not be allowed the power to carry out this social engineering scheme. I don’t understand how people can be so stupid and gullible. This is clearly nothing but a path to a global rule, a totalitarian world. We are headed for something which will be impossible to recover from. There won’t be any going back.
I have never been more concerned for mankind. The only thing that could have any effect to stop this train wreck would be if everyone stood up and called bullshit, we don’t believe it anymore. This global warming/change scam is the biggest threat we have ever faced. It will be used to push through all number of laws to minimize our rights and freedoms and maximize the global elite’s power.
commented 2016-04-08 12:37:19 -0400
If Trudeau and Obama want to stop carbon dioxide emissions then they can stop breathing. That would be a goods start. It would prove their commitment to the cause.
commented 2016-04-08 12:28:29 -0400
As long as Alberta and the west stay in this country we’ll be dragged down by it. Using the environment and the global warming scam as the tool.
commented 2016-04-08 12:16:17 -0400
In his recent US speech, Prime Minister Trudeau said, “Let’s not live in fear of the world.”

Really?? That’s your line???

Hey Trudeau, shut the fuck up you useless, mentally deficient, son of a whorebag. You’re a vile pig!!!