Ross McKitrick: This scientist proved climate change isn’t causing extreme weather — so politicians attacked

And so, many scientists who have the facts and know the truth remain silent

Hurricanes have not been proven to be more frequent or more dangerous than in the past.NOAA / AFP / Getty Images

Special to Financial Post

June 7, 2019
6:28 AM EDT

By Ross McKitrick

This week in Vancouver, Prime Minister Trudeau said the federal carbon tax, a key pillar in his government’s climate policy, will help protect Canadians from extreme weather. “Extreme weather events are extraordinarily expensive for Canadians, our communities and our economy,” he said, citing the recent tornadoes in Ottawa and wildfires in Western Canada. “That’s why we need to act.”

While members of the media may nod along to such claims, the evidence paints a different story. Roger Pielke Jr. is a scientist at University of Colorado in Boulder who, up until a few years ago, did world-leading research on climate change and extreme weather. He found convincing evidence that climate change was not leading to higher rates of weather-related damages worldwide, once you correct for increasing population and wealth. He also helped convene major academic panels to survey the evidence and communicate the near-unanimous scientific consensus on this topic to policymakers. For his efforts, Pielke was subjected to a vicious, well-funded smear campaign backed by, among others, the Obama White House and leading Democratic congressmen, culminating in his decision in 2015 to quit the field.

A year ago, Pielke told the story to an audience at the University of Minnesota. His presentation was recently circulated on Twitter. With so much misinformation nowadays about supposed climate emergencies, it’s worth reviewing carefully.

Pielke’s public presentation begins with a recounting of his rise and fall in the field. As a young researcher in tropical storms and climate-related damages, he reached the pinnacle of the academic community and helped organize the so-called Hohenkammer Consensus Statement, named after the German town where 32 of the leading scientists in the field gathered in 2006 to sort out the evidence. They concluded that trends toward rising climate damages were mainly due to increased population and economic activity in the path of storms, that it was not currently possible to determine the portion of damages attributable to greenhouse gases, and that they didn’t expect that situation to change in the near future.

Shortly thereafter, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its 2007 report, largely agreeing with the Hohenkammer Consensus, while cherry-picking one unpublished study (and highlighting it in the Summary for Policymakers) that suggested a link between greenhouse gases and storm-related damages. But the author of that study — who just happened to be the same IPCC lead author who injected it into the report — later admitted his claim was incorrect, and when the study was finally published, denied the connection.

In 2012, the IPCC Special Report on Extreme Weather came out and echoed the Hohenkammer Consensus, concluding that once you adjust for population growth and economic changes, there is no statistical connection between climate change and measures of weather-related damages. In 2013 Pielke testified to the United States Congress and relayed the IPCC findings. Shortly thereafter, Obama’s science advisor John Holdren accused him of misleading Congress and launched a lengthy but ill-informed attack on Pielke, which prompted congressional Democrats to open an investigation into Pielke’s sources of funding (which quickly fizzled amid benign conclusions). Meanwhile heavily funded left-wing groups succeeded in getting him fired from a popular internet news platform. In 2015 Pielke quit the climate field.

… there’s no solid connection between climate change and the major indicators of extreme weather. 

So where did the science end up?

In the second half of his talk, Pielke reviews the science as found in the most recent (2013) IPCC Assessment Report, the 2018 U.S. National Climate Assessment, and the most up-to-date scientific data and literature. Nothing substantial has changed.

Globally there’s no clear evidence of trends and patterns in extreme events such as droughts, hurricanes and floods. Some regions experience more, some less and some no trend. Limitations of data and inconsistencies in patterns prevent confident claims about global trends one way or another. There’s no trend in U.S. hurricane landfall frequency or intensity. If anything, the past 50 years has been relatively quiet. There’s no trend in hurricane-related flooding in the U.S. Nor is there evidence of an increase in floods globally. Since 1965, more parts of the U.S. have seen a decrease in flooding than have seen an increase. And from 1940 to today, flood damage as a percentage of GDP has fallen to less than 0.05 per cent per year from about 0.2 per cent.

And on it goes. There’s no trend in U.S. tornado damage (in fact, 2012 to 2017 was below average). There’s no trend in global droughts. Cold snaps in the U.S. are down but, unexpectedly, so are heatwaves.

The bottom line is there’s no solid connection between climate change and the major indicators of extreme weather, despite Trudeau’s claims to the contrary. The continual claim of such a link is misinformation employed for political and rhetorical purposes. Powerful people get away with it because so few people know what the numbers show. Many scientists who know better remain silent. And the few who push back against the propaganda, such as Roger Pielke Jr., find themselves on the receiving end of abuse and career-threatening attacks, even though they have all the science in their corner. Something has gotten scary and extreme, but it isn’t the weather.

• Ross McKitrick is a professor of economics at the University of Guelph and senior fellow of the Fraser Institute.

Google Deploys Squads Of Firemen To Burn Offensive Books, Videos, Websites

June 7th, 2019

MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA—It looks like Google is adding hundreds of jobs to Silicon Valley, as its newly opened book-burning division is looking to hire firemen.

These firemen don’t put out fires, but rather, they destroy books, videos, information, and anything else that contradicts a far-left worldview. They utilize fire at 451 degrees Fahrenheit. Google’s robotics division has also reportedly developed a Mechanical Hound designed to sniff out resistance to its totalitarian destruction of offensive content.

Google listed several hundred available positions in the company’s new “Firehouse” department. The listing posted on Google’s Careers page is replicated below:

Position: Fireman

Location: Various


  • Good with fire
  • Won’t question orders
  • At least two years of book-burning experience
  • Bachelor’s degree in gender studies or equivalent practical experience (e.g., screaming at sky, rioting, etc.) 
  • Far-left worldview

About the job

Google aspires to be an organization that doesn’t allow any dissent on the internet. And people have increasingly come to support and vote for policies that cancel, delete, and remove worldviews and people they disagree with. It’s a much cleaner, safer, entertaining world this way.


  • Scour the internet, local book stores and libraries, YouTube, etc. for content that has the potential to make someone uncomfortable and destroy it.
  • Cancel people the Company disagrees with.
  • Go on coffee runs from time to time

In response to the looming destruction of history, books, and dissent, a group of exiles has reportedly fled to the hills, each of them having memorized a book or YouTube video that Google has destroyed in hopes of one day rebuilding society.

Big Tech Is Big Brother


June 2 at 4:00 AM

Big Tech Is Big Brother

George Orwell’s fictionalized world where Big Brother reigns supreme is no longer a figment of the imagination, but a prophetic vision of present-day threats. Brent Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center, explains how and why Big Tech is making Orwell’s 1984 a 21st century reality.

YouTube still restricts over 100 PragerU videos. SIGN OUR PETITION: Less

Ben Shapiro exposes Media Matters style attack on conservatives and how to stop it…

Ben Shapiro exposes Media Matters style attack on conservatives and how to stop it…

The Right Scoop

JUN. 7, 2019 4:25 PM BY THE RIGHT SCOOP 

Ben Shapiro took to Twitter a few minutes ago to expose the Media Matters style attack on conservatives by psuedo-journalists who seek to silence us. And he explains how to stop it from continuing:

Ben Shapiro@benshapiro

Re: that absurd @voxdotcom letter calling on YouTube to deplatform @scrowder, advertisers should also note that Media Matters-style activists masquerading as journalists who call advertisers for comment on conservatives aren’t interested in a story. They’re astroturfing boycotts.4,2842:52 PM – Jun 7, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy1,097 people are talking about this

Ben Shapiro@benshapiroReplying to @benshapiro

This applies to @voxdotcom, @HuffPost, @buzzfeednews and a wide variety of other pseudo-journalistic entities that see it as their mission to destroy the profit motive for conservative shows by attacking advertisers who advertise on a wide variety of programming.1,5642:52 PM – Jun 7, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy242 people are talking about this

Ben Shapiro@benshapiroReplying to @benshapiro

These pseudojournalists know full well that advertisers don’t endorse every message on every program upon which they advertise. But they manufacture the specter of secondary boycotts that never take place to frighten advertisers into submission. It’s disgusting, and it’s common.1,3962:53 PM – Jun 7, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy223 people are talking about this

Ben Shapiro@benshapiroReplying to @benshapiro

It’s the reason they won’t call advertisers for Joy Reid to ask whether they will continue to advertise on her show, but they will reliably call advertisers for @IngrahamAngle and @TuckerCarlson for comment on their nightly programs. It’s all a gross attempt to shut down voices.1,2692:55 PM – Jun 7, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy198 people are talking about this

This line is so true: “They’re not policing the public square for bad actors. They’re policing it for conservatives…”

Ben Shapiro@benshapiroReplying to @benshapiro

They’re not policing the public square for bad actors. They’re policing it for conservatives, and then using whatever brickbat is available to club advertisers — and the shows that benefit from advertising revenue — into submission.1,2122:55 PM – Jun 7, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy205 people are talking about this

Ben Shapiro@benshapiroReplying to @benshapiro

You know how this all stops? By advertisers and platforms just saying “no.” That’s all it takes. All they have to do is say that they don’t agree with or even like all the stuff they advertise on or that is posted, but they endorse open platforms and differences of opinion.1,2552:57 PM – Jun 7, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy248 people are talking about this

Ben Shapiro@benshapiroReplying to @benshapiro

See, e.g., Chick-Fil-A — or, on the Left, see Nike. The best way to stop this vicious cycle is for those with the power (advertisers and platforms) to simply refuse to play this idiotic game. /END2,2162:58 PM – Jun 7, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy340 people are talking about this

He’s right. Despite how much Chick-fil-A is attacked, it continues to be one of the busiest fast-food restaurants I go to, especially at lunch. It’s crazy.

But in the end I suspect this vicious cycle will continue because advertisers are too afraid of the social media mob and their phony leftist boycotts.

The schizophrenic Muslim mind

JUN 6, 2019 10:30 AM BY MATEEN ELASS

Muslims are torn by two competing realities. The first is the illusion of supremacy upon which they have been suckled all their lives by the Mother of all books (the Qur’an). The second is the real world in which they have to live.

Talk with an average Muslim and sooner rather than later you will hear him/her boast — theirs is the best religion (“Today I have perfected for you your religion” — Quran 5.3); they have the best prophet (Muhammad is the seal of the prophets, i.e., the final prophet with Allah’s most complete revelation for mankind); they have the best book (the Qur’an is the literal, inimitable, unchangeable words of Allah); the best people (“You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind” — 3.110); theirs is the best language (the language of Arabic is the language of heaven, and certainly the language of revelation); they have the best law (Shari’a is divine law, and all the world should be governed by it); they have the best “blood” (i.e., according to divine law the shedding of a Muslim’s blood is a capital crime, while the shedding of the blood of a kafir is halal (permitted), in some cases requiring a payment of restitution to the victim’s family, in other cases stirring promises of heavenly rewards for dispatching a disbeliever properly to hellfire.

Indoctrinated to believe in Islam’s paramountcy, and therefore in their supremacy over everything non-Islamic, Muslims mindlessly roar “Allahu akbar” in unison whenever the
imperative “takbir” is shouted. Often wrongly translated in the West as “Allah is great,” what this means more precisely is “Allah is greater!” It is a claim to superiority, to the supremacy of Allah’s name over any rival which the non-Muslim world might offer in competition.

As Allah’s followers, Muslims believe it is mandatory that they rule over non-Muslims. Slaves are permitted, because infidels lack the dignity and valoiue of Muslims. Islamic law forbids that non-Muslims ever hold positions of authority over Muslims, especially in government. The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights (the Islamic world’s 1990 response to the 1948 United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Muslim governments refused to acknowledge) openly states:

“The right to hold public office can only be exercised in accordance with the Shari’a, which forbids Muslims to submit to the rule of non-Muslims.”

Moreover, Muslims who rule can only do so in accordance with Islamic law — they are not permitted to innovate. Because Islam is perfect and supreme, according to its leaders, critical inquiry is not allowed. Any thinking which might question the received faith is initially discouraged, and if pursued, finally punished. According to the Quran (33:36):

It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.

The most chilling extension of this suppression is, of course, the penalty of apostasy, which all the schools of Shari’a (both Sunni and Shi’ite) label a capital crime, with execution typically by beheading.

So Muslims are raised to believe in the supremacy of Islam over all else, and they toe the line well under the shadow of the sword of judgment. But here is where real life begins to interfere with fantasy.

If Islam indeed is the best religion, why does it need a law to compel people to remain within its confines?

If it is the perfection of revealed truth, why is critical inquiry not encouraged? After all, an honest search for truth should lead toward what is ultimately true, and not away from it. Truth stands up under scrutiny. So, why not encourage scholars to study the early manuscript evidence of the Qur’an and reveal to their lay audiences the facts that there is no original text of the Qur’an in existence, and that the various early manuscripts which do exist contain discrepancies from one another.

If the Qur’an is only truly the revealed words of Allah when read and understood in classical Arabic, why did Allah not cause all humanity to speak Arabic, so that the world could truly grasp his revelation? Why today does less than one quarter of the world’s Muslim population speak or read Arabic, and even fewer among that elite group understand the ancient and complex classical Arabic of the Qur’an? Why do Muslim scholars not openly admit that due to the mists of history and evolution of language, roughly one out of every five sentences in the Qur’an is unintelligible, and we are left with the best guesses of linguists?

Why is the eternal, perfect revelation of Allah concerned about squabbles in Muhammad’s harem, or with whether he can marry the divorced wife of his adopted son? Why should the timeless word give detailed instructions about caravan raids and battles with neighbors? Would not one hope that God’s best revelation to the human race should contain things more lofty than the prosaic concerns of a desert warrior?

Wouldn’t we hope for a restatement or clarification of the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount from the Mother of All Books? And yet we find in the Qur’an no clear teaching of a universal morality woven into the fabric of creation by its Monarch. Indeed, if the Qur’an and Shari’a are any indication, what is “moral” or “righteous” before Allah is that which advances the cause of Islam (whatever it takes), and what is “wrong” is whatever impedes that advance:

O believers, whosoever of you turns from his religion, God will assuredly bring a people He loves, and who love Him, humble towards the believers, disdainful towards the unbelievers, men who struggle in the path of God, not fearing the reproach of any reproacher. That is God’s bounty; He gives it unto whom He will; and God is All-embracing, All-knowing (5:54).

Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan (4:76).

Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and those who are with him are severe against disbelievers, and merciful among themselves (48.29).

This is what leads to the summary doctrine of Islam known as al-Walaa’ w’al-Baraa’ (Loyalty and Disavowal). A Muslim is to devote himself to everything that pleases Allah and to oppose whatever displeases Allah. Morality is defined by what pleases Allah (what advances his supremacy within creation), and immorality becomes whatever stands between Allah and recognition of his supremacy. Oppression, murder, slavery, rape, deception, hatred of the infidel, all become sanctified tools of Allah if they serve to extend his kingdom on earth (i.e., the Muslim conquest of non-Muslims).

Muslims who are troubled by such partisan morality cast their eyes around the world to other cultures and see more elevated, even universal, versions of moral order. They see in the West the stand for universal rights and freedoms, and the aspiration that all human beings should be treated equally. Then they look back at the 57 Muslim-majority nations in the world, and note the number of dictatorships, the endemic nepotism within their leadership, and the rank corruption of their political and religious leaders.

They see that according to international studies, Muslim countries steadily rank at or near the bottom when it comes to personal freedoms, economic opportunities, standard of living, education, and equal rights. They see that human slavery has been eradicated over most of the non-Muslim world, but that it continues to thrive in the heart of the Islamic ummah.

They recognize that all of the blockbuster scientific discoveries and mind-bending technological breakthroughs, all the impetus for invention and innovation, come from the non-Muslim world. Not least among these achievements are the continuous military upgrades which make the West far superior in might than even the best equipped Muslim coalition could conceivably muster.

These realities are what lead to the schizophrenic Muslim mind. While yelling “Allahu akbar,” active Muslim supremacists are forced to scatter for cover whenever US drones are overhead. Knowing they are militarily inferior to infidel forces, jihadis are compelled to use the tactics of asymmetrical warfare: hit and run thrusts, lone wolf suicide bombers, terror attacks against soft targets. They turn as well to non-military tactics, making use of immigration and refugee policies in the West which allow them to infiltrate in large numbers, live as parasite on government welfare, and out-reproduce the native populations so as to increase their size and influence in the decades to come.

Just a few years ago, the Islamic State (ISIS), inebriated with its success in Iraq and Syria, boasted that soon the black flag of Muhammad and his followers would fly over the White House. They boasted ad nauseum that nothing could stop their advance, Allah willing. Apparently, Allah was not willing, because when the Trump administration took charge in the White House and decided to act decisively against ISIS in Syria, it was expunged in short order. The roars of Allahu akbar receded into the silence of impotence.

All these tactics and setbacks are an implicit admission that Islam is not superior to the non-Muslim, Western world — even with all our moral weaknesses, the West still outshines the Islamic world in terms of human rights and privileges; our quest for truth in the scientific and technological realms dwarfs that of the Muslim nations; our military strength leads to their saber-rattling and shaky knees, but no offensive engagements.

How can it be that the subjects of Islam, to whom Allah has promised supremacy over all the world, should find themselves inferior to the non-Muslim societies of the West and East? How can it be that there is no Caliphate since the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1922 which sits as King of the hill, forcing infidel lands into submission before Allah? Why has Allah allowed disbelievers to effectively overrule the Muslim agenda and advance their own instead?…..Continue reading at the Mateen Alass site.

Mateen Alass (PhD) was raised in Saudi Arabia. After completing a B.A. at Stanford University he graduated from Fuller Seminary, earning M.Div. and M.A. degrees in Biblical Studies and Theology. After several years of pastoral work he returned to school earning a Ph.D. in New Testament Studies from Durham University in England, studying under the world-renowned NT scholar James D. G. Dunn.

GUNTER: Why Canada’s hate speech provisions were wrong then and still wrong now

Arwen~ Video clips from article do not appear on this page…click link below article to watch.

Lorne Gunter

Published:June 4, 2019

Marie-Claude Landry, Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and Ivan Zinger, Correctional Investigator of Canada, hold a press conference at the National Press Theatre in Ottawa on Thursday, Feb. 28, 2019. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick)

To understand why it is a bad idea to bring back the hate speech provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act – as several witnesses before the House of Commons Justice committee have requested this week – it is worth revisiting why the provisions were deleted in the first place.

It might sound like a good idea to give the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) the power to prosecute any remarks, especially online remarks, “that are likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.”

But the opposite it true. It is wrongheaded in the extreme to give a bunch of self-righteous, politically correct bureaucrats and academic grandees the authority to define what constitutes hateful speech, then determine whether someone is guilty of it.

Consider that from the time the CHRC was given the power to go after hate speech (1977) until it overstepped its bounds and charged several journalists for complaining about Muslim extremism (2006-09), the CHRC had a 100% conviction rate.

Every person who was ever dragged before one of its kangaroo courts was found guilty. That’s not because the commission had super-skilled investigators and prosecutors. It’s because the commission controlled all the marbles.

If you are accused of hate speech under the Criminal Code, you are presumed innocent. Not so under Section 13, the former human rights hate-speech provision. If the CHRC accused you of hate speech, the onus was on you to prove your words hurt no one’s feelings nor upset any group’s theological or cultural sensitivities.

While the truth and “fair comment” are defences in a criminal hate-speech trial — and the Crown needs to prove intent and show how your words actually led to discrimination — none of that was true at a human-rights hearing. Nor did you have the right to face your accuser or cross-examine his or her testimony.

What’s more, whether your words or website exposed an individual or group to discrimination was determined entirely by how that individual or group felt about your remarks.

And commission investigators often worked alongside human rights activists – to the point of sometimes providing them with funding – to bring hate complaints before a tribunal. On some occasions, the commission’s zeal to impose political correctness on public expression was so intense its investigators engaged in what would be considered entrapment if Crown prosecutors used the same techniques in a criminal trial.

Investigators used assumed names to post racist messages on websites, for instance, then charged the sites’ webmasters for promoting hate if the phoney messages weren’t removed fast enough.

In one case, CHRC investigators even hacked into a private citizen’s Wi-Fi router so they could post damning messages without it being obvious they were using government computers. They never went to the trouble of obtaining a warrant, of course.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association was in favour of repealing Section 13. So was Canada’s largest association of journalists. Commissioners were told several times by experts, including two of their own adjudicators, that Section 13 violated the Charter, yet they refused to stop enforcing it.

So twisted and mistaken was the CHRC’s view of free expression that one of its investigators, Dean Steacy, even testified, “freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value … It’s not my job to give value to an American concept.”

Because political correctness and identity politics have become even angrier and more distorted in the decade since Parliament began to dismantle Section 13, does anyone other than activists, academics and our politically correct Liberal government actually believe it would be a good idea to put the human-rights foxes back in charge of the free-speech hen house?

Return of the Thought-Crime Commissars

The War on Free Speech
June 7, 2019

Arwen~Wake up Canadians!!

This week Mark gave evidence to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, about the proposed return of Canada’s hate-speech laws. The hearing attracted a lot of press coverage. While in town, Mark also spoke to David The Menzoid Menzies about free speech and the Dominion’s thought police. Click below to watch: