Media Bias - from objective to plain objectionable.

My personal view of Canadian Media bias.

 In August 2020, CBC Newsworld covered the Pandemic versions of the Democratic then Republican National Conventions (DNC & RNC) each evening during their run.

I watched bits of both occasionally. One evening (August 26th) I watched part of the RNC coverage. After one of the speeches the host and the CBC Washington correspondent introduced two American commentators. One was a Democratic strategist, the other a Republican strategist. I thought, good we were going to be offered two different viewpoints on the speech just presented. Boy was I wrong. Turned out, both commentators were very much anti-Trump as were the host and the Washington correspondent. There was not even the pretence of objective analysis. Not surprised, I thought how typical of CBC.

 

As a youngster I had an obsession with the NEWS, learned from my father probably because of his peacetime and wartime experiences in Poland. He was an avid NEWS watcher and listener.

 

Growing up in Toronto, with just a few TV and radio stations, it never crossed my mind that the NEWS would be biased based on the station reporting it. That was probably true of most of my generation in the 1950’s and most of the ‘60’s. For me the NEWS was the truth, why would I doubt it? I was also fortunate, like all my neighbours, to get NEWS from American and Canadian sources because of our proximity to the USA. 

 

In reality, I was growing up during a rare blip in journalism and media. Commercial sponsors that wanted the broadest media appeal possible to market their products funded print journalism as well as TV and radio broadcasting. Journalists and their editors were encouraged to aim at the mushy political middle in their reporting to attract the largest possible audience. But throughout the history of media, that was not always the case.

 

Before radio and TV, political parties often funded Canadian and American print media. So what appeared in their stories and reports were typically very partisan, and not that different from today. 

 

Eventually the expense of publishing newspapers became difficult for political parties to finance, and sponsorships moved to business and industry. Those folks wanted broad appeal and NEWS reporting became more objective and less partisan by necessity. We were in a Cold War with the Soviets and political parties themselves were also ideologically similar back then, as were the readers and later listeners and watchers. 

 

Of course the media do not officially support political parties these days, print media will endorse parties and candidates prior to elections. However, in practice day-to-day most mainstream media outlets have adopted the prevailing cultural norms and today have a definite leftish tone (see above graphic). Certainly that’s true across Canada. Many Canadians lament the bias of mainstream media, but history shows bias was the normal condition.

 

As the culture continues to shift left, so has much of the mainstream media.

In Canada, smaller NEWS outlets (mostly online) are funded by donations. Many of these are on the right end of the political spectrum. Since the culture is largely left-wing, the larger privately funded media sources (the print media, CTV, etc.) have attempted the pretence of objectivity just to keep a broad based audience but actually most lean left because it is politically acceptable. Publicly funded (government) media sources like the CBC and TVO, have moved hard core left, because they do not depend as much on broad private sponsorship. They get government funding regardless of the crap they produce.

 

The graphic at the top (adapted from here) is my non-scientific impression of some selected Canadian media outlets. Most of the mainstream media are on the left. The right side is populated by small \, relatively new organizations.

Here is an American version of my graphic thats available online:

American media bias.

 Of course, just like in Canada, American media is owned by just a few companies, all of which come with their own biases.

 

The only way to avoid media bias these days is to read, listen to, and watch a variety of legitimate media outlets. The key is how to discern what is legitimate. My graphic (above) makes an attempt at demonstrating this. Thats according to my opinion at least. We may disagree.

 

While dispassionate objectivity is still taught in journalism schools, most practicing journalists shed that constraint, very quickly as they settle in with a like-minded employer.

 

Today the cultural shift left has gone so far as to invite gross censorship and censure-ship of journalists who stray from supposed cultural norms. Publishers and other media owners do not want to risk offending anyone because they fear losing sponsorships. Maybe they don't realize it but that fear is itself very offensive. Diverse opinions are scorned by editors and publishers to the point where today, many journalists are in revolt. (See The new Mcarthyism - Cancel Culture) That's a good sign, in my opinion, push back even from the lefty journalists who realize that diverse opinions are what makes our Western civilization work.

 

Anti-mask mania...yes it is!

Really, its a question? Mask UP!

During the first few months of the COVID Pandemic lockdown, politicians, health officials, and hospitals agonized over the lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) for front line health care workers. It was headline news.


PPE consists of masks, face shields, gowns and gloves - all disposable, and all essential in protecting doctors, nurses, orderlies, etc. from infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID19. 

Think about that, the PPE protects the healthcare worker and is essential for them to do their job. That was clearly understood by virtually everyone at the start. At the same time, the general population was told by experts and idiot politicians that masks are ineffective and should not be used and anyway masks do not protect you, they protect others from you. Of course, that contradicts the “personal” part of PPE. Worse still, the idiot politicians supported that or in the American case denied what seemed obvious, and the issue of masks became a political football.
 Eventually the idiot politicians and public health officials changed their collective little minds and suggested that masks be worn to protect “others.” That ‘suggestion’ became a legal requirement in many jurisdictions locally and regionally, ordered by governments and backed by public health officials around the world.

So apparently front line healthcare workers and public health officials almost everywhere are convinced that masks provide some degree of protection if used properly. Sure, there are a few exceptions, and I choose to ignore them, because the front line workers are the real experts. They wear masks and there is nothing theoretical about it. 

Is there any evidence that wearing masks can reduce virus transmission in the general population? Fortunately there is. Hong Kong has experienced several epidemic outbreaks over the years because of its location. There, its a cultural norm to wear masks in public. During an outbreak its almost universal as this quote suggests:

 

“Not wearing masks in Hong Kong is like not wearing pants nowadays,” Alex Lam, a Hong Kong lawyer, told the Wall Street Journal in April.”

 

This article makes the point of comparing Hong Kong to New York City:
 “New York City, with a population of about 8.4 million, has had over 28,000 coronavirus deaths as of May 18. Meanwhile, Hong Kong has officially recorded only four Covid-19 deaths, despite having 7.5 million residents.”

Masks are just part of Hong Kong’s story, but there is little doubt they play a role. 

I am, of course opposed to the official mandates that require masks to be worn. Certainly property owners and businesses have the right to demand masks be worn inside their building. Why would anyone refuse? (Only CovIDIOTS would) My view is simple, if wearing a mask can protect against virus transmission, even partially, then everyone should, as a matter of courtesy and self defence.


But of course courtesy is not a universally accepted trait and I’m constantly reminded of the number of stupid people that somehow exist. An anti-mask backlash ensued in social media, on the street, and in the news. Much of it was against mandates, I get that. But a good chunk of the online protests were just against the very idea of wearing masks. People trotted out “experts,” “peer-reviewed studies,” wacky YouTube videos, all sorts protestations exhorting people not to wear masks. I was frankly dismayed and annoyed. What motive could these people have? Why are they so determined to deny what reality seems to confirm every time a health care worker steps into a room with a COVID patient?

 

Its common for libertarian thinkers to be contrarian, so I’m not totally surprised at the social media reaction to masks. I just have trouble with their motive.

Maybe the official science does not totally support masks, but neither does it totally deny their effectiveness. The practice of wearing masks seems to have an effect. If nothing else it reminds people to take care. Enough people have died to prove this is a nasty, nasty and unpredictable bug. For me ALL LIVES MATTER! 

 

We’re going to have a second wave of COVID soon, I expect it to be worse, maybe far worse than the first. Most professional healthcare workers and virologists believe droplet and aerosol transmission is the main method the virus is transmitted. If wearing masks in any way lessens the impact of a second wave, then why not mask up? 

 

 

The new McCarthyism

In early July of 2020, in the midst of the COVID19 Pandemic, a letter appeared in Harper’s Magazine dealing with what was called “Justice and Open Debate.” Over 150 people signed the letter, most with ties to the literary world, writers, editors, commentators etc. Without mentioning the term, it complained about the creeping “cancel culture” in the press and media. Something I have written about before. I’m happy to see others consider it a danger too.

 

Later on in July, Bari Weiss, a writer, editor and former columnist for the New York Times, resigned with this letter to her employer. Both letters dealt with the “chill” that writers face when they write something that strays from the common consensus. This quote from the Weiss letter:

“..... standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.” BW 

What is this new McCarthyism, this cancel culture?

According to Dictionary.com, “Cancel culture refers to the popular practice of withdrawing support for (cancelling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive. [It's] generally discussed as being performed on social media in the form of group shaming.” Similar terms are “doxxing” and “deplatforming” Deplatforming conservative and right wing speakers at universities have been a common occurrence for a number of years now. One just has to listen and look at the drivel that comes out of most universities to understand why.

 

Of course it goes beyond just shaming for those shamed and one does not need to be famous to be affected. It damages careers, jobs, and ultimately its character assassination often unjustly and inappropriately delivered.

 

There is nothing wrong with publicly castigating the comments and the commentator for something said or written. But harmful comments need to be evaluated on their harm and degree of offence. Some comments do not rise to the level of public shaming, some do. Some are not offensive at all, but simply innocuous opinions that don’t really require a response. Of course there are evil people with evil and dangerous intent that need to be outed and ultimately marginalized. That makes it important to discover intent. Trying to be objective when evaluating speech and written work is all-important. But in many cases intent is ignored and the response of the evaluators is excessively harsh. Why?

 

In late July, while being grilled at a ridiculous anti-trust hearing, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, (Bezos testimony - this is great) commented that social media is a 'nuance-destruction machine' when asked about his views on 'cancel culture.' In other words, comments on Facebook, Twitter and the like, can be easily misinterpreted. Nuance disappears in the new world of triggering and micro-aggression. 

 

That’s part of the problem and the rest almost entirely involves identity politics. With that, civil discourse is stifled on all sides of the spectrum and that further polarizes individuals and groups.

 

Here is a troubling example. A former colleague and friend, who worked as a teacher for the largest school board in Canada, made what I consider an innocent post on Facebook. He commented that there was a “distinction between peaceful protestors in a just cause and violent rioters who undermine that cause.” This was related to the violent anti-racism protests occurring in the States at the time. After reading this, some irate and unknown to him, social justice warriors lodged a formal complaint against my friend to his employer. The employer instantly suspended him for possible “human rights violations,” banned him from school property, accused him of “discrediting the teaching profession,” put a formal reprimand on his record, and even threatened further investigation including possible termination of his contract. Naturally he was pissed to say the least, and fortunate to be close to retirement. And that’s exactly what he did, thankful to distance himself from those idiots.

I have studied and taught biology for over 40 years and have never encountered such low level life forms as those bits of slime that forced a career to end so undeservedly. Of course the idiot Board admins were no shining example of fairness and good judgment. These are the folks responsible for the education of our children and grandchildren, and that is what is most distressing.

This video puts forth a libertarian view of cancel culture:

 This is also a good link: https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-cancel-culture-checklist-c63

Political Party Package Deals & Principles

Casting a ballot during an election is often a problem for libertarians and classical liberals. They would be the first to say its rare to find acceptable candidates advocating for the right mix of socially tolerant ideas as well as fiscal responsibility in government. Unless there is the rare appearance of a true Libertarian or libertarian-like candidate, the aforementioned voters would have to mark their ballots while holding their collective noses or abstain from voting entirely. It's a dilemma.

This problem is almost always because political parties offer package deals. What are “package deals?” They’re party platforms that are often a hodgepodge of inconsistent positions. Rarely do political parties hold principles consistent with strict social tolerance and fiscal responsibility, both important to libertarians. Parties cater to groups of people that have been influenced by prevailing social and cultural norms and popular economic beliefs. They also get labelled as being right-wing conservative or left-wing liberal in modern parlance.

As an aside I would challenge the common meaning of these terms “right-wing and left-wing.” For example, its common in the mainstream media to call communists and socialists left-wing, and fascists right-wing. But fascism is as authoritarian as communism in practice. Recall that the NAZI Party, the prototypical fascist party, were national socialists! How is that different from regular socialists? Really, its not.

So my preference, for the North American situation, is to define left-wing as authoritarian with huge government interference in all matters, and right-wing as the opposite, classically liberal and with little government interference in all matters.

But that’s not how it works in real politics. For example, many so-called right-wing conservative parties claim to be fiscally responsible (and rarely are), and advocate rights, but also would deny women access to abortion, and deny everyone access to recreational drugs. At the same time so-called left-wing liberal parties would tax and spend to support dubious social programs yet allow women the freedom to choose and also not penalize the recreational use of drugs. Of course libertarians and classical liberals share traits that tend to straddle both these supposed left and right positions as well as other issues. How does a libertarian choose?

Thats why it’s important to support libertarian parties, candidates and ideas. It's the ideas that eventually change the culture, and voicing the ideas in an election campaign and giving people the option to vote for them is often the only way people are exposed to them. Like this from the USLP:

USLP Presidential Candidate 2020

In Canada many ideas that had origins in Libertarian Party platforms and thought have already been adopted, even though Libertarians rarely make a dent in election results. Ideas like allowing Sunday shopping, equal rights for gay relationships, allowing beer to be sold in supermarkets, and legalizing the recreational use of marijuana, have all been part of past Libertarian platforms, and now in Ontario, and much of Canada they are par-for-the-course.

Yes, its true that in practice these ideas are not precisely in line with libertarian preferences, but thats the way politics works. Good libertarian ideas start off as a whisper that gets louder as the culture changes. Eventually the ideas are ripe enough for implementation when the time is right and then some unprincipled mainstream party runs with them and wins. This gradual shift in political discussion is the concept of the Overton Window, which I have used to create policy for the Ontario Libertarian Party.

Having said all that, the only way to influence people in our system, especially voters, unfortunately, is to get involved in politics and help construct those package deals.

Why am I wearing a mask, and why you should?

When I posted that picture on my Facebook, most of the reaction was the simple Facebook ‘like.” One fellow sarcastically commented “Libertarian, lol.” Of course what he meant was that libertarians don’t wear masks. Wearing a mask implies submitting to government edict in his mind, and libertarians are contrarian by nature according to popular myth.
That guy did not seem to remember that governments here and around the world eschewed mask wearing at first; in fact most government officials claimed masks were somehow dangerous. Maybe if that idiotic advice had stuck, wearing a mask would have been the contrarian and therefore the correct libertarian thing to do.
 But as it happens government officials changed their collective minds, mostly.

In late February and early March 2020, when I realized SARS-CoV-2 was a respiratory virus likely spread by close contact, and inhaling virus, I began searching for masks online and in local stores. They were no longer in the stores or very hard to find, and online they had very high prices and far off delivery dates. My brother ordered some masks for me in early March (like the one I'm wearing) as a birthday present. They finally arrived May 26th.

 

Masks plus distance = very effective.


I’ve always known that masks were not completely effective but were worn to protect others as well as yourself. Better than nothing in my opinion. Medical professionals have used face masks for over 120 years, so when SARS-CoV-2 came to Ontario, I knew a face mask would afford me some protection, and I would need it.

Both the meme on the right and the video below from this site, illustrates that masks are at least partially effective. Together with adequate distancing (~2 m) they are very useful in preventing spread in enclosed spaces, and in my personal case, I really needed it.

My situation has made me extremely vulnerable to the worst effects of the virus. I have Multiple Myeloma, a blood cancer of the frontline cells of my immune system, the ones that produce antibodies that would fight an infection. I can produce antibodies, and in large quantities, but they are useless and so I’m an easy target for any type of infection. For me and others like me COVID19 has a case fatality rate of between 39 and 54%. I’m in my 70’s, male with type "A" blood, three more knocks. So needless to say I’ve been avoiding people including family since mid-March 2020.

So if wearing a mask or having those around me wearing a mask is even slightly effective, then why not? Of course I believe that wearing a mask should be strictly a voluntary choice, I also believe that it's a good choice, and a considerate choice. Since "do no harm" is the number one rule of libertarianism, then wearing a mask is the obvious choice. Most sensible libertarians will agree, and you can see the evidence here, and here. But, more and more governments are mandating the use of masks. While I don't agree with that, I certainly understand it. Private businesses and government have the right to require individuals to wear masks when entering their establishments. No mask, no admission, thats what I believe. Your freedom to be irresponsible ends when you step into someone's property. That is simply a property rights issue, whether you believe masks are useful or not.

More and more people and organizations are understanding that droplet transmission (and possibly aerosol transmission) is the primary method of spread of SARS-CoV-2. The early instructions in Ontario were to wash hands and stay home. Not a word about masks. Clearly we have learned that information was just plain inadequate. Listen to this physician speaking on "This Week in Virology" (TWIV) saying that masks work (@ 26 minutes, 28 seconds) and should be used in closed spaces. Listen to the entire podcast if you're wondering about that. In fact listen to TWIV if you're interested in viruses/pandemics/science etc. and want to understand from a reputable source whats really going on right now.

Even Trump wears a mask with the POTUS seal!

Several of my 'friends' on social media (Facebook etc.) insist on downplaying the effectiveness of masks sighting scientific studies that prove(?) masks are ineffective. Some even post lengthy exhortations about how useless masks are, how innocuous the virus is, and how we should not be that concerned. Frankly I don't understand their motivation. It makes no sense to refuse to abide by the simple precautionary principle which is just reasonable when unknowns abound. They will argue that they are against mandating masks and forcing people to stay home and on and on. Certainly governments have overreacted by shutting down the economy and possibly creating much more harm than the Pandemic. I understand and I agree. But there is also the idea of personal responsibility, respect for your neighbours, common courtesy, and the chance that you might help protect susceptible people (like me). It boggles my mind but I guess these folks don't really care that all lives matter, else why argue? 

Many of these folks point to the observation (and their own conclusion) that the pandemic seems to be over, the emergency has ended, so why are masks being mandated now? Thats a reasonable question, but the fact is that a second wave is very likely when the weather turns cooler. Masks could mitigate a second wave until an effective vaccine is found and distributed. Masks could allow semi-normal interactions which would help the economy and get people back to work. The second wave may be far worse than the Pandemic has been so far, especially in Canada because of our relatively low infection rate. Just look at infection rates in the US now in July 2020. There, politics has so contaminated good information from physicians and public health authorities, that Americans have not respected the serious implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the ease of its transmission. Americans may be inadvertently heading for herd immunity, what Sweden has been doing on purpose. Both countries may (emphasis on MAY), have a milder second wave compared to places  like Canada. Wearing masks in Canada will have to be the next normal for the foreseeable future. 

This will make Greta mad.....

Angry Greta!

Good news! Big cracks are beginning to form in the climate alarmist environmental  movement. Even the true believers are asking media to cool it. Why? It may be because 2019 was a truly outrageous year even for the climate catastrophists. At the start of the year politicians and others, amplified by media, made claims that we had only 12 years before the world as we know it ends if we don’t buckle-down and address climate change now. The mainstream media gleefully reported that global climate catastrophe was imminent. Great fires, floods, storms, record heat, all those things were happening (they imagined) and were attributed to human caused climate change. The end was near unless there was some kind of massive intervention.

 

By the close of the year Greta Thunberg, the autistic, troubled teenage wunderkind, was proclaimed TIME magazine's person of the year (see this). She was recognized despite not yet finishing high school, but still credited with enough scientific credibility to be a world renowned self-proclaimed spokesperson against catastrophic climate change. Just remarkable, wouldn’t you say? What a world we live in! Greta, of course, will not like this blog post.

In the midst of the daily climate warnings by the media and almost on queue, the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic swept away the ridiculous notion that catastrophic climate change was the worst thing that could happen to humanity. Of course that did not stop the bleating from the apocalyptic hordes just so we didn't forget them during the lockdown. In fact they pointed out that CO2 levels continued to rise despite reduced human activity during the worldwide Pandemic lockdown. 

Maybe as result of all the outragiously scary stuff that appeared in 2019 an article was posted in Nature magazine, which in my opinion began the catastrophists retreat. The article admonished catastrophists to tone down their rhetoric without retreating from their alarmist position: 

“We must all — from physical scientists and climate-impact modellers to communicators and policymakers — stop presenting the worst-case scenario as the most likely one. Overstating the likelihood of extreme climate impacts can make mitigation seem harder than it actually is. This could lead to defeatism, because the problem is perceived as being out of control and unsolvable.”

They pointed out that the worst case scenario envisioned by the IPCC was unlikely to happen and should not be used to terrify the general public, rather we were on track to a far lessor disaster (but still a disaster) unless we switch to so-called cleaner energy sources like “renewables” - wind, solar etc., and proceed with other mitigation strategies. Apparently when media reports on the future of climate change, they have a tendency to use the worst case scenario to make the case. Journalists have become climate activists, long ago tossing out objectivity. The Nature article suggested that the worst case was also the MOST UNLIKELY. Rather, the article suggested using more realistic scenarios to make policy and report to the public. Mostly the article was ignored, especially by media.

Every year the National Post features a week in June called Junk Science Week. Understandably climate change stories have been at the forefront of that week every year. This year the column written by University of Guelph Prof. Ross McKitrick highlighted the article above from Nature. That was the only press I saw commenting on it.

The onset of the COVID19 Pandemic pulled the world's attention from the fake but widely believed existential crisis of climate change, to a very real existential crisis for humanity. 

It was during the height of the North American Pandemic lockdown in April that a more dramatic and widely publicized event occurred. Film maker Michael Moore released a film onto YouTube for free called Planet of the Humans. It was the story of “green energy,” wind, solar and biomass, written and narrated by a climate catastrophist and friend of Moore's. Yet it was a critical condemnation of low carbon emitting "renewables” or rather “unreliables” as I prefer to call them. The film  exposed the false hope that these alternative energy sources provide, and the lies and corruption that has characterized Green energy advocacy. The fact that Nuclear Plants have no carbon emissions was totally ignored by the film.  But, the film made waves. It was roundly criticized by the environmental left, and eventually removed from YouTube due to protests and for very flimsy reasons. Nevertheless, reposted, the film can be seen here, and it is well worth a view.

But the biggest story so far this year in my opinion was the book and apology by Michael Shellenberger. I first became aware of it by reading a column by John Robson in the National Post, himself a climate change skeptic. Shellenberger is a frequent contributor to Forbes Magazine. His most recent contribution, an apology for the climate change scare, was posted then removed, censored by Forbes, and that was the reason for Robson's column. The apology will warm the cockles of your heart if you are a climate change skeptic. I have no doubt catastrophists will lose their lunch over it. Shellenberger reposted his apology here, on his website. Its a great read! He did an interview with Alex Epstein about the apology here:

Shellenberger has a history of criticizing the environmental movement. For example this TED Talk where he denounces so-called renewables and promotes nuclear power, which is a no-no among lefty environmentalists:

The book Shellenberger wrote is called Apocalypse Never:Why Environmental Alarmism hurts us all, is only available in electronic form, Kindle or Kobo so far (early July 2020) in Canada. It just got published in the States (June 30, 2020). The book is reviewed here by Alex Epstein. It's been well received and is popular and I'm hoping it will begin a retreat from the current anti-human man-made climate change hysteria to a more moderate humanistic form of environmentalism. If the book is widely read and taken seriously, it could change government policies.  

Can governments get off the climate change bandwagon? Events during the Pandemic prove governments can be wrong and change their approach quickly. For example the official view on masks for the general public has gone from they are ineffective and possibly even harmful, to they are now mandatory. Quite a switch, and climate change policies can and should change equally as fast. I hope so.

Pandemic Musings at the end of the beginning.....

We are just half way through 2020. So far its been a blast! I’ve been absent from this blog and my obsession with Climate Change (see previous posts) for many months. Instead I’ve been posting my thoughts and reactions onto Facebook and Twitter. I thought Climate Change would be the big story of the year. Boy was I wrong.


I would not have predicted the Pandemic in January, although by the end of that month and certainly by early February it was becoming increasingly obvious, certainly to me. The W.H.O. finally got around to declaring a Pandemic on March 11, 2020, and thats when my family went into lockdown. The next day the shit literally hit the fan. Since then I’ve learned a lot. Here I’ll share ten things I have learned so far in the Pandemic.....

1. Where we are in this Pandemic? Winston S. Churchill said it best in Nov. 1942 but then in reference to the war with the NAZI's:

“This is not the end, this is not even the beginning of the end, this is just perhaps the end of the beginning.”

COVID19 is here to stay, vaccines, treatments, or not.

2. Don’t just trust the authorities, whether they are public health experts or politicians. They all have ulterior motives that don’t necessarily coincide with your best interests. An example of that of course were the early recommendations from everyone NOT to use masks for a respiratory virus! Unbelievable, and ultimately wrong. The authorities wanted to protect PPE for the front-line workers. Fine, but don’t mislead people, don’t lie. They’re still lying because they’re telling people to use non-medical grade masks. Do your own research, educate yourself and operate on the best facts. Get the best masks you can afford, they will protect you and everyone else.

3. A corollary to number 2 above, the authorities over reacted by forcing lockdowns, destroying the economy and ultimately wreaking havoc on the lives of citizens. The Pandemic in Europe clearly showed us that the elderly and immune compromised were most affected by the virus. The fact that almost 80% of Canadian deaths were among the elderly demonstrates that truth. Predictions that the lockdowns would have negative consequences did come true and have been ignored so far. Huge government and individual debt, business bankruptcies, psychological stress, cancelled medical care, deaths and deterioration due to other medical conditions, and general population unrest, all have come true. The latter - unrest - has exploded into the global reaction to so-called systemic racism.

4. Along with a healthy skepticism of the authorities, be even more skeptical of all the shit thats posted on social media by your friends and self-proclaimed experts.

5. Don’t trust the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for anything, ever. They have lied about the virus, about the extent of the epidemic in China and are still lying. Their “data,” such as it is, should have a giant asterisk beside it. Furthermore labelling Taiwan as a rogue province by the CCP, should be dismissed and Taiwan should be embraced by the free world, just to piss off the CCP if nothing else.

6. Viruses don’t get “created” or accidentally released in labs like the Wuhan Virus Lab. People who make that claim have never worked in a lab or know the difficulties involved. By far the majority of laboratory work, fails. COVID19 was created by nature, it evolved and jumped from an animal (most likely a bat) to a human.

7. Governments should immediately stop flights and travel from countries that have epidemics, especially if they originate in countries that lack press freedoms, like Communist China.

8. To follow up to number 7 above, countries need borders and the ability to control them. I’ve always thought that the idea of “open borders” was a flaw in libertarian thinking. Countries are property, collective property yes, but still property that needs protection. Our border has helped protect Canadians and vigilance needs to be increased. Thats an important function of government.

9. Models are just models, they try but they do not represent reality. The alarming models that were trotted out to predict the course of the Pandemic, were not realized, not even close. I’m reminded of a comment by Science writer Matt Ridley faulting those who referred to “data” taken from climate models. He rightly pointed out that data comes from observations made in reality, not from predictive models, and poor ones at that. Of course this underscores my obsession with climate change whose catastrophic “consequences” are almost entirely based on predictive models and not actual data.

10. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and physical distancing has worked to reduce the “R-naught” (reproductive rate of the virus) in this Pandemic. Masks and scrupulous hygiene techniques do protect and prevent transmission of COVID19. Many will argue about masks. But why? Certainly anyone running a business has the right to require customers wear a mask. I would, just the same as I would require customers to wear clothes and treat other customers with respect in my business. The municipal bylaws requiring masking is probably unnecessary - but no more onerous then requiring seatbelts, hardhats or any other safety equipment in the workplace and other places. Are masks effective? Of course they are, at least to some degree. I doubt anyone reading this would want surgeons working on them or their loved ones without masks. Masks have been routinely used since the late 1800’s.
Think of it this way: imagine being in a crowded elevator with a naked man who starts urinating all over the place. Most in the elevator will get a little wet, but if the man was wearing pants, it would be primarily his problem. Thats what masks do, keep the problem mostly to the wearer.

Take care of yourself, stay safe, we have a  long way to go.

Is there a "climate emergency?"

What emergency?

If you have read my previous two blog posts, you will know my answer to the question in the title is definitively NO! To the contrary, I believe the climate is changing as it always has, and there is little or nothing we are going to do to alter that fact.

Living in Canada we  all know that the weather changes daily, often hourly. But I've lived here long enough to agree that the climate has also changed - in my memory a few times in fact. In my early years I think it was warmer. By the 1970's it was distinctly colder and snowier, so much so that stories appeared in the media of a new ice age that was imminent.  Lately it has become milder, though I could stand for a few more degrees of warmth now that I'm a senior citizen.

That slight uptick in temperature has alarmed many people who claim they know why it is warming and they can stop it if you give them money and completely alter your way of life. Those are big asks, and it seems to me that we need to discuss this before we take drastic action, which seems to be the desire of many organized groups. There are also organized groups that think there is no climate emergency and they would like to discuss this in public. Here is such an event, April 6, 2020, to be held in Calgary AB:

                                           

This group, Friends of Science, is having it's advertising on Facebook thwarted, apparently due to censorship by Facebook. So how to get around that? Well, you can make a  plea to the CEO of Facebook as they have done below, or you can just read my blog.

Why you need to be a climate change skeptic.

Is it really?? Or is it something like a SARS or a Wuhan Virus?

“In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Third Assessment Report (2001), Section 14.2.2.2, page 774.

Yes, that is a real quote from an IPCC report in 2001, and it tells me that long term predictions made by modelling is impossible. If that doesn’t make you instantly skeptical about all the predictions you have heard about climate change, I don’t know what will. So, at the risk of being guilty of piling on, I’m going to try and add to your skepticism using real data, not predictions.

First it’s important to understand that skepticism or uncertainty should be the normal or default position in any science related endeavour. At the very least everyone should reserve some doubt about every issue with regard to science. However, for climate change it is as if we have been given just a binary choice, either one believes that humans are the primary cause of climate change (Anthropogenic Global Warming), or one is a science denier. It’s a false choice and one that no one should be forced to make because there are many degrees of choice. But that is irrelevant today.

In today’s world anyone voicing doubts around the causes of climate change, will invariably be called names, denigrated and worse. The pervasiveness of climate alarmism in our society has made expressions of doubt politically incorrect. Its even worse within the science community. Any doubts raised by those with academic credentials threatens their grant money and worse their livelihood. Intimidation is the watchword in so-called climate science.

Any suggestions that climate change may have a positive or neutral side, are met with derision. It’s all negative. Climate change alarmists are determined to keep global temperature from rising even one half of a degree at any cost, ignoring the fact that the last 1 degree of increase has coincided with the largest rise in human welfare in history. Is that a coincidence? I think not. What about the so-called “greening” effect on the planet? The point is that changes to climate invariably manifest themselves locally and may be beneficial in many instances and detrimental in others. There is no such thing as an optimal climate for Earth as a whole. Earth has been warmer and colder, wetter and drier over its history, and most of the reasons are beyond human control. More on that later.

The purpose of calling skeptics stupid and deniers is to discourage questions and debate, especially among the young regarding the costs versus benefits of mitigation. Not asking questions breeds stupidity. Journalists have been the major contributors to this breeding of stupidity because they not only won't ask questions, they go out of their way to stifle the speech of those that do. 

What’s wrong with the alarmist view is not that the climate is changing or even that humans may have some influence, but the idea that the situation is so dire, that major government policy changes must occur world-wide to mitigate those changes before its too late. At best thats an exaggeration, at worst its just a lie. The bad news is that in the results of the recent Federal election, Canadians demonstrated that they accept the lie, and are willing to accept policy changes that will raise the price of energy even though there is little evidence it will have any impact on climate change.

Predicted change in temperature if USA disappeared in 2012

Even the Paris Climate Accord signed in 2016, and which the Americans have dropped out of, allows several of the signatories to continue to increase their CO2 emissions for another decade. Canada’s efforts to reduce emissions during this time will have virtually no effect on global emissions. Take a look at this graph.

 It was created by an American climate scientist (John Christy) to show what would happen to IPCC models if the USA (which now produces 13.77% of global CO2) disappeared in 2012. Now imagine if it were Canada with our paltry 1.66% contribution of CO2.

This is why its important to consider the veracity of the climate information you are being fed. Much of that information is in the form of misleading graphs. Look at this graph that shows the logarithmic increase in atmospheric CO2 over time. 

Logarithmic increase in CO2 over time

Its much less dramatic when shown like this. 

It's the same graph, but the vertical or Y axis has been extended. 

Increase in CO2 over shorter time

Similarly this graph of temperature is commonly shown by the climate alarmists to prove the rapid increase in temperature and indicate how dire the situation is.

Rapid increase in temperature narrow Y Axis

However, change the vertical axis and voila, the rise in temperature is not scary at all. Imagine if this last graph was shown on newspaper front pages tomorrow. I suspect climate alarmism would collapse.

Temperature over time extended Y Axis

A question that is never asked is how will we know if our efforts to mitigate climate change are working? The short answer is, we probably won’t. Efforts to reduce CO2 emissions have been underway for years in Europe and North America. Have they had an impact? You would be hard pressed to find where that has happened. If CO2 is the cause of global warming and the supposed weather anomalies that are occurring, will we ever see if our efforts are impacting the problem?

One of the most important components of the scientific method is the idea that any hypothesis can be proven wrong either by observation or experimentation. If a hypothesis can’t be proven wrong, then its not science. This is called FALSIFIABILITY. The problem with climate change is that its effects are always so far in the future that most people won’t be around to verify the hypothesis and justify any extraordinary efforts made today. Much of the anxiety around climate change is based on computer models that we must accept on faith that predict dire consequences. One way to test the falsifiability of the hypothesis that CO2 causes climate change is to compare the predictions made thus far by the models to real observations. 
Over the past 40 years the graph shows that the models predict hotter temperatures than the actual observed data. This is more reason to be skeptical about the hypothesis.

Actual change in temperature versus predicted change

However, these days every extreme weather event is seemingly related to climate change. Whether its too hot or too cold, too wet or too dry, too stormy or too calm, all of these random events once attributed to ordinary weather variability, are now linked to climate change. Is it true? The Americans have easy access to this sort of data. This graph shows floods (blue) droughts  (red) in the US since 1895. Do you see significant pattern or trend? I don't.

Floods (blue) Droughts (red) US since 1895

This graph shows global droughts over a 30 year period. Again no pattern or trend, maybe even a decrease.

This graph shows the number 100 degree Fahrenheit plus days, no pattern. In fact it was much hotter in the 1930's and 40's.

What about storms? Is it getting more stormy? 

Here is a graph of tornadoes in the US. Its pretty clear that the most recent data shows fewer tornadoes, and certainly no pattern. 


How about hurricanes globally? 

Again no pattern and maybe even a slight decrease.

Of interest to Canadians is the extent of snow and ice in the Northern Hemisphere.

Again no pattern for snow cover in recent years, and we certainly aren’t getting less cover. 

But this graph of ice at the poles shows a definite pattern.

Less Arctic ice, more Antarctic ice. Why is that? Who knows? Does it indicate that there is a problem? That depends, but it does show that there has been warming - but of course thats been going on since the ice sheets retreated over the northern hemisphere at the end of the last ice age. Maybe this is just a continuation? It does not explain why the Antarctic ice sheet is growing. On the whole the amount of global ice pack is fairly stable as you can see in this final graph.

I hope you can see what I've been driving at during this lengthy tirade. I'm NOT denying climate change, I know something is happening as I knew when I was growing up (see map inset) in the 1950's and 60's on the shoreline of the Glacial Lake Iroquois. Go there and you will find a steep hill towards the South that made bike rides to downtown Toronto very quick as it was all downhill for me. I lived just off a streetcar line and I enjoyed watching the streetcars going north trying to ascend that hill during icy conditions. 

Ah memories, anyway, my point is that there is a great deal of uncertainty which leads me, and maybe you too, to skeptisism around this whole issue of climate change. To extract taxes and base large expenditures of tax money on government policies that are just speculations with no hope of ever seeing benefit is criminal. 

Aside from greenhouse gases like CO2, there are many other well known reasons for climate change. All of those various ice ages had a cause and the cause was related to various astronomical situations like the Earth's orbit, its axial tilt, and its wobble. These are explained very well in this video. 

The creator of the video goes on to explain his position on climate change in a subsequent video. Lets just say he is not an AGW skeptic, but the video above is very well done.

I'm going to give the last word to a local climate scientist. I don't think he is a skeptic, but his answers are honest and get to the heart of my tirade. Is this issue of climate change something we need to worry about or should we confine our worries to global pandemics like the Wuhan Virus or SARS or real issues like pollution and habitat destruction and poverty, disease, war, and so on? You decide.

P.S. For the skeptics, you might enjoy this little piece of fluff....

P.P.S I worry about what our children and grandchildren are being taught. Greta here, for example....

More reading and watching:

William Happer: https://youtu.be/j8KxVQFoyT0

and

https://youtu.be/pHCCE-sw_Sc 

Wrong Predictions on the environment....

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-apocalyptic-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-3/

https://youtu.be/FxNCRgXdINY   From Australia

Read more: Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/12/global_warming_global_cooling_climate_change_climate_emergency_climate_catastrophe_climate_collapse_or_existential_threat.html#ixzz67A0lYqhl

Windmills = useless and dangerous.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10146135/Birdwatchers-see-rare-swift-killed-by-wind-turbine.html 

Mark Steyn and company...

https://youtu.be/FHUHsBnpCj8

Paris accord: https://youtu.be/cVkAsPizAbU

What a reasonable climate change discussion sounds like - Steve Pakin TVO

https://youtu.be/gJwayalLpYY

Matt Ridley: a luke warmist:http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/what-the-climate-wars-did-to-science.aspx#.ViVO5lN-d8k.facebook

Rex Murphy - Religion and AGW

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-the-high-church-of-global-warming

https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/11/11/prominent-geologist-dr-robert-giegengack-dissents-laments-the-hubris-that-leads-us-to-believe-that-we-can-control-climate-denounces-semi-religious-campaign/?fbclid=IwAR2bUqbdRwUvVGDAO74BRUctMBOjzIez1G4FSmt-ewfsiy5V7bvwcnFe76I