This is a summary of articles I’ve written over the years, intended as a reference for questions that should be asked of those who support the man-made climate change narrative.

The Curious Canuck
YouTube: @thecuriouscanuck

If you’d like, you can purchase this as an eBook click here, which includes a table of contents, additional explanations, and expanded questions. Buying the eBook helps support the channel, the website, and my ongoing work. That said, you’re also welcome to copy the article from this post for free — there’s no obligation to purchase.

The document “A Critical Reassessment of the Anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming Hypothesis” is a peer-reviewed scientific paper published in Science of Climate Change (Vol. 5.1, 2025), co-authored by Grok 3 beta—an artificial intelligence developed by xAI—and human researchers Jonathan Cohler, David Legates, Franklin Soon, and Willie Soon. This study takes aim at the cornerstone of modern climate science: the widely accepted hypothesis, championed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that human-generated carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions are the primary driver of global warming. Through a combination of empirical data analysis, isotopic evidence, and critiques of climate modeling, the paper seeks to dismantle this prevailing narrative and propose an alternative explanation rooted in natural climate processes.

Here’s a summary of the paper “A Critical Reassessment of the Anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming Hypothesis” from the provided link: https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-Grok-3-Review-V5-1.pdf

The study, led by Grok 3 beta (an AI developed by xAI) alongside human co-authors Jonathan Cohler, David Legates, Franklin Soon, and Willie Soon, challenges the widely accepted narrative that human carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions are the primary driver of global warming. Published in the journal Science of Climate Change (Vol. 5.1, 2025), this peer-reviewed analysis argues that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) hypothesis is built on shaky foundations—essentially a house of cards that collapses under scrutiny.

The authors assert that human CO₂ emissions, which account for only 4% of the annual carbon cycle, are dwarfed by natural processes like oceanic outgassing and soil respiration. They present evidence suggesting that these emissions are absorbed by oceans and forests within 3-4 years, not lingering for centuries as the IPCC claims. A key example is the 2020 COVID-19 lockdowns, which reduced emissions by 7% (2.4 GtCO₂), yet showed no detectable dip in the Mauna Loa CO₂ curve, implying natural forces dominate atmospheric CO₂ levels.

The paper further critiques the IPCC’s reliance on climate models (e.g., CMIP3, CMIP5, CMIP6), which fail to match unadjusted temperature records and sea ice trends, showing near-zero correlation (R² ≈ 0). It highlights discrepancies in isotopic data, arguing that the carbon isotope signature (δ¹³C) reflects natural fluxes rather than human input. Solar variability and temperature-driven feedbacks are proposed as the real culprits behind climate shifts, not anthropogenic CO₂.

This analysis completely refutes the common belief that human activity is the main cause of global warming, exposing the IPCC’s conclusions as overstated and unsupported by empirical data. The authors call for a paradigm shift, urging scientists and the public to rethink the narrative and focus on natural climate drivers. Far from a minor critique, this study suggests the mainstream view is a fragile construct, ready to topple when faced with unfiltered evidence.

One almost has to wonder what ‘settled science’ they are talking about, and how, in fact, can science even settle? Is that not an oxymoron?

What was the hottest recorded temperature in history? The answer might surprise you

What is the Suess or de Vries cycle? The Suess cycle, or de Vries cycle, is a cycle present in radiocarbon proxies of solar activity with a period of about 210 years.

What takes place when it happens?

Changes in Solar Radiation: Fluctuations in the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth, which can influence global temperatures.

Climate Shifts: Periods of lower solar activity, such as the Maunder Minimum, have been associated with cooler global temperatures, sometimes leading to “mini ice ages.”

Geomagnetic Activity: Variations in solar activity can affect geomagnetic activity, potentially influencing the Earth’s magnetosphere and space weather conditions.

Impact on Weather Patterns: Changes in solar output can alter atmospheric circulation patterns, potentially affecting weather patterns and precipitation distribution.

The last shift was in the early 1800’s so we are in that process now. Does any of this sound familiar? You can easily find all this information online. 

Heatwaves of the Past: 
Europe, Summer of 1540: This summer is known for one of the longest and deadliest heat waves in European history. Many regions experienced prolonged heat and drought conditions, resulting in widespread crop failures and famine. Specific temperature records are not well-documented but historical accounts describe extreme heat and its devastating impact.

Europe, Summer of 1811: This summer was exceptionally hot across Europe. Paris experienced temperatures above 40°C (104°F), and many other parts of the continent reported extreme heat.

Australia, January 1896: During the heatwave of January 1896, Australia experienced some of its hottest temperatures on record. For example, Bourke, New South Wales recorded 49.7°C (121.5°F), and other locations in South Australia and Victoria also reported extreme heat.

North America, Summer of 1934: This summer saw extreme heat across the United States during the Dust Bowl era. 

North America, Summer of 1936: While slightly beyond the 1800s, the summer of 1936 is notable for extreme heat in the United States. Multiple states recorded their highest-ever temperatures during this period. For example, Steele, North Dakota reached 121°F (49.4°C), and Alton, Kansas recorded 121°F (49.4°C).

Great Heatwave of 1913: This heat wave affected parts of the United States and Canada. In July 1913, Death Valley, California recorded a temperature of 134°F (56.7°C), which stands as the highest temperature ever reliably recorded on Earth. Other parts of California and the southwestern United States experienced exceptionally high temperatures during this period.

Here is what they claim is causing anthropogenic climate change. Human activities such as burning fossil fuels for transportation and electricity, deforestation, industrial processes, agriculture (especially livestock farming), waste management, and the use of synthetic gasses all release greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. These gasses trap heat, leading to global warming and climate change. Reducing emissions from these sources is crucial to mitigating climate change and its harmful effects on the planet.

In 1913, the global population was approximately 1.7 to 1.8 billion, accompanied by around 300 million to 400 million cattle. Fast forward to 2024, and the world population has surged to about 8 billion, while cattle numbers have risen to around 1.5 billion. This significant growth in both populations can be attributed to advancements in agriculture and increasing demand for meat and dairy products.

Climate change models indicate that global temperatures are on the rise; however, these models generally rely on data from 1948 onward. To gain a clearer picture of temperature trends, it’s crucial to consider a longer historical timeframe. Moreover, it’s important to recognize that in 1913, emissions were significantly lower, with fewer cars, less reliance on gas and diesel, and a smaller industrial footprint. Even coal-burning trains in 1913 wouldn’t surpass the total amount of pollution and emissions over the last 100 years. Given these factors, it raises questions about why temperatures a century ago might have been higher than today. This discrepancy highlights some very important questions that climate alarmists cannot seem to answer. 

Other cycles and a brief description: 

There are several solar cycles and longer-term patterns that influence solar activity. Here’s a brief description of each:

1. Solar Cycle (11-Year Cycle): This is the most well-known cycle, lasting about 11 years, during which the number of sunspots increases to a maximum before declining back to a minimum. It’s associated with changes in the Sun’s magnetic field and has impacts on solar flares and coronal mass ejections​
2. Hale Cycle (22-Year Cycle): This cycle reflects the magnetic polarity reversal of the Sun’s magnetic field, taking two 11-year solar cycles for the magnetic poles to return to their original configuration. It is also known as the magnetic cycle​
3. Gleissberg Cycle (70-100 Years): This cycle describes a longer-term modulation in the amplitude of the 11-year solar cycle, impacting the strength and length of solar maxima and minima over decades​
4. Suess or de Vries Cycle (200-210 Years): This cycle is identified in radiocarbon records and indicates changes in solar activity over a period of about 200-210 years. It reflects variations in the Sun’s output that can influence Earth’s climate over centuries​
5. Hallstatt Cycle (2,200-2,400 Years): This very long cycle has been detected in cosmogenic isotope records like carbon-14 and beryllium-10, suggesting shifts in solar activity over millennia​. It is named after a period in European history when the climate cooled significantly.

Could the so called man-made ‘climate change’ simply be a result of the Suess or de Vries cycle doing what it naturally does? If man made climate change is worse today, as climate alarmists claim, why are current temperatures not surpassing those recorded in the early 19th century?

When you encounter a climate alarmist ask them when was the hottest recorded temperature in history? Also ask them what is the Suess or de Vries cycle? 

The Paradox of Believing in Man-Made Climate Change but Denying Geoengineering

It’s interesting to observe how many people fully accept the idea that human activity has drastically altered our climate. They believe that industrial pollution, deforestation, and the burning of fossil fuels have contributed significantly to changes in weather patterns, global temperatures, and rising sea levels. And yet, when it comes to the concept of geoengineering—deliberately manipulating weather and climate—the reaction often shifts to skepticism or outright denial. This disconnect reveals an oxymoron that’s worth exploring. We are just simply using the climate alarmist own logic here.

Let’s break it down:

1. Man-Made Climate Change:
   • The consensus among many climate alarmist is that human activities, like emitting CO2 and other greenhouse gases, have led to global warming and a range of extreme weather events. Essentially, we have unintentionally altered our climate through industrial actions over the past century.
   • This belief hinges on the idea that humans, through activities like burning fossil fuels or deforestation, have a massive impact on the Earth’s climate.
2. Geoengineering:
   • Geoengineering involves intentional efforts to alter the climate through techniques like cloud seeding, releasing aerosols into the atmosphere, or even building massive solar reflectors. The goal? To counteract climate change effects or manipulate weather patterns.
   • It’s essentially using technology and scientific methods to have a direct impact on the environment and weather.

Now, here’s the paradox: If you believe that human activities can unintentionally cause significant climate change, doesn’t that imply that it’s also possible for humans to intentionally alter the climate? After all, if you believe and many do, unintentional industrial emissions can change global temperatures, why is it so hard to accept that deliberate interventions could do the same?

Common Arguments and the Contradictions:

• Argument 1: “Climate change is real, but geoengineering is a conspiracy theory.”
  • If industrial pollution can raise temperatures over decades, why couldn’t similar actions, intentionally directed, manipulate rainfall, or affect atmospheric conditions? The scientific principles aren’t that different—it’s just a matter of intent.
• Argument 2: “Geoengineering is dangerous and could have unpredictable consequences.”
  • Sure, but isn’t that true of the unintended climate change we’re experiencing now? Whether through unregulated industrial activity or a calculated scientific approach, the idea is the same: human actions can affect the Earth’s atmosphere.
• Argument 3: “Geoengineering sounds like science fiction!”
  • And yet, many of the climate events we’ve been experiencing—like melting glaciers, devastating wildfires, and increasingly powerful hurricanes—were also things that might have seemed like science fiction a few decades ago. The reality is that technology and human capability have advanced significantly.

The Bigger Picture:

This contradiction highlights a broader issue of selective belief. Many are comfortable with the narrative that humans are altering the climate—so long as it fits into the broader story of environmental decline. But the idea that we might actively engineer solutions or even manipulate weather patterns doesn’t fit as neatly into that narrative, so it’s often dismissed without deeper consideration. No one wants to even ask the question of weather based warfare. 

At its core, this paradox challenges us to be consistent in our thinking. If we accept that humans have been powerful enough to unintentionally impact the Earth’s climate, then we should also recognize that deliberate efforts could do the same—whether for good or for ill.

It’s not about whether geoengineering is a good or bad idea—that’s a debate on its own—but rather about acknowledging the logical consistency (or inconsistency) in our beliefs. If we accept one, we should at least be open to the possibility of the other. This article is just using climate change’s own logic and applying it to common sense, you cannot accept one without believing the other.

Common Sense Has Died on the Altar of Climate Change

Once upon a time, common sense roamed free—questioning policies, weighing costs, and demanding practical solutions. But alas, it has now been sacrificed at the altar of climate change. Instead of balanced discussions, we get doomsday predictions, carbon taxes, and lectures from celebrities with private jets. Canadians claim they live in one of the most mineral-rich countries in the world, yet they restrict its use just so they can virtue signal to the rest of the world about how eco-friendly they are.

Welcome to the brave new world. Let’s explore climate change predictions and how accurate they have been in the past.

Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth Turned Out to Be an Inconvenient Lie

As expected, none of his predictions came to pass. Yet, like clockwork, the world gets a fresh batch of apocalyptic warnings every 7–10 years—just as it has for the last 50 years.

Al Gore’s Predictions in An Inconvenient Truth

1. Arctic Ice Could Be Gone by 2013

• Claim: Gore cited scientists saying the Arctic could be ice-free in summer by 2013.
• Reality: The Arctic still has summer ice. While ice levels fluctuate, they have not disappeared. In fact, 2023 had more Arctic ice than in some previous years.

2. Rising Sea Levels Will Flood Major Cities

• Claim: Rising sea levels would flood places like Manhattan, San Francisco, and Florida, displacing millions.
• Reality: Sea levels have risen slightly (a few millimeters per year), but no major cities have been submerged. Gore himself bought a $9 million beachfront mansion in California in 2010—odd for someone who believes the coastlines are doomed.

3. More Frequent and Intense Hurricanes

• Claim: Global warming would increase both the frequency and intensity of hurricanes.
• Reality:
  • Frequency: Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) indicates that the number of hurricanes has not shown a significant upward trend. For example, the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season was notably inactive, with only two hurricanes forming, one of which made landfall in the U.S. (epa.gov).
  • Intensity: While the overall number of hurricanes has remained relatively stable, there is evidence suggesting that the intensity of hurricanes has increased in certain regions. Research indicates that hurricane intensification rates near the U.S. Atlantic coast have increased significantly over the last 40 years (noaa.gov).
  • Early ice age stages bring stronger storms, extreme weather, and shifting jet streams. What we’re seeing aligns more with entering an ice age than with the warming phase we’ve been told to expect.
  • The Suess/de Vries cycle (210 years) affects climate patterns very similarly to what we are being told climate change is causing, but it is rarely considered.
  • Reliable storm data only goes back ~70 years, so long-term trends remain unknown.
  • Intense storms may have occurred in the past, but the lack of data means we can’t compare.
  • If natural cycles aren’t factored in, current climate conclusions could be flawed.

4. The Snows of Kilimanjaro Will Disappear

• Claim: Gore warned that Mount Kilimanjaro’s snow would vanish due to climate change.
• Reality: Kilimanjaro still has snow in 2024. Changes in precipitation, not just temperature, play a role.

5. CO₂ Levels Will Cause a Global Temperature Spike

• Claim: Rising CO₂ levels would lead to catastrophic temperature increases.
• Reality: While CO₂ has risen, global temperatures have not increased as dramatically as predicted. Many climate models have overstated warming trends.

6. Climate Refugees Will Be in the Millions

• Claim: By 2020, millions of “climate refugees” would flee uninhabitable regions.
• Reality: No mass climate migration has occurred. The UN quietly removed its prediction of 50 million climate refugees by 2010 when it didn’t happen.
• Meanwhile, the only migration crisis in Canada is the one created by the Trudeau Liberals.

1970s: The Coming Ice Age

• Prediction: Scientists warned of a new Ice Age.
• Source: Newsweek, April 28, 1975 (“The Cooling World”).
• Reality: By the 1980s, the narrative shifted to global warming.

1980s: Acid Rain Will Destroy Forests

• Prediction: Acid rain would wipe out forests in the U.S. and Europe.
• Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
• Reality: While acid rain was a concern, it did not cause the catastrophic deforestation predicted. Many forests thrived.

1989: Rising Sea Levels Will Flood Nations by 2000

• Prediction: The UN warned that global warming would wipe out nations by 2000.
• Source: Associated Press, June 29, 1989 (“UN Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked”). (APNews)
• Reality: No island nations disappeared. Some have actually increased in land size due to natural sedimentation.

2000: Snowfall Will Be a Thing of the Past

• Prediction: UK scientist Dr. David Viner said snowfall would soon be rare.
• Source: The Independent, March 20, 2000 (“Snowfalls Are Now Just a Thing of the Past”).
• Reality: The UK and other regions continue to see regular snowfall, with some years setting records.

2006: Al Gore’s “10-Year Doomsday”

• Prediction: An Inconvenient Truth warned of irreversible climate damage within 10 years.
• Source: Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth, 2006.
• Reality: Ten years passed. No irreversible damage. Gore bought a beachfront mansion despite warning about rising sea levels.

2007: The Arctic Will Be Ice-Free by 2013

• Prediction: NASA scientist James Hansen predicted Arctic ice would disappear.
• Source: The Guardian, December 12, 2007 (“Arctic Summers Ice-Free ‘By 2013′”). (The Guardian)
• Reality: Arctic ice still exists, with some years even seeing growth.

2009: Prince Charles’ “100-Months to Save the World”

• Prediction: The world had just “100 months” to act before irreversible climate disaster.
• Source: The Telegraph, March 9, 2009 (“The Prince of Wales Says We Have Just 100 Months to Act”). (The Telegraph)
• Reality: 100 months later (2017), the world was still here, and Prince Charles moved on to other causes.

2014: The Great Barrier Reef Is Dying

• Prediction: Climate change and bleaching would wipe out the reef.
• Source: Various climate reports.
• Reality: The reef saw record-high coral cover in 2022 and 2023. (Australian Institute of Marine Science)

2019: Greta Thunberg’s “Point of No Return”

• Prediction: The world had only a few years left before irreversible collapse.
• Source: Greta Thunberg, UN Speech, 2019.
• Reality: No climate collapse. Fossil fuel usage is at record highs. (IEA.org)

Same Fear, Different Deadline

For over 50 years, climate alarmists have simply moved the goalposts when past claims fail. Whether it’s disappearing Arctic ice, sinking cities, vanishing snow, or fictional climate refugees, every doomsday deadline gets a reboot when reality doesn’t cooperate.

Yet, every new proclamation is treated as gospel—urgent and unassailable—despite the trail of failed predictions behind them. If the past is any measure of the future, we can rest assured that we have nothing to worry about.

They might as well employ a psychic—after all, they’re right at least 5% of the time.

Common sense has become lost in the haze of this belief. No amount of evidence or failure on the part of climate alarmists seems to deter them. Their narrative is as unyielding as ever—it’s become cult-like, the new religion. And like any religion, doubt is heresy.

Conclusion
As the climate debate rages on, it’s clear that common sense has taken a backseat to apocalyptic narratives and political agendas. With each failed prediction, the climate alarmist community only doubles down, ignoring the glaring discrepancies between their forecasts and reality. From the exaggerated warnings of rising sea levels to the dire predictions of vanishing ice caps, the relentless cycle of fear-mongering has continued for decades, yet the outcomes rarely align with the claims. In this environment, critical thinking is often sidelined, replaced by a cult-like adherence to a narrative that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. For a group that claims the science is settled, they cannot seem to reconcile their repeated failures with their unwavering demands for immediate action. It’s time to reassert the importance of facts, skepticism, and practical solutions over alarmist rhetoric. Climate discussions should be rooted in evidence, not hysteria, so we can find genuine, balanced solutions to the challenges we face without sacrificing reason.

References: Here are the references used in the post:

1. “The Cooling World” – Newsweek, April 28, 1975.
   • This article discussed concerns about global cooling and its potential impacts.
   • Link: https://iseethics.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/the-cooling-world-newsweek-april-28-1975.pdf
2. “UN Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked” – Associated Press, June 29, 1989.
   • A senior U.N. environmental official warned that entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if global warming trends were not reversed by the year 2000.
   • Link: https://apnews.com/article/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
3. “How the ‘Global Cooling’ Story Came to Be” – Scientific American, August 20, 2014.
   • This article examines the origins and impact of the 1975 Newsweek article on global cooling.
   • Link: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/
4. “Global Cooling” – Wikipedia.
   • An overview of the global cooling hypothesis and its history.
   • Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
5. “Did UN Official Say Nations Would Vanish If Global Warming Not Reversed by 2000?” – Snopes, May 2, 2018.
   • A fact-checking article discussing the 1989 prediction by a U.N. official regarding nations disappearing due to rising sea levels.
   • Link: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nations-vanish-global-warming/
6. “The Global Warming Apocalypses That Didn’t Happen” – Cato Institute, January 7, 2013.
   • This article discusses various global warming predictions that did not come to pass.
   • Link: https://www.cato.org/commentary/global-warming-apocalypses-didnt-happen
7. “World on ‘thin ice’ as UN climate report gives stark warning” – Associated Press, March 20, 2023.
   • A report on the United Nations’ warnings about the current state of climate change.
   • Link: https://apnews.com/article/un-climate-change-report-ipcc-guterres-science-30d8451c0f3fb7b8a857e3ed4fd01172
8. “History of climate change science” – Wikipedia.
   • A comprehensive overview of the development of climate change science.
   • Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science
9. “My 1975 ‘Cooling World’ Story Doesn’t Make Today’s Climate Scientists Wrong” – Inside Science, October 23, 2006.
   • The author of the original 1975 Newsweek article reflects on its impact and the evolution of climate science.
   • Link: https://ww2.aip.org/inside-science/my-1975-cooling-world-story-doesnt-make-todays-climate-scientists-wrong
10. “Global cooling” – Wikipedia.
    • An overview of the global cooling hypothesis and its history.
    • Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
11. “New evidence of the Suess/de Vries cycle existing in historical naked-eye observations of sunspots” by Lihua Ma and José M. Vaquero (2020): https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/astro-2020-0004/pdf
12. “Evidence for solar cycles in a late Holocene speleothem record from the Central Asian Mountains and their global link” by J. M. Vaquero et al. (2014): https://www.nature.com/articles/srep05159
13. “Solar forcing of the Indian summer monsoon variability during the Holocene” by J. M. Vaquero et al. (2011): https://www.nature.com/articles/srep02753
14. “Holocene centennial variability in sea surface temperature and salinity in the western tropical Pacific” by J. M. Vaquero et al. (2022): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-19050-6
15. “Holocene centennial to millennial shifts in North-Atlantic storminess linked to solar variability” by J. M. Vaquero et al. (2018): https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-29949-8

A Harsh Reality: Why Local Climate Action in Canada, Won’t Move the Global Needle

This article uses climate change logic and an analysis of the global impact if 100% of the recommended measures by climate alarmists to fight climate change were implemented across Canada. It is just a reality check on the climate change agenda and the math doesn’t add up.  

If all Canadians were to completely stop using gas, diesel, oil, and propane and implement every recommended solution for fighting climate change, the reality is stark: the global impact would be negligible. While it might make headlines and offer politicians a chance to pat themselves on the back, the truth is that even the most aggressive actions by Canada alone wouldn’t move the needle significantly on global climate change.

1. A Drop in the Ocean

• Global Emissions Reality: Canada’s contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions is around 1.5-2%. Even if all levels of Government and every citizen banded together and went entirely green, that fraction remains unchanged. Global giants like China, the U.S., and India account for a massive chunk of emissions. Without these major emitters making substantial, unified efforts, Canada’s sacrifices would be like trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon.
• Marginal Impact: Let’s be real: reducing Canada’s emissions to zero won’t significantly alter global temperature trends. The direct temperature effect globally would be so minimal that it might not even be measurable. 

2. The Harsh Truth

• Municipal Efforts: All municipalities are leading the way in climate action—relying on solar farms, electrifying public transit, and cutting fossil fuel use—the reality is that their impact is practically invisible on the global stage. They could implement every climate policy in the book, but without substantial global cooperation, it would remain just another small contributor to what they describe as a colossal problem.
• Cooperation Isn’t Enough: Municipalities across Canada could work together and share best practices, invest in green infrastructure, and champion local initiatives, but the truth remains: unless major global emitters do the same, these local efforts are more symbolic than effective. Symbolism doesn’t cool the planet if you agree with their logic of greenhouse gas emissions causing it.

3. Skepticism About Global Commitment

• False Sense of Progress: Encouraging us to embrace all-out climate initiatives might make them feel progressive, but without international alignment, it could foster a dangerous illusion that “we’re doing our part,” while it changes nothing on the global scale. We often hear the phrase, “every little bit helps,” but in this case, even if Canadians gave 100%, it wouldn’t amount to even a ‘little bit…’

4. Economic and Lifestyle Costs with Little Gain

• High Costs, Low Return: Transitioning every home, business, and vehicle in Canada to renewable energy isn’t cheap. These municipalities would bear high economic costs for infrastructure changes, and residents would need to adjust their lifestyles. The result? A marginal dent in emissions that wouldn’t even register on the global scale.
• Burden on Residents: Canadians might end up shouldering the financial burden of being “climate leaders” without seeing any tangible global effects. Higher costs for green energy, increased taxes for funding initiatives, and disrupted local economies would come without the payoff of meaningful global climate change mitigation. Effectually a colossal waste of money. 

5. The Harsh Bottom Line

• Tokenism vs. Real Change: Unless major emitters join the fight meaningfully, and every other Canadian municipality could go net-zero, and global emissions would continue to rise. The sad reality is that climate change is a global issue as they will tell you, that needs coordinated global solutions. Local action, no matter how well-intentioned, is simply not enough to move the needle on a problem of this magnitude.
• No Illusions: For Canadians, implementing ambitious climate solutions might create local environmental benefits and set an example, but on the world stage, it’s just not going to cut it. The hard truth is that without a seismic shift in international climate policy, all the efforts at home are little more than gestures.

It’s important to note that implementing any form of tax at any level of government to reduce global emissions is not a legitimate climate change strategy; it’s merely a tax policy and cannot achieve the promised outcomes.

In summary, while Canadians may implement local environmental programs, their efforts alone won’t significantly alter the trajectory of global climate change. This harsh reality is often ignored and rarely addressed at any level of government in Canada. Feel free to fact-check this post on ChatGPT or any AI platform.

The harsh reality is that Canadians will spend billions in taxes at the federal and provincial levels and millions at the municipal levels, with little to show for it aside from perhaps the ability to boast about how green they have become. Many don’t want to hear that, they won’t like that, but that is the harsh reality.

This is a summary of articles I have written over the years and can be used as a reference for questions that should be asked of those supporting the man-made climate change narrative.

Sign up and stay connected

Email Address

Should we get shut down on any platform we can still contact you