Trump Transition Will be a Tsunami Washing Away Climate Corruption.

Guest post by Dr. Tim Ball ©2017

Many people, including my wife, ask why I continue to fight for the truth about the greatest deception in history, the claim that humans are causing global warming. The answer is simple; I don’t want any politician to be able to say they weren’t told. I have written a multitude of articles in every medium possible, published books, done countless radio and TV interviews, and given hundreds of public lectures. It is in the record and readily available with the simplest of Internet searches. If they didn’t know, they didn’t look very hard or were deliberately selective.


Despite that, there were times when I questioned the efficacy of my actions. This was brought home recently when in one of the many Internet interviews I do with students around the world a young woman asked if, in retrospect, I would follow the same path. After very little contemplation I said no and quoted the old saying that if the world wants to be fooled, let it be fooled. However, I then added, that it is of no consequence because of the path already taken and so you must follow Winston Churchill’s dictum.


“Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.” 


Nothing has happened to challenge my “honour or good sense.” Indeed, I steadfastly kept the idea in the front of my mind that if evidence of ‘good sense’ appeared that showed I was wrong, I had to be the first to announce it to the world.


Over the last 40 years, I saw events come and go that I thought would expose the greatest deception in history: The claim that human CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming, known as anthropogenic global warming (AGW). I kept thinking and hoping that something or someone would appear to expose the entire thing. It needed an event or person who could go to the heart of the problem that was established and firmly protected within the realm of government. I watched the Chapter Eight debacle in which sections of a final report agreed on by the committee were drastically altered when it was released to the world. I thought the leaked emails, first 1000, then 5000 and finally 220,000 from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) that became the control centre for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) would open people’s eyes. The exposure of malfeasance, collusion, and manipulation of data, publications and even scientific journals should have stopped the corruption. It didn’t.


The disclosures should have converted the valiant supporters of the IPCC and CRU. It didn’t. For the few of us who already knew, it was just confirmation. It is a measure of the tunnel vision of left-wing ideology that the Guardian reporter George Monbiot, a strong supporter of both agencies and their work wrote,


It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.


But this didn’t trigger a campaign by him to demand the truth as it would in a less doctrinaire person. As Clive Crook wrote in The Atlantic


I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best, they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst, they are patently incompetent and even willfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.”


I thought the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) that exposed the corrupt activities of the central scientists at the IPCC would stop the juggernaut. Instead, they hired PR people and set up controlled whitewash investigations as Crook noted. None of it stopped and only marginally slowed the AGW deception. The marginal delay occurred because the emails were leaked in November 2009, a month before the Conference of the Parties (COP) 15 meeting in Copenhagen that planned to agree on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. A year later COP 16 in Durban, South Africa, they approved the replacement for Kyoto, the great socialist transfer of wealth scheme based on use and abuse of CO2, with the Green Climate Fund (GCF).  Too many people had too much invested, and most of the public didn’t understand what was happening.


A major factor in perpetuating the deception was the claim that 97 percent of scientists agreed. This was another falsehood deliberately created to perpetuate the myth. A Queensland University researcher claimed to have surveyed 11,944 papers and concluded 97.1% expressed an opinion supporting climate change. In fact, by their definition, only 41 agreed with their hypothesis or 0.3%.  The only 97% figure of relevance is the 97% who have never looked at the IPCC science.


The 3 % who have, were shocked. For example, Emeritus Professor of physics, the late Hal Lewis wrote in his resignation letter to the American Physical Society (APS) in October 2010


“the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”


German meteorologist and physicist Klaus-Eckart Puls had a similar experience as he explained.


“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”


For most, it is so bad they think they are misreading it, so they reach out to others for confirmation. This was the experience of people like Albert Jacobs who contacted me several years ago to speak to a small group of Albertans. Their concern about the proposed Kyoto Protocol led to examining the scientific justification and found it wanting.  I met the group at the Calgary airport and after convincing them that the science was worse than they surmised the discussion turned to the real issue. Should they stick strictly to the science or be aware that the issue was science corrupted and used for a political agenda. The other issue was making the science understandable to the 80% of the public who are Arts students. To their credit, they stuck to the science and did it with great success.


A few years later I got a call from Malcolm Roberts a recently retired Australian engineer and businessman who also looked at the climate science. I helped him work with others to create the Galileo Movement, an organization that has achieved the same impact as Friends of Science. Malcolm wanted to become proactive, and as we communicated, he became aware that the real problem was in the deliberate use of bureaucrats. He learned that Maurice Strong set up the IPCC through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and as Strong knew the politicians and public would not challenge the bureaucrats. This culminated in Roberts running for office under a new Australian Party banner – One Nation.


Meanwhile, he also learned that everything presented to the public was computer generated; there was not a shred of empirical evidence to support the AGW hypothesis. His campaign as the Senator from Queensland was successful, and his maiden speech started the search for empirical evidence. To my knowledge, it is the first open challenge to the bureaucrats who control the global warming agenda by a politician. He asked the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), the agency responsible for climate change, to produce empirical evidence for global warming.


They produced a report that failed to provide any evidence. Instead, they countered with English TV celebrity Brian Cox showing a temperature graph from NASA GISS showing the temperature rising. Apparently, he didn’t know that a temperature graph is not empirical evidence of AGW. Worse, he didn’t know the graph was altered to exaggerate the gradient. If he had done even minimal research, he would have come across Tony Heller’s explanation of what and how the ‘adjustments’ were made to create exaggerated warming. Because of these events Senator Roberts arranged for Tony and me to appear with him at the Australian Parliament with a public presentation. The Senator spoke about the failure of CSIRO to provide empirical evidence. Tony explained the extent of the corruption of the temperature data, and I provided the entire development and objective of the AGW deception from the Club of Rome through Agenda 21 and the IPCC.


Then, as the ancients would say, the stars aligned. While in Australia with Senator Roberts Donald Trump won the US Presidential election. It will change everything, but especially with the climate corruption. A measure of Trump’s acumen and developer’s sense was that he appointed various people to head transition teams before the election. He knew you need everything ready to go on the first day of construction. Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), who both Tony and I knew, was appointed to lead the transition team dealing with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and climate change. He invited the three of us to appear at a meeting on Capitol Hill to make similar presentation to those we made in Australia.


We appeared on the Hill on December 12 before Senators, Congressmen, Aides, and members of the public. We then went to the CEI to participate in discussions with a group called “Cooler Heads” that included other members of the EPA transition team. Considerable discussion ensued with many questions related to positive actions. President-elect Trump wants clean air and water, so some form of EPA is required. What is not needed are bureaucrats creating regulations and enforcement without scientific evidence for a political agenda.


It is likely Trump will advocate withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement.  Ironically, because of Obama’s need to bypass the US Senate, it was an Agreement, not a Treaty. Then, to satisfy less committed nations and reach an agreement for the publicity it was made non-binding. This means the US can walk away and there is nothing any other nation can do.


The exploitation of environmental concerns and global warming to push a political agenda is coming to an end. Control of bureaucracies is critical because they are the massive army of unaccountable control. As American author and social commentator, Mary McCarthy said,


Bureaucracy, the rule of no one, has become the modern form of despotism.


Two actions are required to drain the Washington environmental and climate change swamp; reduction of funding and changes to legislation. Both are scheduled for implementation by the Trump administration under the guidance of the transition teams. Nothing cleans out a swamp better and quicker than a tsunami.



Dr. Ball’s latest book is available on Amazon.

Why are Tax-Subsidized Charities David Suzuki Foundation and Ecojustice Making False and Misleading Statements on Pipelines and Oil? We Complain to CRA



On Dec. 17, 2016, The David Suzuki Foundation, a registered Canadian charity, sent an email to subscribers claiming that “Pipeline approvals expose broken environmental assessment process” – that same day Ecojustice Canada Society, a registered Canadian charity, sent an email to subscribers claiming “Research shows that approving the Kinder Morgan pipeline will be a death sentence for the Salish Sea orcas.”  No factual support was offered for either statement. No balanced statements were provided regarding the benefits of this economic activity. Readers were requested to donate.

Registered charities are given the privilege of issuing tax receipts to donors on the principle that the charities are performing a public benefit, and this privilege comes with certain obligations which include presenting balanced and factual information.  Likewise, there are certain guidelines and rules about activities that affect public markets and national policies.

Consequently, in our opinion, the messages these charities sent are not simple matters of Freedom of Speech – especially when their tax-subsidized activities are blocking taxpaying workers and industries from performing federally approved activities.

Thousands of Canadians are out of work. The federal approval of the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion and Enbridge Line 3 have been subject to detailed review.

We have two reports on moving oil by pipeline and tanker.  We hope the Canadian public will review this factual information.



Both charities also claim in these and related documents that building pipelines will prevent a ‘low-carbon’ future when such a thing is not in the realm of reality. According to the International Energy Agency:

“In 2014, the shares of primary energy supply by energy source were: oil, 31.3%; coal, 28.8%; natural gas, 21.0 %; biofuels and waste, 10.3%; nuclear, 4.8%; hydro, 2.4%; and “other”, including all renewables energy sources, 1.4%.” 

Likewise, renewable energy will not replace fossil fuels anytime soon.

Climate change and energy policies have significant consequences for individual people as well as for the nation’s economy.  The discussion should be based on facts and evidence.

One fact is that no wind or solar devices can exist without massive volumes of oil, natural gas and coal.  So, if we follow the logic of these charities to “keep it in the ground,” we will have no power or energy sources at all. How is that in the national interest? What is the public benefit?


The Energy “Subsidy” Debate – Some Additional Fuel for the Fire

Contributed by Robert Lyman © 2016

One of the recurring side debates that always seems to rage between those who favour large public spending to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and those who argue that such expenditures are not justified concerns whether energy markets are already “distorted” by existing subsidies to fossil fuel industries.

There are many complex elements to this debate, including the question of what actually constitutes a “subsidy”, who benefits from it (producers or consumers?), whether the costs of environmental effects caused or avoided should be included in the calculations, whether tax subsidies (i.e. deductions and credit that provide incentives for investment) should be weighed against the revenue received by governments when the investments occur, and so on. There are few simple answers.

With that preamble, I think John Petersen, a lawyer and investment analyst with special expertise in energy storage technologies, has provided some valuable additional information in his recent article on the subsidies provided by United States governments to Tesla Corporation and its counterpart SolarCity (both owned largely by Elon Musk). Tesla manufactures electric cars (EVs) and SolarCity manufactures the batteries needed by EVs and other users. The details of Petersen’s calculations can be found in his article here:

The combined U.S. federal subsidies to Tesla and SolarCity per vehicle sold in 2015 include $2,400 for the solar panels, $2,100 for energy storage technologies, $2,250 for GHG emission credits, and $7,500 for EV investment tax credits, for a total of $14,250. In addition, in states like California that offer zero emission vehicle (ZEV) tax credits, each vehicle sold qualifies for a $7,750 tax credit. The combined federal-state subsidy is thus $22,000.

If you assume that an average EV will save 600 gallons of fuel per year during a ten-year useful life, the combined subsidies work out to $3.67 per avoided U.S. gallon in ZEV states and $2.38 per avoided gallon in non-ZEV states. That is equivalent to $413 per tonne of GHGs avoided in ZEV states and $268 per tonne avoided in non-ZEV states.

Petersen also offers some comparative information on federal subsidies provided to different energy sources produced in the United States, based on data from the Energy Information Administration for 2013 (the most recent year available).

The following table shows the subsidies paid, the energy produced in 2013 from that source, and the subsidy per million British Thermal Units (BTU) to provide a common standard of comparison.

U.S. Federal Subsidies to Energy Production 2013

Energy Source                       Subsidies        Energy Production    Subsidies per

(millions)            (trillion BTU)              MMBTU

Coal                                            $1,085                     20,209                    $0.05

Oil and Natural Gas              $2,346                     43,695                    $0.05

Hydropower                                $395                      2,579                    $0.15

Nuclear                                      $1,660                      8,117                    $0.20

Biofuels                                     $2,445                      4,495                    $0.54

Geothermal                                  $345                         220                     $1.57

Wind                                           $5,936                      1,549                    $3.83

Solar                                           $5,328                         286                   $18.63

For comparison, the current spot price of natural gas in the United States is $2.96 per MMBTU.

Petersen notes that it is not entirely fair to compare subsidies in one year to the production in that year, as the subsidies are intended to increase production over time, and it takes several years in some cases before the up front investment results in production. Still, the difference in magnitude between the per-BTU subsidies to conventional fossil fuels and the renewable fuels is striking. For example, the per-BTU subsidies to wind producers are 76 times as high as the subsidies to coal, oil and natural gas.

It is unfortunate that comparable information is not available for Canada.



Contributed by Robert Lyman © 2016

Those who believe that humans are causing catastrophic global warming often claim that the world will soon no longer need oil as a transportation fuel because of increased fuel economy, reduced vehicle ownership and the emergence of all-electric “plug-in” vehicles as a major share of the world vehicle market. To achieve their goals, they insist that all-electric vehicles must constitute 60% of new vehicle sales by 2040, 24 years from now.


There is no doubt that, during the past decade, there have been significant improvements in the fuel economy of new light-duty vehicles. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, since 2004 the fuel economy of cars has increased by 23% and that of light duty trucks (SUVs) by 27%.  These improvements will probably continue and extend to heavy-duty trucks, although not at the same rates.


To test the other claims, however, one can refer to the statistics published by the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA). On its web site

(, OICA publishes a wide range of data, including those showing the trends over the past ten year period for which full information is available (2005 to 2014) on vehicle use and sales. To simplify the results, I summarize in the following tables the data under different categories for years 2005, 2009, and 2014. 2009 is both the mid-point of the period and the year during which the effect of the 2008 global crisis was very strongly felt.


Table 1

Personal Vehicles in Use (millions)

Region                                2005               2009               2014

                  Europe                                 277                  298                  328

NAFTA                                 165                  173                  168

South and Central

America                                 37                    47                    63

Asia, Oceania&

Middle East                           157                  207                  318

Africa                                      18                    23                    29

World                                    654                   748                 907


These figures reveal several interesting points. The trends in terms of personal vehicle (PV) use vary widely from one region to another. In the NAFTA area (i.e. Canada, the United States and Mexico), total vehicle use grew from 2005 to 2009, but then the consequence of the financial crisis and perhaps other trends (such as the increasing tendency of younger people to live in city cores without owning cars) have been a reduction in PV use. North American PV use still increased by 3 million, or 1.8%, over the decade. In every other region, PV use consistently grew. Even in Europe, about which one hears so much about energy transformation, PV use grew by 51 million vehicles, or 18.4%. The largest growth by far was in Asia, Oceania and the Middle East, where PV use grew by 161 million vehicles, more than doubling the 2005 total. The growth in this region’s PV use in one decade almost equaled the total number of vehicles in use in the NAFTA region in 2005. For the world as a whole, total PV use grew by 253 million, or about 39%. This was during a period marked by the worst recession since the Great Depression.


Trends in PV use, of course, do not tell the whole story. One should examine also the trends in the use of all road motor vehicles including light and heavy trucks and buses. The following table shows statistics on the use of all road vehicles over the 2005-2014 period.


Table 2

All Road Vehicles in Use (millions)

Region                                 2005               2009               2014

Europe                                    322                 348                  382

NAFTA                                    278                 299                  317

South and Central

America                                    50                   64                    87

Asia, Oceania &

Middle East                            217                 276                  408

Africa                                        26                   34                    43

World                                     893               1,021                1,236

The number of trucks in use is a good index of the volume of commercial trade, so it is notable that, while the statistics for all regions show growth (especially in Asia), in most cases the rates of growth for commercial vehicles (CV) is slower than for PVs.


OICA also publishes a set of statistics that provide an insight into the potential for future growth in vehicle use. This is the “motorization rate”, or the number of vehicles (i.e. both PVs and CVs) per thousand inhabitants.


Table 3

Motorization Rate (2014)

Region                                     Rate

Europe                                   464

NAFTA                                    661

South and Central

America                                  176

Asia, Oceania &

Middle East                            100

Africa                                          44

World                                       180


This shows how “vehicle-centric” the North American economies are, with two-thirds as many vehicles as there are people. The reduction in PV use there from 2009 to 2014 made only a small dent in the high use rates. In Asia, even the immense increases in vehicle use over the past decade have not raised vehicle usage rates there anywhere close to the motorization rates of even Latin America, let alone Europe and the NAFTA region. The potential for growth in vehicle usage in Asia and then Africa is enormous, economic conditions and government policies permitting.


The final set of OICA statistics to note show trends are new vehicle sales. These are shown in Table 4.


Table 4

Total New Vehicle Sales (million)

Region                               2005               2009               2014  

Europe                                 21                    19                    19

NAFTA                                 20                    13                    20

South and Central

 America                                  3                      6                       6

Asia, Oceania &

Middle East                          20                    28                     43

Africa                                      1                       1                        2

World                                    66                     66                    88


These sales figures show more clearly how the global financial crisis dampened new vehicles sales in Europe and North America, while sales continued to grow in all other parts of the world. Even in North America, however, new vehicle sales have fully recovered to their pre-crisis levels.


The final set of figures to consider is those of all-electric vehicles. OICA does not report on vehicle sales to distinguish sales of internal combustion engines from all-electric or hybrid vehicles. Most online sources of statistics on EV sales focus on monthly changes, especially in the U.S. and European markets, so it is difficult to get an accurate sense of global EV sales. The Statistics Portal is one source that provides data on the worldwide number of electric vehicles since 2011 when EVs began to be sold in large numbers. The global totals this source quotes are 100,000 in 2012, 200,000 in 2013, 405,000 in 2014 and 740,000 in 2015.


Probably the best source of free data is available online through Clean Technica here:

Clean Technica reports that global annual sales of plug-in electric vehicles were 206,000 in 2013, 307,000 in 2014 and 430,000 (forecast) in 2015. In six countries (Norway, the Netherlands, Iceland, Estonia, Sweden and Japan) do all-electric vehicles have more than 1% of market share.


This extremely rapid growth in sales from small beginnings has been aided by generous taxpayer subsidies in North America and Europe, including U.S. $7,500 per vehicle in the United States, up to CDN $14,000 in Canada, and up to 5,000 pounds in the United Kingdom. The duration of those subsidies is increasingly in question, partly because of taxpayer resistance in European countries and because of the new Trump Administration in the United States.


What can one make of the available statistics on sales of internal combustion vs. all-electric vehicles?


  • Of 907 million personal vehicles on the road worldwide in 2014, 405,000 were EV’s. EVs constituted 0.04 % of the PVs on the road globally.
  • Sales of all-electric trucks and buses are negligible.
  • Of 88 million new vehicle sales in the world in 2014, 307,000 were EVs. That is, the EV share of new vehicle sales was 0.35%. In 2015, that probably rose to one half of one percent.
  • To reach 60% of present PV sales by 2040, EV sales would have to increase to 120 times today’s level.
  • The potential growth in total vehicle sales globally is immense, especially in Asia, the Middle East and Africa. The likelihood that EV sales will constitute 60% of the much-increased sales of all vehicles by 2040 approaches zero.
  • Internal combustion engines, powered by petroleum fuels, will be the dominant source of motive power for a very long time.



We Request a Conflict of Interest Inquiry and Cost-Benefit Analysis on Alberta Climate Plan and Carbon Tax

Posted by Michelle Stirling © December 5, 2016

On this day we have requested a Conflict of Interest Inquiry by the Ethics Commissioner of Alberta and a Cost-Benefit Analysis from the Auditor General of Alberta.

The introduction of our letter follows – the complete pdf can be read by clicking on the link below this introduction:

ATTN: Marguerite Trussler, Q.C.

Ethics Commissioner of Alberta

Office of the Ethics Commissioner
Suite 1250, 9925 – 109 Street NW
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada   T5K 2J8

Madame Commissioner,

RE: Conflicts of Interest, Lack of Fiduciary Responsibility, Possible Self-dealing

The NDP Climate Change Plan has multiple apparent conflicts of interest with regards to NDP MLAs, their close personal connections and past and present associations who benefit from the plan’s policies.

As recently reported by CBC news, in the Calgary Herald and other media, the Government of Alberta is concerned about conflicts of interest, with the NDP caucus chair is quoted as saying:

NDP caucus chair Heather Sweet wrote a letter Tuesday to ethics commissioner Marguerite Trussler, asking Trussler to look into the situation, which Sweet suggested “may be a real or perceived conflict of interest.”

In the letter, Sweet said Christine McIver operates Brighter Futures Energy and is a shareholder in the company.

“This is about the fact that we all have to abide by the same code of conduct and the same rules,” Sweet said. “So we wanted to make sure that while we’re entering into debate in the house and doing press releases, that that information is not breaching any type of conflict of interest.” [1]

According to the Conflicts of Interest Act, an MLA is not allowed to “influence or seek to influence a decision of the Crown to further a private interest of the member (or) … a person directly associated with the member.”[2]

Key determinants of the Conflicts of Interests Act of Alberta [3] are Section 8(1)(f) a Member breaches this act if…the Member’s spouse or adult interdependent partner receives a preference from the Crown on entering into the contract or receives a benefit under the contract not available to other members of the public under contracts of the same class…” and Section 8(5)(a) and that the “contract would not create a conflict of between the person contracting with the Crown and the public interest,” or Section 8(5) (b) “the contract is trivial.”

We are asking that the Alberta Climate Plan and carbon tax be frozen until such time as you have completed your review of the following and have issued a statement or ruling accordingly.

Following the lead of NDP caucus chair Heather Sweet, ensuring that conflicts of interests do not drive Alberta government policies, we ask you to investigate the following real or perceived conflicts of interest:

  1. Cost Benefit Analysis Absent To prevent preferential contracting that does not meet suitable cost-benefits for all citizens, proposed legislation has traditionally been run through the Alberta Multipliers Input/Output economic assessment.[4] To date, we have not seen any such cost-benefit of the Alberta Climate Plan.  We are asking that you make this a requirement of the government of Alberta, before the government proceeds with any further steps in the Alberta Climate Plan or Carbon Tax.


  1. Lack of Duty of Care; Lack of Fiduciary Care – At the time the NDP government took office in 2015, Alberta had no public debt for power utilities (See page 13). The overall multi-billion dollar financial risks of coal phase-out were publicly known and were brought up in the televised election debate of April 23, 2015 and specifically addressed to candidate Rachel Notley, by then Premier Jim Prentice, who, as former federal environment minister, had negotiated the federal coal phase-out schedule. [5] On Nov. 30, 2016, the Calgary Herald reported that the government is borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars to cover losses in the power market, due to the Power Purchase Agreements contracts for coal, which were held by major companies and were returned to the Balancing Pool when the carbon tax legislation triggered the ‘more unprofitable’ Change of Law clause. [6] [7] As predicted by Mr. Prentice, billions of dollars must be paid out in compensation for stranded coal assets. [8] Change of law clauses are a normative feature of power purchasing agreements, as outlined by the World Bank. [9] The lack of due diligence and duty of care on this matter by the NDP government, indicates a breach of the public trust and may be driven by conflicts of interest outlined below.

FULL PDF of Letter to Ethics Commissioner:


Footnotes of opening of the letter:


[2] “Decisions furthering private interests

2(1) A Member breaches this Act if the Member takes part in a decision in the course of carrying out the Member’s office or powers knowing that the decision might further a private interest of the Member, a person directly associated with the Member or the Member’s minor or adult child.”



[5]  (27:34)




[9] “..Change of law – PPA should address impact on tariff in event of a change in applicable law and the mechanism for tariff adjustment. Lenders will be anxious to ensure that the cash flows of the project required for debt service are protected against changes in law.”

Smart Prosperity and Civil Society Leaders’ Letter – All Hat No Cattle

On Nov. 23, 2016, a group of some 60 CEOs and ‘civil society leaders’ sent a letter to the Prime Minister and First Ministers and publicized it via Smart Prosperity’s website.

There’s much talk of ‘bold action’ and ‘greener power, smarter transportation, cleaner production’ – but they don’t give any concrete examples of these in the ‘global effort to fight climate change.’

In other words, their letter is ‘all hat, no cattle.’

The Smart Prosperity group letter is filled with lots of rhetoric with no actual examples of what they propose to do – though ‘putting a price on carbon’ is a theme.

So – Friends of Science Society has issued a rebuttal filled with evidence, not ideology.  Can we meet our Paris COP-21 commitments and prosper? No. It is simple math. Read our letter and understand the math and the scope of what these people propose.  And no, we’re not pessimists. We’re realists.

Click on the link below to download our rebuttal:


say no to cli co2ercion