C3RF Member Update - 03 January, 2019
Note! Cross Country “Yellow Vests Canada” rallies being held this Saturday, 05 Jan, 2019. Locate one near you here
Is Canada at the crossroads in 2019?
It has been building for some time now but 2019 looks to be the year that Canada faces a fork in the road. It started in earnest in the fall of 2015 when the previous Conservative government put all of our signatures on the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This international agreement committed Canada to the cooperative realization of 17 “Sustainability Development Goals” (SDGs) that included #10, “Reduced Inequalities” and #13, “Climate Action”.
The centerpiece of SDG #10 is the incredibly ambitious establishment of the Global Compact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM). It entails the creation of yet another “human right” in the form of migration and establishes “regular pathways” to both motivate and ease the international flow of humanity to a community near you. SDG #13 is anchored by the Paris Agreement on climate change and commits nations to defeating the newly identified pollutant of carbon dioxide (CO2). All told, realization of Agenda 2030’s 17 SDGs could cost states upwards of $7 trillion per year to the year 2030.
Canadians are just now beginning to shoulder their share of these costs through new carbon taxing schemes, the decimation of its energy sector, the erasure of its borders and the forfeiture of free expression rights that enable any meaningful criticism of such policies. Canada must now decide: does it continue down the Agenda 2030 globalist path or does it recast itself as a nation-state that operates to benefit its own interests and its own citizens as a first priority?
Agenda 2030 false philanthropy as a killer of Charter Rights and Freedoms
It was clear, on the heels of the Conservative Party signing Agenda 2030, that Canada’s Liberal Government would commit itself whole-heartedly to meeting Agenda 2030 SDGs. Right up front, Prime Minister Trudeau declared Canada to have no core values and to be the world’s first “post-national state”. He revved up the engines of false philanthropy immediately and announced the patriation of tens of thousands of Syrian “refugees” while embedding “Islamophobia” as a new form of religious discrimination through Motion M-103.
The former initiative represented a direct assault on the right of Canadian “security of the person” as it flew in the face of respecting the common sense need to properly vet refugee streams and accommodate national security concerns. The latter initiative would go on to mimic the European “Islamophobia” experience by chilling speech critical of certain ideologies and belief systems. Other individual rights and freedoms now being displaced by a false philanthropy that favours certain “identifiable groups” and globalist needs include freedom of religion and conscience, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. The latter assault is evidenced by the recent attempt by Statistics Canada to pirate the financial transactional data of 500,000 Canadians per year.
The impact of “Climate Change” orthodoxy on free speech
The jewel in the crown of Agenda 2030 is the Paris Agreement of 2015. This intergovernmental arrangement, which Prime Minister Trudeau enthusiastically signed, will suffer no criticism of its claim that the world is on the precipice of climate catastrophe. The alleged solution, as well, is immovable and cast in concrete and entails drastic cutbacks of the new pollutant: CO2. So sacred is the science and the claim that activists call for the jailing of those who dare debate either. These include Canada’s own David Suzuki.
Outside of the false narrative that is Islamophobia, the shielding of “Climate Change” dogma from criticism is the greatest threat to free speech. This, as “deniers” are regularly shamed and ridiculed for their climate blasphemy. This presents a danger, not only to a prized, fundamental right but, to the economy of Canada. The need to address climate change within the next 12 years requires a carbon pricing scheme that sees it costing as much as $5000 per ton by the year 2030. Simply put, current modes of transportation would have to be shelved to avoid paying the projected $49 for a liter of gas. It would appear that Canadians are caught in a dilemma. They are being forced down a path that will most certainly change and impoverish their lives and the economic prospects of their country with no recourse to question the validity of the underlying science. One Canadian, John Robson, has refused to be muzzled and, through his own research, has come to some well-reasoned, non-conforming conclusions.
John Robson’s video documentary - The Environment; a True Story
John Robson may be a celebrated historian but the fact remains, he is a layman when it comes to climate science. He compensates for his non-scientific background, however, by bringing his considerable research abilities to bear through his video documentary: The Environment; a True Story. In doing so he demonstrates an ability to question accepted truths, root out logical disconnects and reconcile same through fact and evidence-based reasoning – an art that is all but lost in this era of “all the news and science that fits the narrative”. His in-depth analysis rebuts many of the claims that underpin the breathless assertion that CO2 is the killer at the door.
These are the some of the claims that so much of the world accepts as dogma which John Robson challenges:
97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is serious, caused by man, and mostly due to greenhouse gases (GHG) of which carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is the main culprit;
Higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere drive higher average temperatures worldwide;
Climate change “deniers” are ignorant or biased by their dependence on “big oil” for research funds and wages; and
Recent storms and adverse weather are proof positive that climate change and variability are upon us.
97% of climate scientists on board – really?
Robson attacks the “97% of climate scientists” claim with a literature search of source papers and analyses. He finds that, without exception, these source materials either:
overlooked reams of reports from global warming skeptics; or
remained silent on whether the effects of man-made climate change were dangerous or benign; or
featured interpretations of scientific material by non-scientists; or
confined the sample population of reports to those subject to publication bias and/ or heavy government funding; or
confused the meaning of the term “consensus” to include assessments that varied widely from that intended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declaration.
It would seem that the “97% of all climate scientists” claim is less than robust and in need of recalibration. It was particularly noteworthy that the fix appears to be in when it comes to just which papers and science are allowed into the mix. This, as assessments contrary to the IPCC declaration just don’t seem to be welcomed into the debate.
Higher CO2 levels drive higher temperatures – really?
The fact that higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere drive higher average temperatures was shown to be baseless. Indeed, the evidence from eons past shows that, if anything, the relationship is the other way around - higher temperatures actually lead spikes in CO2 levels. This bothersome fact is compounded by reams of data that show that current CO2 concentrations are far less than in times past when the earth flourished and diverse lifeforms were in abundance. Finally, when one goes beyond the limited time frame used to bound “climate change” science one finds that it is not CO2 that can be related to temperature. Rather, it is something called Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). Who would have guessed that the sun has something to do with the temperature of the earth?
“Deniers” are in the pay of “big oil” – really?
The facts also prove to be inconvenient when it comes to the motivations of “deniers”. If anything, the numbers indicate that it is the proponents of “climate change” that receive the lion’s share of research and government funding. Indeed, the U.S. government alone paid out $64 billion over the years 2010 to 2013 to climate researchers with the explicit intention of finding “human impact on climate and virtually nothing on the possibility of natural causes of climate change”. It would appear that, if funding is what a researcher seeks, he or she would be well advised to be on Team IPCC!
Yesterday’s storm is proof positive of climate change – really?
Finally, and especially for those tired of being drubbed by “climate change” fanatics every time a warm-front blows through, hard evidence indicates that “there has not been an increase in the number or intensity of land-falling Atlantic hurricanes for well over a century”. Indeed, the “number of severe typhoons or tropical cyclones has actually fallen over the past 30 years”. As for rising damage and insurance claims, these can be explained by “greater wealth and of large numbers of people who choose to live in affected areas, for example along the Florida coast”.
Is it time for our political élites to “make the case” for climate change?
Given the “hiding in plain sight” data uncovered by Mr. Robson, it is hard to believe how there could be such certainty in the belief that “climate change” is caused by man’s use of fossil fuels and the follow-on production of the life-sustaining GHG – CO2. On the contrary, an argument could be made that this evidence is known and purposely being hidden so that an unrelated agenda might be served. If one looks at all of the 17 SDGs associated with Agenda 2030, it seems more than possible that this agenda might involve the redistribution of worldly wealth and the homogenization of its populations. Regardless, Canada is on the verge of spending itself into perdition to make its climate change and Agenda 2030 commitments. Before it does, however, its citizens deserve to know the truth of the matter and be exposed to all sides of the debate before they, and their country, are drained. It is time for a national debate on Agenda 2030 and for all sides to make their case. Until then, the progression of Agenda 2030 goals, targets and plans needs to be deferred. Perhaps a better plan to combat the ill effects of climate change, if they are truly upon us, is to pay down debt and build an economic capacity to deal with same when they arrive. After all, isn’t this how Canada managed its way through the global financial crisis of 2008?
Ongoing operations and trends
It is now apparent that U.N. Agenda 2030 represents a clear and present danger to Canadian sovereignty and the fundamental rights and freedoms of its citizens. Since its signing in September, 2015, we have seen piecemeal measures chip away at our birthrights and wondered why they were coming under attack. Motion M-103, Islamophobia, wonky gender theories, bureaucratic overreach and insults from our political and media élites have all appeared to be disjointed in nature. It is becoming clear now, though, that while we were operating in the dark, these measures were being put in place by those operating in consonance with the well-orchestrated, intergovernmental plan that is Agenda 2030. The sheer size and scope of the Global Compact on Migration and the “Climate Change” initiatives are now allowing us to see the pieces of the puzzle appear as parts of a whole. We can see where this is going now and C3RF will counter by going to the source that is undermining our freedoms – to Agenda 2030 and the élites that seek to foist it upon us.
We need your continued support.
Please note that efforts aimed at preserving the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians are not without cost. For those of you who have recently contributed to our coffers, thank you very much. We cannot continue to operate and progress such initiatives without such aid. The funds you so generously donate go directly into campaigning, events, bookkeeping, technology costs and legal advice. When these basic services are met, we use excess funding to assist other groups in advancing the cause of Canadian individual rights within a strong and free Canada. We also contribute to related legal proceedings, such as the Ottawa Public Library fight, and charitable activities when able. Please consider a one-time donation or a monthly contribution. Monthly donations, no matter how small, even $5/month, help us plan our finances in advance and provide us with greater flexibility.
And while you're considering making a difference, please follow C3RF on Twitter, on Facebook and on our web site and share with friends our great content and a realistic outlook on the continuing battle for Charter Rights in Canada. You can also join our Twitter feed here. In the meantime, have a Happy New Year!
Major Russ Cooper (Ret'd)