Among the many casualties of the recent political culture wars has been rational debate and pragmatism.
This is particularly true in the climate area where one can quickly find oneself on the receiving end of name-calling and accusations of wishing for the destruction of the world if they don’t submit to climate dogma. [emphasis, links added]
NDP MP Charlie Angus thinks he has found the answer: criminalize fossil fuel promotion. Angus recently introduced a private member’s bill, C-372, the Fossil Fuel Advertising Act.
To call this bill anything other than environmental propaganda would be misleading. Indeed, such lunacy could only be produced by an ideological adherence to beliefs that jettison reality and sanity in the name of semi-religious cant.
As written, the bill contains provisions that would punish Canadians with up to two years in jail for the sin of promoting fossil fuels.
The bill begins with the environmentalist’s stock preamble telling us we will all soon perish if nothing is done about the climate crisis before proceeding to make the extremely dubious analogy of comparing fossil fuels to smoking and tobacco use. Then the real fun begins.
The proposed act’s purpose, the bill states, is to provide a “legislative response to a national public health and environmental problem of substantial and pressing concern” and, among other things, “to prevent the public from being deceived or misled with respect to the environmental and health hazards of using fossil fuels.”
This is a curious position for Angus to take. Of the misinformation out there, a good deal, if not a majority, comes from groups opposing fossil fuels.
Whereas any oil or gas company must provide national regulators with scientifically valid proof of the safety or viability of their projects, there is no equivalent standard or scrutiny for the hyperbole and panic-driven messages emanating from eco-groups doing everything they can to stop fossil fuel development.
The bill then gets down to its most serious business: punishment. The penalties proposed are fines of up to $1,500,000 and two years in prison for the promotion of fossil fuels.
What constitutes “promotion” you may ask? The bill specifies that among the acts to be deemed illegal would be promoting a fossil fuel or its production “in a manner that states or suggests that the fossil fuel, its production or its emissions are less harmful than other fossil fuels, their production or their emissions.”
The bill continues that it would also be illegal to suggest that “a fossil fuel or the practices of a producer or of the fossil fuel industry would lead to positive outcomes in relation to the environment, the health of Canadians, reconciliation with Indigenous peoples or the Canadian or global economy.”
So let us say that in simple English and understand what it means.
It means it would be illegal for an oil or gas company or employees thereof to say that natural gas emissions are 40 percent lower than coal and 20 percent lower than oil (a scientific fact) and therefore we should exploit more natural gas resources.
It means that noting the enormous opportunity for economic prosperity that oil and gas offers multiple First Nations communities would be criminalized, even if it were a First Nation itself making the argument.
It means stating the fact — I emphasize not opinion, but verifiable fact — that oil and gas contribute billions of dollars to our economy and therefore are a vitally important economic engine that should be exploited could land someone in jail.
This is not a public policy that deserves to see the light of day. It is environmental propaganda dressed up and pretending to be serious and well-thought-through legislation.
As a private member’s bill, there is every hope that C-372 will die the death it deserves. It remains, however, a poor harbinger of the future of the economy, business rights, and political freedom in our country.
Canada’s natural gas resources are in a position to seriously reduce coal emissions worldwide if we can get them to those who need them.
Economic reconciliation with First Nations is being offered to us on a platter if Canada pushes ahead with fossil fuel projects the world wants. Further, massive revenues will flow to government coffers and make Canadians richer.
Given their way, the NDP would make saying so illegal.
Will rational thought prevail among our elected officials or is the ideological rooting deep enough to turn a doctrine of eco-lunacy into government policy?
Read more at National Post
Just an observation…
The term ‘villain’ has its etymology in the Latin ‘villanus’, which translates to English as “farmhand”.
Which means Bill Gates’ buying up of tens of thousands of acres of farm land makes him a…
super-villain.
LOL
I don’t think this is unintentional on Gates’ part… it’s a very subtle joke on humanity that only the wealthiest of the wealthy elites could pull off.
Joe Biden Utilizing Weaponized Nurblization?
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-10-30
Now, we have an already-existing code base which we can change a bit to de-nurble Biden’s speeches. LOL
I propose that we describe Biden’s mumblespeechification as “nurblized”. Make it viral.
They’ll be criminalizing actual science… not that the criminal cabal pushing the CAGW scam care much about that.
Below, I’ll lay out the entire scam, including the mathematical fraud they’re committing, in order to push the CAGW scam.
The Kiehl-Trenberth ‘Earth Energy Balance’ graphic (and all subsequent similar graphics) are representations of the mathematics used in Energy Balance Climate Models (EBCMs)… and the K-T diagram treats the planet as though it’s an idealized blackbody object… that’s the only way they can get to 390 W m-2 surface radiant exitance. Doing so invents out of thin air a wholly fictive ‘backradiation’. It does this by calculating for emission to 0 K ambient (essentially isolating each calculated-upon object into its own system so they cannot interact via the ambient EM field), which increases radiant exitance of each object.
To get their equations to balance, the climastrologists are forced to subtract that wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow on the back end.
The S-B equation for graybody objects isn’t meant to be used by subtracting a wholly-fictive ‘cooler to warmer’ energy flow from the real (but too high because it was calculated for emission to 0 K) ‘warmer to cooler’ energy flow, it’s designed to subtract cooler object energy density from warmer object energy density to arrive at the energy density gradient. Energy does not (cannot) flow ‘cooler to warmer’, and the radiant exitance of the warmer object is predicated upon that energy density gradient.
That interaction of objects through radiation pressure (in the background EM field) determines radiant exitance of each object. So while the climate alarmists claim that there’s no way a photon could possibly ‘know’ the temperature of an object within the photon’s path, it absolutely does ‘know’ because that photon must pass through the EM field (the photon being nothing but a quantum of EM energy; per QFT, a persistent perturbation of the EM field above the average field energy density) between objects, and thus the radiation energy density gradient between objects… and if the EM field energy density gradient is such that the chemical potential of the EM field due to that radiation energy density gradient becomes higher than the chemical potential of the photon from a cooler object, that photon likely won’t even be emitted by the cooler object, and if a photon which is emitted by a cooler object happens to be in the path of a moving, warmer object, it won’t even reach the warmer object… it will be subsumed into the background EM field (there is no law of conservation for photon number).
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
Idealized blackbody objects > 0 K emit at all times, whereas graybody objects > 0 K above their ambient emit. That’s why the S-B equation in graybody form includes the temperature of the cooler object.
In reality, what is happening with the S-B equation (the form meant to be used with graybody objects) is a subtraction of the energy density of the cooler object from the energy density of the warmer object to arrive at the energy density gradient; the radiant exitance of the warmer object predicated upon the energy density gradient.
Idealized Blackbody Object (assumes emission to 0 K and ε = 1 by definition):
q_bb = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) A_h
= 1 σ (T_h^4 – 0 K) 1 m^2
= σ T^4
Graybody Object (assumes emission to > 0 K and ε < 1):
q_gb = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4) A_h
The ‘A_h’ term is merely a multiplier, used if one is calculating for an area larger than unity [for instance: >1 m^2], which converts the result from radiant exitance (W m-2, radiant flux per unit area) to radiant flux (W).
Temperature is equal to the fourth root of radiation energy density divided by Stefan’s Constant (ie: the radiation constant).
e = T^4 a
a = 4σ/c
e = T^4 4σ/c
T^4 = e/(4σ/c)
T = 4^√(e/(4σ/c))
T = 4^√(e/a)
q = ε σ (T_h^4 – T_c^4)
∴ q = ε σ ((e_h / (4σ / c)) – (e_c / (4σ / c))) A_h
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = W m-2 K-4 * (Δ(J m-3 / (W m-2 K-4 / m sec-1)))
∴ q = (ε c (e_h – e_c)) / 4
Canceling units, we get J sec-1 m-2, which is W m-2 (1 J sec-1 = 1 W).
W m-2 = (m sec-1 (ΔJ m-3)) / 4
One can see from the immediately-above equation that the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is all about subtracting the radiation energy density of the cooler object from the radiation energy density of the warmer object.
∴ q = σ / a * Δe
Canceling units, we get W m-2.
W m-2 = (W m-2 K-4 / J m-3 K-4) * ΔJ m-3
For graybody objects, it is the radiation energy density differential between warmer object and cooler object which determines warmer object radiant exitance.
Remember that a warmer object will have higher energy density at all wavelengths than a cooler object:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/qPJ94.png
This is why 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense implies that system energy cannot ascend an energy density gradient,”without some other change, connected therewith, occurring at the same time”… that “some other change” typically being external energy pumping that system energy up the energy density gradient. That’s what happens in, for instance, AC units and refrigerators.
Most people cannot think in terms of energy, energy density and energy density gradient. We need to analogize to something they’re familiar with. Thus, just as, for instance, water only spontaneously flows down a pressure gradient, energy only spontaneously flows down an energy density gradient. That’s 2LoT in the Clausius Statement sense, in a nutshell. So one tack to take is to ask people if water can ever spontaneously flow uphill. Of course they’ll say, “No, water cannot flow uphill on its own.” Then show them dimensional analysis.
mass (M), length (L), time (T), absolute temperature (K), amount of substance (N), electric charge (Q), luminous intensity (C)
We denote the dimensions like this: [Mx, Lx, Tx, Kx, Nx, Qx, Cx] where x = the number of that dimension. We typically remove dimensions that are not used.
Force: [M1 L1 T-2] /
Area: [M0 L2 T0] =
Pressure: [M1 L-1 T-2] /
Length: [M0 L1 T0] =
Pressure Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Explain to them that Pressure is Force / Area, and that Pressure Gradient is Pressure / Length. Remind them that water only spontaneously flows down a pressure gradient (ie: downhill). Then introduce energy. Tell them that energy is much like water. It requires an impetus to flow, just as water requires an impetus (pressure gradient) to flow. In the case of radiative energy, that impetus is a radiation energy density gradient, which is analogous to (and in fact, literally is) a radiation pressure gradient.
Energy: [M1 L2 T−2] /
Volume: [M0 L3 T0] =
Energy Density: [M1 L-1 T-2] /
Length: [M0 L1 T0] =
Energy Density Gradient: [M1 L-2 T-2]
Explain to them that Energy Density is Energy / Volume, and Energy Density Gradient is Energy Density / Length. Highlight the fact that Pressure and Energy Density have the same units (bolded above). Also highlight the fact that Pressure Gradient and Energy Density Gradient have the same units (bolded above).
So we’re talking about the same concept as water only spontaneously flowing down a pressure gradient (ie: downhill) when we talk of energy (of any form) only spontaneously flowing down an energy density gradient. Energy density is pressure, an energy density gradient is a pressure gradient… for energy.
It’s a bit more complicated for gases because they can convert that energy density to a change in volume (1 J m-3 = 1 Pa), for constant-pressure processes, which means the unconstrained volume of a gas will change such that its energy density (in J m-3) will tend toward being equal to pressure (in Pa). This is the underlying mechanism for convection.
There are a lot of other ways of proving that the climastrologists are misusing the formulae and the fundamental physical laws… for instance, one might ask them:
The climastrologists take on radiative energy exchange necessitates that at thermodynamic equilibrium, objects are furiously emitting and absorbing radiation (this is brought about because they claim that objects emit only according to their temperature (rather than according to the radiation energy density gradient), thus for objects at the same temperature in an environment at the same temperature, all would be furiously emitting and absorbing radiation… in other words, they claim that graybody objects emit > 0 K), and they’ve forgotten about entropy… if the objects (and the environment) are furiously emitting and absorbing radiation at thermodynamic equilibrium as their incorrect take on reality must claim, why does entropy not change?
The second law states that there exists a state variable called entropy S. The change in entropy (ΔS) is equal to the energy transferred (ΔQ) divided by the temperature (T).
ΔS = ΔQ / T
Only for reversible processes does entropy remain constant. Reversible processes are idealizations. All real-world processes are irreversible.
The climastrologists claim that energy can flow from cooler to warmer because they cling to the long-debunked Prevost Principle, which states that an object’s radiant exitance is dependent only upon that object’s internal state, and thus they treat real-world graybody objects as though they’re idealized blackbody objects via: q = σ T^4.
… thus the climate alarmists claim that all objects emit radiation if they are above 0 K. In reality, idealized blackbody objects emit radiation if they are above 0 K, whereas graybody objects emit radiation if their temperature is greater than 0 K above the ambient.
But their claim means that in an environment at thermodynamic equilibrium, all objects (and the ambient) would be furiously emitting and absorbing radiation, but since entropy doesn’t change at thermodynamic equilibrium, the climastrologists must claim that radiative energy transfer is a reversible process. Except radiative energy transfer is an irreversible process, which destroys their claim.
In reality, at thermodynamic equilibrium, no energy flows, the system reaches a quiescent state (the definition of thermodynamic equilibrium), which is why entropy doesn’t change. A standing wave is set up by the photons remaining in the intervening space between two objects at thermodynamic equilibrium, with the standing wave nodes at the surface of the objects (and being wave nodes, no energy can be transferred into or out of the objects). Should one object change temperature, the standing wave becomes a traveling wave, with the group velocity proportional to the radiation energy density differential, and in the direction toward the cooler object. This is standard cavity theory, applied to objects.
All idealized blackbody objects above absolute zero emit radiation, assume emission to 0 K and don’t actually exist, they’re idealizations.
Real-world graybody objects with a temperature greater than zero degrees above their ambient emit radiation. Graybody objects emit (and absorb) according to the radiation energy density gradient.
It’s right there in the S-B equation, which the climate alarmists fundamentally misunderstand:
https://i.imgur.com/QErszYW.gif
We are currently living in a dictatorship. The billionaires and NGO’s have over written the democratic process and implemented very expensive initiatives on climate change. At least for most of the United States, if these measures were placed on the ballot they would have failed. If C-372 became law, Canada would move from a dictatorship to tyranny. The reason for the censorship is the promoters of climate change know their narrative can not survive an environment of free exchange of ideas.
At 420 ppm, carbon dioxide is way beyond it saturation point as far as its ability to cause warming. Adding additional CO2 has minimum impact. You would have to be willfully ignorant or incredibly stupid to believe that carbon dioxide is influencing the Earth’s temperature.
There is a preponderance of evidence that carbon dioxide does not control Earth’s temperature. The hiatus in warming at the beginning of this centenary happened when CO2 was continuing to climb at the same rate. A few have challenged that the hiatus existed, but the climate activists of the time validated it by coming up with 64 excuses as to why it was happening. One of the most compelling is that 40% of the warming blamed on man occurred between 1910 and 1941 when the carbon dioxide levels were relatively low and raising very slowly. It appears that the mini ice age, roman and medieval warm periods happened with no large change in carbon dioxide concentrations. As Alan Stewart pointed out, the hot years of 125 K years ago happened with CO2 at 280 ppm. The climate change movement has simply ignored real world data and replaced it with computer models.
The next time you see one of those Eco-Nuts cases with their THE EARTH IS YOUR MOTHER bumper sticker roll down your window spit on the ground and say I JUST SPAT ON YOUR MOTHER
Drewski please explain this. The recent ‘hottest in 125ky’ puts in right on the Eemian interglacial. Thus temperatures were just as warm when the C02 was at 280ppm not today’s 415ppm. Also, Vostok ice cores show changes of 11C/10ppm changes. Please explain!!
Drewski can’t explain anything.
He is just a $hit disturber. imo.
The NDP are perennial losers. They won power in Ontario back in the ’90’s and were so inept that they pi5sed off their base (unions) and Bob Rae became a bit player in the Liberal party. The NDP currently has some pull in Parliament as Trudeau’s farm team. They pull stunts like this to remind us that they exist. Ugh!
Drewski, I’m an engineer and not willfully ignorant but instead have been studying this subject for years.
The temperature records have been willfully corrupted via homogenization, and various other processes – the replacement of liquid in glass records max. min, records with the (admittedly superior) electronic monitoring which in itself may have introduced a 0.5 to 1.5 degree C, whilst simultaneously eliminating outlier stations, the Urban heat island effects etc. etc. – the lists is as tedious as it is long.
Yes the climate is changing – its the one thing it is guaranteed to do – but one hot summer does not prove much.
Do yourself a favour and do some actual introspective “science” on both sides of the issue and come to an informed opinion as you can’t believe anything in the mainstream media.
January 2024 marked the 6th straight month of hot temperature records (by a LOT).
You would have to be wilfully ignorant or incredibly stupid (i.e. Gator) not to notice the effects of man-made climate change.
What have you got that will steer climate to where ever your sweet spot is? You’d have to be wilfully ignorant or incredibly stupid to claim that green energy or electrifying everything is going to tame the atmosphere.
I love my rent free life! Just wish someone would furnish this empty space…