Opinion
The Climate Alarmism Grift is Dying
Tim’s Substack 
Tim Lynch
This post includes a link to a paper recently published by two highly distinguished emeritus professors in which they set forth, in great detail, why they think there is no rational grounds for believing in human induced climate change. Climate alarmism is closely related to emerging infectious disease alarmism and it is being propagated by the same globalist players, Bill Gates being the most prominent. Huge fortunes are being made from climate alarmism among people who are already wealthy, while the working and middle classes must pay much higher energy prices for bogus alternative energy sources.
Last week, the BBC reminded us that we have just three years left to drastically reduce all CO2 emissions, or we risk crossing the dreaded 1.5°C warming limit set by the Paris Agreement. A persistent feature of the degreed managerial class is their arrogant refusal to learn from their past flawed predictions. Dire warnings of climate catastrophe have shaped global policy, media narratives, and public perception, resulting in the waste of hundreds of billions of dollars on technology that does not work. Predictions by climate ‘experts’ of submerged cities, the end of snow, vanishing ice caps, and dead coral formations never materialize.
Thinking that highly credentialed Ivy League professors would use science and math to destroy the man-made climate change narrative was not plausible a year ago. Yet, in this new cultural zeitgeist created after the implosion of the Democratic Party, the impossible is now possible.
Tim’s Substack is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
In a shocking display of academic integrity, two eminent professors published a masterfully complex paper that undermines the foundation of climate alarmism. MIT’s Richard Lindzen, Professor of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Emeritus, and Princeton’s William Happer, Professor of Physics, Emeritus, published a paper titled PHYSICS DEMONSTRATES THAT INCREASING GREENHOUSE GASES CANNOT CAUSE DANGEROUS WARMING, EXTREME WEATHER OR ANY HARM.
Their message is simple: CO2-driven warming poses no danger to the planet, while the net-zero policies designed to reduce CO2 do more harm than good. It takes a paper of serious complexity to validate such a simple message.
 |
Before examining their paper, it is helpful to review a few of the forecasts that have not materialized.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Lindzen and Happer use physics to demonstrate that CO2’s warming effect is limited by its logarithmic absorption of infrared radiation. The warming effect of each molecule of CO2 decreases as its concentration increases. They estimate low climate sensitivity (~0.5–1.5°C per CO2 doubling), which is far below the IPCC’s range of 2.5–4°C.
They contend that Hurricanes, droughts, and floods exhibit no apparent increase in frequency driven by CO2, with natural variability dominating (e.g., NOAA’s stable hurricane frequency since 1980). They demonstrate that higher CO2 levels enhance photosynthesis, resulting in a 14% global greening trend (NASA, 1982–2015) and a 20% increase in crop yields (FAO, 2000–2020).
They then emphasize that phasing out fossil fuels, which supply 80% of global energy (IEA, 2023), will raise costs and harm developing nations, with minimal climate benefit. Their physics-based approach challenges high-sensitivity climate models, which have overestimated warming in periods such as 1998–2014. They also align with skepticism of alarmist policies, like EPA regulations, which they’ve called a “hoax” in prior work.
The premise of man-made climate change hinges on three key facts: CO2 traps heat, humans have increased CO2 levels (~420 ppm today vs. 280 ppm pre-industrial), and this drives global warming. Lindzen and Happer don’t dispute the first two but argue that the warming is minimal and benign.
They contend CO2 is not destroying the planet; it’s enhancing life on it. Across the globe, elevated CO2 levels are supercharging plant growth and delivering bountiful crop harvests at unprecedented rates.
They then explain that hypothetical climate models rest on a long sequence of assumptions, many of which are either weak, invalidated, or demonstrably false. As a result, the outputs of these models are of questionable value and cannot be taken as reliable evidence.
Climate activists reacted to this paper as expected: they want its authors arrested and jailed.
You would expect this well-researched paper to be big news, providing the rational cover politicians need to drive a stake through the heart of the climate alarmism scam. But that is not going to happen. The political class will ignore it, as they often do with inconvenient data. However, the momentum is shifting much faster than the political class can cope with.
Joe Rogan dealt the climate hoax a bigger setback than any Ivy League professor could hope to accomplish with a well-written, peer-reviewed study. Rogan spent a few hours talking to the hapless, profoundly ignorant Senator Bernie Sanders. Bernie didn’t seem to know much about the topics he attempted to demagogue. Frustrated by Rogan’s effective counters to his preferred narrative, he grasped at something he thought would go unquestioned. “Some people think climate change is a hoax, but it ain’t a hoax.” He stated this as if that were a self-evident fact. His ignorance of contrary facts complemented the arrogance of his statement. Rogan used a WaPo article to school the old fool.
 |
Today, every dogma of the neo-liberal religion is being publicly put on trial. Something in the air changed after the COVID-19 saga. COVID was a tipping point, an unmasking of the true nature of our bankrupt professional-managerial class and their bought-and-paid-for “experts.”
The progress of unraveling the climate change scam is slow but steady. Yesterday, President Trump announced he will use an executive order to end tax subsidies for the wind and solar renewable energy grift. Finally, common sense and fiscal responsibility are now evident in Washington, D.C.. Yet, the question remains: how long will it take before the global professional managerial class realizes the gig is up?
Tim’s Substack is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Section 33 Is a Legitimate Democratic Instrument
Tell everyone. There is no Charter right for a biological male to compete against females in women’s sports. Nor is there a constitutional right for children to be maimed and rendered sterile in service to self-proclaimed identities. And there is certainly no excuse for a government in Ottawa to interfere with provinces’ ability to defend women and girls from the fallout of sexual fetishism dressed in federalist drags.
Yet here we are.
Albertans are being invited to ask an important question. When rights collide, should we trust the flawed judgment of elected officials who face the people every few years, or surrender that authority to similarly flawed judges selected in near secrecy, immune to removal, and uninterested in the lived realities of the citizens they affect?
Section 33 of the Charter—the “notwithstanding clause”—exists for precisely this purpose. It was never a loophole. It was a constitutional safeguard demanded by Premiers like Alberta’s Peter Lougheed and Saskatchewan’s Allan Blakeney. It was their condition for agreeing to the Trudeau Charter in 1982, a shield for legislatures to retain sovereignty in cases where Ottawa-appointed, unelected courts would push too far into political life. It was a tool to defend provincial uniqueness against Ottawa’s homogenizing power.
Blakeney explained it plainly. Where judicial rulings lead to outcomes that might cause undue harm, for example, legislatures must retain the right to legislate, even if a court believes a Charter right has been breached. It was an elegant way to deal with the inevitable tension between rights adjudicated by judges and those protected by governments chosen by the people. It was a way to guarantee democracy over legal technocracy. The hysterical NDP machine will have people believe it is also the legislation of cruelty.
Section 33 is a temporary mechanism—suitable for five years, renewable only through re-legislation. Whatever the progressives say, it does not override or erase any rights. It cannot be used in secret, and any government that invokes it must defend its choice publicly. That is democratic accountability. The people can debate it (and we now where the contemporary left stands on debating), throw the government out, or demand that the law be changed, if they so choose.
This safeguard is now essential. Alberta is acting to protect the integrity of women’s sports and spaces. Who would be against protecting their daughters? Girls have lost competitions, lost scholarships, and in some cases been physically injured competing against males who claim to be female. These are not hypotheticals. They are real, measurable harms—harms progressive politicians and the courts are at times unwilling to recognize. Alberta’s proposed protections have drawn fierce opposition from progressive ideological activists and their allies in the press and the federal parliament, who now claim that such laws are contrary to the Charter. They seek to keep imposing without open debate the fiction that there is a Charter right for a biological male to compete against females in women’s sports.
There is no such right, and it doesn’t exist in the Charter. The Charter was not drafted to validate identity fantasies. It was not written to erase biological sex or enshrine the right of middle-aged men to force immigrant women to handle their genitals. It was not intended to give minors access to irreversible surgeries without the knowledge or consent of their parents. These things are being “read into” the Charter by tribunals and activist judges trained in Laurentian law schools with no democratic mandate, often under pressure from a woke federal government happy to let the courts advance policies it wants but is afraid to pass through Parliament.
Naheed Nenshi has made it clear where he stands. He bluntly opposes the use of Section 33 to protect Alberta women and girls. His allegiance is to the same cultural current that waddles through Ottawa. He speaks the language of progress but misses the point entirely. This isn’t about political posturing. It is about protecting girls and women from being injured, marginalized, and erased to satisfy the ideological demands of his political base.
It is about affirming the constitutional prerogative of Alberta’s legislature to protect its jurisdictional sphere. This is about facing anti-scientific postures with courage and preserving truth: men aren’t women, no matter how much ideological poultry progressive voodoo priests sacrifice to affirm it.
Ottawa’s interest in neutering Section 33 is not born of a deep commitment to human rights. It is a power play. The Trudeau-era delusional policies and its Carney-extended government see in Section 33 an obstacle to the court-driven social revolution it has vigorously encouraged. It wants provinces disarmed. Not through constitutional amendment, which would require tough negotiating, broad agreement and transparency, but through attrition—by shaming any use of the clause and suggesting that invoking it is inherently illegitimate. But that federal poodle won’t hunt in Alberta.
Ottawa already has the power to disallow provincial legislation outright under Section 90 of the BNA Act, 1867. That power—known as disallowance—allows the federal cabinet to kill any provincial law within a year of its passage. It has not been used since 1943, not because it is illegal, but because it is politically toxic. If Ottawa were to disallow an Alberta or Saskatchewan law protecting girls’ sports or parental rights, the backlash would be immediate and overwhelming. Progressives prefer pushing their ideological agendas in the dark, through political smoke curtains, behind close doors.
The federal government would rather pretend it lacks power while trying to strip away the strongest tool provinces have to protect their constitutional space. Section 33 is a scalpel compared to Ottawa’s sledgehammer, but it is a scalpel that Ottawa doesn’t want the provinces to use because it limits the power of the judges they appoint.
And let us not pretend this kind of judicial overreach is limited to social policy. Just a few years ago, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to strike down Canada’s tangle of interprovincial trade barriers in the Comeau case (2018). The question was straightforward: does Section 121 of the Constitution, which says goods “shall be admitted free” between provinces, actually mean what it says?
The Court answered no. It chose legal technicalities over the clear, economic intent of the BNA Act. In doing so, it upheld a regime of trade barriers that make Canada’s internal economy more balkanized. Donald Trump’s tariffs have nothing on the now court-preserved domestic trade barriers.
While the courts did not impose the regime of inter provincial blockages, it was the last to endorse it, weakening the country. Canadians cannot freely ship beer or wine across provincial lines. Businesses face duplicated regulations and supply chains carved up by provincial restrictions. The result is a sluggish, over-regulated economy that punishes ordinary citizens while rewarding monopolies and gatekeepers.
The Comeau decision was a betrayal of Confederation. It was also a reminder of the deeper problem: judges, however skilled, are not elected. That doesn’t make them bad people, but they are not accountable. The current Chief Justice, who condemned the truckers’ protest knowing legal cases would be coming active challenging the COVID lockdowns, openly advocated for stronger federal power. He is not neutral. And even if he were, he remains unaccountable to the people of Alberta. His political judgment carries no democratic legitimacy, yet it shapes the rules under which we are expected to live.
This is why Section 33 must be preserved—and used. But whether or not it is used legitimately in Alberta, it is for Albertans to determine. Not Ottawa. The threat isn’t coming from Alberta’s legislature—it’s coming from courts and bureaucrats choosing to advance male fetish desire as sacred while erasing female safety.
Premier Danielle Smith understands this. So does Premier Scott Moe. That is not judicial defiance. That is democratic responsibility. When Ottawa and the NDP opposition in both provinces seek to override parental rights, deny biology, and impose ideology on children, women, and families, it is the perfect time for legislatures to act. And if not legislatures, then who?
Albertans should not have to ask permission from Ottawa to protect their daughters. They should not have to wait years for a judge’s approval to define women’s places and spaces. They should not be ruled by edicts from individuals who have never faced a voter in their lives.
Section 33 is a lawful democratic instrument. It exists to ensure that provinces do not lose control over essential provincial matters. Alberta is using it for precisely the reason it was designed—to uphold the will of its people in the face of potential judicial activism that favours anti-scientific ideology above reality.
No permission is required. Alberta will protect its daughters.
Haultain Research is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Note: This post was written from notes prepared for a panel at the Canada Strong and Free Conference in Calgary on Sept 6. I am grateful for the invitation and the opportunity to explore solutions to recognized interprovincial barriers and push further beyond.
Haultain’s Substack is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support our work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Try it out.
Alberta is the number one destination for Canadians seeking a better life. In the last 5 years, 1 of 3 Canadians moving out of their provinces seeking a better life have come to Alberta. People come to Alberta to escape stagnant wages, unaffordable housing, and the bureaucratic chokeholds of central Canada. They come for work, for opportunity, and for the chance to get ahead. Alberta doesn’t just have oil and gas; it has policies and an entrepreneurial culture that reward hard work. (Every province, except for PEI, has hydrocarbon resources, but most chose not to exploit them). That’s why the province often draws more people than it loses.
 |
But Alberta cannot assume it will always stay ahead. Prosperity, like liberty, is not automatic, and it can vanish if Albertans get complacent. To remain the country’s economic frontier, Alberta must keep moving. That means tearing down the barriers to trade and commerce we still have and fighting the new ones Ottawa and other provinces are busy inventing.
The costs of standing still are enormous. Economists estimate internal trade barriers drain Canada of up to $130 billion a year, as much as seven percent of GDP, a fraction of what the Trump tariffs would inflict. For Alberta alone, even a ten percent reduction in interprovincial barriers would be worth $7.3 billion annually. And when Quebec blocked the Energy East pipeline, Alberta lost the chance to ship crude worth as much as $15 billion a year — roughly one-fifth of its economy. That isn’t theory; that is lost paycheques, foregone tax revenue, and hospitals and schools that never got funded.
Alberta has worked to make itself freer than most provinces. Liquor was privatized decades ago—Ditto for property registries. The New West Partnership has opened labour mobility and procurement between Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and B.C. Alberta imposes no cultural or linguistic tests on newcomers. No PST. These are the reasons people come here — because it’s easier to find work, to start a business, to access pristine natural environments, to raise your children, and to get on with your life. Less bureaucracy and fewer people telling you what to do and how to live.
But there are still cracks in the foundation. Alberta’s liquor market is open on the retail side, but still congested at the warehouse level due to the AGLC monopoly. Professional guilds in law, teaching, and health care slow down credential recognition. Public procurement often tilts local in ways that make no sense. And like every province, Alberta still bows to Ottawa’s telecommunications rules, the banking oligopoly, the dairy and poultry cartels (supply management), even though it benefits Quebec farmers and hurts Alberta’s. These barriers cost real money and serve no useful purpose.
If those are the old barriers, new ones are emerging. The most notorious new barrier isn’t new at all. This is the recently resurrected protectionist reflex in the RoC. For a century and a half, Canadians have built a culture that is contrary to the dream of their founding fathers to have open trade within the country. Canadians like to mock Donald Trump’s tariffs, but their instincts are no different. When Trump tariffed Canadian steel, Ottawa’s immediate answer was “We’ll buy Canadian” as retaliation. The elbows-up, “buy local” campaigns are no different from the commercial nationalism Trump is using. And the “buy local” impetus precedes Trump. They prop up the cartels and marketing boards, the oligopolistic giants in telecoms, banking, groceries, and construction. Such reflexes are not based on free market ideas.
What makes this 21st-century mercantilism sting even more is the lack of any real appetite in Ottawa to defend free trade. When Mark Carney announced he would “help” canola farmers, it was a double insult. First, it signalled that in the Prime Minister’s Office, there is no courage to fight for open markets abroad — subsidies at home are easier than complicated negotiations. Second, those subsidies are no gift: they are paid for by the very farmers they are supposed to help, through taxes collected in Saskatchewan and Alberta, among others, laundered through Ottawa’s bureaucracy, and handed back with a smile. This is Canada’s oligopoly culture in miniature: no defence of free markets, more subsidies to placate, and more Ottawa bureaucrats to process the paperwork. All of these come at a price. Ottawa money is never free money.
And the irony deepens. Carney himself promised that interprovincial barriers would be gone by July 1, 2025. He did not deliver. And his latest announcement of a new “process” to expedite infrastructure risks does precisely the opposite — adding new layers of federal meddling, vetoes and Ottawa bureaucrats into what should be provincial decisions.
Haultain Research is a reader-supported publication.
If you enjoy our work and would like to support us and see more of it, please share our posts
and consider becoming a paid subscriber.
The enforcement of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, along with the surrounding culture, is a recent development. What began as workplace training has evolved into a mechanism for bureaucrats and gatekeepers to extend their authority. In some regions, such as Ontario, DEI mandates have been codified into law, forcing individuals to think and act in ways that are not of their own choosing.
This kind of identitarian enforcement saps productivity, creates “bullsh*t jobs” focused on compliance, and categorizes people instead of promoting unity among them. Most concerning is the way it restricts mobility for workers who don’t fit ideological criteria, punishing those who refuse to conform. This system creates opportunities only for a select, tiny class of individuals.
Alberta has a distinct advantage in this context, as it has not fully embraced the DEI agenda—apart from federal agencies and affiliated organizations, sadly including our own ATB. However, it must remain vigilant against the encroaching imposition of these practices.
The third significant challenge we face on the horizon is “debanking.” In 2022, we witnessed how swiftly Ottawa could order banks to freeze accounts, and how readily banks complied. Since then, federal regulators have been extending their influence under the guise of anti-money laundering regulations. The reality is straightforward: industries or individuals that federal governments deem undesirable can be cut off from financial services. For Alberta, with its energy sector labelled as a threat to the planet, this poses a considerable risk. Entire industries—or even individuals who consume “too much” energy—could soon find themselves excluded from the marketplace by radicals in the PMO.
David Suzuki once called for criminally charging folks he considered environmental offenders, and the NDP has expressed a preference for criminalizing support for the oil and gas sector (The NDP, ostensible fond of books in schools and free speech, also wants to criminalize asking questions about non-existent mass graves and the fictional narrative of genocide in Canada). A free economy loses its meaning if citizens can be excluded from it through government decrees. Alberta must protect its residents by establishing ATB as a fortress for banking, addressing any divisive tendencies, and enshrining access to banking as a civil right. Alberta needs to protect its citizens when those federally chartered banks act as enforcers for Ottawa.
So what does moving forward look like? Alberta has a strong culture of enterprise, but it cannot rest on its laurels. Unless it works to keep ahead, others will eventually catch up. Alberta must double down on being the most desirable place in Canada to live and work. That means bold and greater transformational reforms.
Breaking the cartel-like influence of professional regulators—such as teachers, lawyers, doctors, and nurses—who have transformed their organizations into barriers is crucial. These groups often prosecute their members to enforce ideological beliefs that most Albertans do not support.
Additionally, we need to ensure that access to banking is protected in provincial law, regulating credit unions so that no Albertan can be denied banking services for political reasons. We should also consider breaking up large municipalities to encourage smaller communities to compete for residents and businesses.
Ending the equalization payments and replacing them with a Goods and Services Tax (GST) transfer to Ottawa is necessary to ensure that Alberta’s wealth benefits Albertans directly. Healthcare delivery must be reformed so that patients receive timely services and genuine choices.
Furthermore, we should deregulate trucking and housing construction to make life more affordable for families. Finally, we must tackle public service unions that operate like political monopolies, using examples from small towns like Coaldale to demonstrate how reform can begin at the grassroots level.
Canada advocates for free trade but often behaves like a medieval guild. Alberta has demonstrated that a more liberated approach is viable, but the province must continue to leverage its advantages. This involves resisting cartels, challenging the banks, dismantling outdated barriers, and preventing the emergence of new ones before they become too imposing.
Alberta has always been a frontier — a place where people come to build, take risks, and prosper. Frontiers are not maintained by standing still; they thrive by moving forward. If Alberta continues to push ahead, it can remain the engine of prosperity and the most desirable place to live and work. However, if it becomes complacent, it risks falling behind, becoming weaker, and Ottawa will be more than willing to take advantage of that.
The choice is simple: Alberta can either be fenced in by cartels and bureaucrats, or it can break the fences and keep the frontier open. That is the task, and it is one worthy of Alberta’s spirit.
For the full experience, and to help us bring you more quality research and commentary, please upgrade your subscription.
-
Business15 hours agoCarney Admits Deficit Will Top $61.9 Billion, Unveils New Housing Bureaucracy
-
Alberta12 hours agoAlberta first to add citizenship to licenses
-
Alberta11 hours ago
Break the Fences, Keep the Frontier
-
Business14 hours agoCarney’s Ethics Test: Opposition MP’s To Challenge Prime Minister’s Financial Ties to China
-
Business13 hours agoAttrition doesn’t go far enough, taxpayers need real cuts
-
Addictions2 days agoNo, Addicts Shouldn’t Make Drug Policy
-
Alberta2 days agoEducation negotiations update: Minister Horner
-
COVID-192 days agoNew Study Obliterates the “Millions Saved” COVID Shot Myth