AM 1220’s John Bolton Seems to think Climate Change isn’t real…Cornwall Ontario – August 16, 2010

Cornwall ON – So I was listening to John Bolton on AM 1220 this morning and he started ranting about Global Warming or Climate Change.   It’s amazing how people like John; akin to those that as late as the 90’s still argued that smoking didn’t cause cancer, still disbelieve that we humans can impact our climate?

I chatted with John a few weeks ago at Moustache Joe’s and he waxed how the environment was better while we were polluting in the 70’s than today.     People on the public airwaves espousing arguments like this are frankly; dangerous.

There’s an ever growing amount of evidence that climate change is very very real.    We can debate about the cause and which route to take to try and help Mother Nature or prevent further damage.

John we saw what happened when we stopped CFCs.   We stopped using Asbestos, other chemicals.  All one has to do is look at Cornwall’s environment since Domtar and the mills have ceased to be.

We all can do something to take better care of our homes and you sir; as someone that has access to public airwaves, should be more responsible.

John waxed about some colder temperatures in some areas of the world as that was “proof” that there was no such thing as climate change.   That’s kinda retarded, sort of like suggesting that a hockey team was worse because one player scored less in a season.

LINK

This is the latest in a line of studies to suggest that climate change will make it harder to feed the world’s growing population by cutting yields.  In 2004, other researchers found that rice yields in the Philippines were dropping by 10% for every 1C increase in night-time temperature.

There are literally thousands of examples of drastic changes in our environment.    Go back to the Seventies John and look at the data.

In the meanwhile thankfully there are millions of people that realize that we need to take better care of our home so that events like Waterfest can take place without fear of coming into contact with the water and enjoying all that nature offers to us for free.

Island Ink JetJames Moak

46 Responses to "AM 1220’s John Bolton Seems to think Climate Change isn’t real…Cornwall Ontario – August 16, 2010"

  1. PJR   August 16, 2010 at 9:27 AM

    John’s a nice guy on the phone, admin. That I can attest to. Perhaps he spends too much time indoors with his head between earphones. Did you ask him what he makes of such monumental global events as the disappearing ice in the Arctic and Greenland, the floods in China and Pakistan, not to mention the scientifically recorded increase in gobal temperatures in recent years? Strikes me that climate-change deniers are either naive optimists, or they simply don’t want to know.

  2. tnpreacher555   August 16, 2010 at 9:55 AM

    The earth is not going to be destroyed by climate change, nor by nuclear holocaust, or even by human over population. In the last book of the Holy Bible is the book of Revelation. It is mostly a futuristic prophecy of what is shortly to come to pass. The book of Revelation describes what is called the “Great Tribulation”. Simply the Great Tribulation period is when King Jesus takes back this rebellious, God rejecting world by force. It is the time of the wrath of the Lamb. Compared to the Egyptian exodus of Israel as recorded in the book of Exodus, the Great Tribulation will be a time when severe and catastrophic judgment will rain down from heaven. Every aspect of human civilization will be effected in a monumental way, and that not for good. Each judgment will be a call to repentance and a command to turn to God from one’s wicked sins.

    Some would like to think the book of Revelation is just a book of allegorical symbolism, but the majority of learned Bible scholars of our day do not see it that way. They see it as a futuristic, literal time of coming judgment that will climax in what is called Armageddon. Armageddon is the worlds last ditch effort to wipe out the nation of Israel. Such an effort will be defeated as Messiah Lord Jesus return to destroy the Antichrist, the Beast and the False prophet, and all the God rejecting armies of this world.

    So don’t fear environmental apocalypse, it is just not going to happen. I am not saying we are to be wasteful in the use of our resources; conservation, and good and wise stewardship is always the best way, as it glorifies God and shows that we are thankful for all that He gives to us. But it is a thin line that we are trying to walk between conservation and worshiping the creation, which in God’s book – idolatry. One needs to fear God and keep His commandments now via a living relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ, and that by faith alone. There is temporal wrath ahead, but there is eternal wrath that all will face who reject God’s gracious offer of salvation when one dies with out Christ.

  3. Alex Menard   August 16, 2010 at 10:50 AM

    “admin” – With you being the green party candidate, shouldn’t you be watching what you say? This site can be construed as Election advertising. Also attacking a “fellow” media type is uncalled for. You are a buffoon.

  4. Boxer   August 16, 2010 at 11:04 AM

    We can see what ‘admin’ might do with a little power, Alex.

  5. Boxer   August 16, 2010 at 11:11 AM

    Dangerous is when you seemingly set up and report partial texts of what seems like otherwise private conversations in a bar. On top of that you attack Bolton without signing off with your name. I guess I have to assume who you are. If these are the foot steps of C.F.N. I won’t walk in them.

  6. Boxer   August 16, 2010 at 11:26 AM

    …it’s very NKVD of you actually.

  7. Boxer   August 16, 2010 at 11:30 AM

    – like a wisp of smoke the Green Party will now elect a new face

  8. smee   August 16, 2010 at 12:01 PM

    Jamie
    I think this whole global warming has been blown way out of proportion. Yes I do agree we need to clean up our act but it is not as grave as led to believe.

    Considering that the Earth has recently come out of the last small Ice Age, logically, we should be getting warmer.
    It is this idea that the Earth can or should remain in a specific enviromental configuration that is artificial and unnatural. Besides who is qualified to dictate what the ideal atmospheric conditions for earth should be??
    .
    Global warming fundamentalists talk about the balance of nature and it is a very romantic term, and should be considered. However nature is all about change. Change can be a form of chaos. Nature is one life form dieing while another evolves into being, that is the unfortunate balance of nature not the fantasy balance brought forward by environmentalists, nature has never been in balance;

    Points to consider
    1. Otzi, was found after being buried deep in a glacier. How much did that glacier have to recede before finding him? Was the earth in the same ecological scenario at the time he passed as we are now?
    2. Glacier Girl found in the ice after glacier recedes. This situation only dates back to the late 40’s early 50’s.
    3. The wreck of a pioneering British plane which crashed 53 years ago has been found on a South American mountain top – with three bodies still in the shattered fuselage.
    These are just to name a few. The earth could be on a cycle and it is not only our fault, or as much as we believe it is. In each case the earth had to have been at that level of ice in order for these sites to be entombed. I doubt the dead guys buried the pioneering plane.

    How many of you can remember the 70’s. People were adamant that we were heading into an Ice Age and again screamed global issues. The predictions were that European crop growers by somewhere in the early 20 century would not be able to produce enough crops sighting it would be too cold. I think it was Time Magazine in the 70’s wrote and article “ How to survive the coming Ice age”

    What happened to those scenarios?

    Now we see the North Sea ice receding and opening up new discoveries. One being oil. There is the potential of millions of barrels in the sands below the sea bed.
    How did the oil get in those locations? There must have been heat animal/plant life before it all froze over.

    Here are some other interesting points nobody much presents,

    Did you know water, vapor not droplets, is one of the largest contributors of the green house scenario 95% ?, natural decay, volcanoes and other phenomenon takes up about 4.7% and we are the other 0.3%

    Did you ever hear anyone tell you that since the industrial revolution ended the planet has actually reduced in temperature by about .7°C?

    Now with all the information I ask you, are we really trying to save the planet. Or is it just another plan to stimulate the economy.

  9. admin   August 16, 2010 at 12:58 PM

    Hi Smee,

    Wow, very well thought out post and some great discussion points. What I will say is that there’s nothing wrong with a Green Economy. I think what some protest is control of that economy. We have a PM that very much is in sync with big oil. That needs to change. We need balance and we need to spread the wealth an awful lot better.

    Newer green jobs may just be a starting point on that with the bonus of cleaning up our environment. 100 years ago whale blubber was a fuel source and dirty coal was the norm. Things change and we can’t let certain industries hold back progress at the expense of society and our health.

  10. smee   August 16, 2010 at 1:21 PM

    Jamie
    If we walk into the green economy status quo we will improve nothing. Currently it is out of sheer ignorence and fear. Next we will all be converting bomb shelters to eco chambers.

  11. smee   August 16, 2010 at 1:29 PM

    shoot hit the send button, prematurily

    In one of your srticles you dish Harper for his actions on the North Pole. What he has done is slowed Russian research and potential claimes to the mining rights. This is a great saving grace, Take a look at Kazakhstan and see what they do to a country rich in resources.
    You may think Harper is entrenched in oil, but if you want to play ball you need some weight behind you.

    It is kind the old addage keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

  12. admin   August 16, 2010 at 2:17 PM

    smee I’m not a demagogue and actually praised Mr. Harper on showing some initiative on the North. Sadly though if you look at Alberta’s Oil Sands I’m thinking we’re not that far behind Russia when it comes to exploiting resources.

  13. PJR   August 16, 2010 at 2:25 PM

    smee: Devastation and pollution of earth, air, and oceans, by human activity are both visible and incontrovertible. How do you reconcile that with “nature is all about change”?

  14. smee   August 16, 2010 at 2:36 PM

    been to the sands and compared to other nations we rule. I can also tell you ralph denied an asian country access to the sands for enviromental reasons. They wanted to operate behind closed gates without our interference so they just closed the doors on them. Potential Billions in revenue.

    I can also state that when it comes to the enviroment Alberta slams Ontario hands down on safety and enviroment.

    I can recall reporting an issue at Domtar where a product was spewing from the sewers on a cold night. The answer was, oh that always happens when iti s cold.
    In AB the ERT team is there in a heart beat people taken to safety grounds cleaned and or decontaminated and the enviroment reports filled out….

  15. smee   August 16, 2010 at 2:47 PM

    As well as the pseudonym that you accuse others of you do yourself.

    The politics also is bordering on hmmm bad etiquette kind of like Machiavelli perhaps, using the paper and walking a thin line. I hope you don’t step too far over and loose your potential to represent the Party

  16. admin   August 16, 2010 at 3:46 PM

    smee I don’t think I’ve even remotely crossed any line compared to the nature of a few of the comments in this thread. Your suggestion sir frankly is quite insulting.

  17. rodney vander veer   August 16, 2010 at 4:27 PM

    “In AB the ERT team is there in a heart beat people taken to safety grounds cleaned and or decontaminated and the enviroment reports filled out….”…just ask all those dead ducks in the tailing ponds.

  18. rodney vander veer   August 16, 2010 at 4:28 PM

    And ask all the natives who can no longer drink water or eat fish frome the rivers.

  19. rodney vander veer   August 16, 2010 at 4:37 PM

    The earth has gone through many warming and cooling cycles, as well as some huge tectonic plate shifts and volcanic eruptions through its billion year history. This would explain the presence of fossil fuels under the glaciers as well as other currently uninhabitable areas.. The difference between previous warming periods and the current one is the rate of warming…it is happening much faster now than ever. To suggest that humans are solely responsible for climate change would be folly. To say we have nothing to do with it, or can do nothing about it is even worse.

    The time we spend arguing is time wasted. We need to de-politicize this issue, and work together as humans with mutual interests: the preservation of life on earth as we know it, or in preparation for life on earth as it will become.

  20. admin   August 16, 2010 at 4:38 PM

    amen !

  21. smee   August 16, 2010 at 5:23 PM

    tailing ponds are a necessary evil, the fact that they have ponds built to hold waste is a step ahead from other places using mother nature

  22. Rev. Daniel W. Blair   August 16, 2010 at 7:06 PM

    The oil spills, hurricanes, floods, mudslides, and the global heat wave (which have been the cause of many fires, toxic smoke, and deaths) have many searching for answers. The internet is buzzing with articles and excellent blogs. But could it be simply the biblical sequence of God’s wrath being poured out upon the earth which is relevant to current events in today’s world. What if we are dealing with the wrath of God? Please understand the wrath of God is letting man slip deeper and deeper into the consequences of his own sin. Please visit my website at http://www.revelation-truth.org . Rev. Daniel W. Blair author of the book Final Warning

  23. Tammy A. Hart says:   August 16, 2010 at 9:43 PM

    And if I may comment, I have a friend who’s brother works out in the oil sands in Alberta and after twenty years they are happy to report that parts of the oil sands are restored to its natural state as promised, more proof that reasonable and sound environmental thinking can actually work. As well, I’m told that there is a small river that actually has naturally occurring oil that spews out of the earth and runs directly into the river along the banks.

  24. Desructo   August 17, 2010 at 6:24 AM

    So many foolish posts, so little time. Smee stated: “been to the sands and compared to other nations we rule”…which other nations did you visit, and what are the parametres your research was based on? Otherwise it is flawed logic, and a moot point. And again, Smee “I can also tell you ralph denied an asian country access to the sands for enviromental reasons”..so what happened next, is the land pristine and untouched, or did it just get soold to another investor? You also make false claims about Alberta’s envirnmental responsibility that has already been successfully rebutted.

    Rev Daniel Blair asks: “But could it be simply the biblical sequence of God’s wrath being poured out upon the earth which is relevant to current events in today’s world?”….NO.

    Tammy: Instead of stories from your brothers’ uncles’ husbands, neighbours dogs, best friend, how about a story based on facts, with some sort of backing proof, or what is called “evidence”.

  25. smee   August 17, 2010 at 11:05 AM

    Destructo
    The only other countries that put us to shame is Europe, That is in manufactring principals which reduce enviromental concerns. With regard to nature they sell their dirt so to speak.

    The land is only as pristine as the products You yourself use as a result of what they do.

    Alberta has a clause or rule if you will where in the land must be in the same state you found it in after working on it. A multitide of samples are taken noted and filed for later use. So as Tammy stated, considering the work they have done the lands are in dam good shape. If things stay the course, I may be back up there again soon and will re-confirm. Plaese do not allow your lack of expereince to lead you into judging other peoples knowledge.

    Rev Damiel
    Why does it have to be gods wrath? You religious zealots are all the same. Maybe it is the natural course of nature as well. It appears even as a religious person you still need something to justify what you believe in.

    Quit blaming GOD!

  26. PJR   August 17, 2010 at 12:01 PM

    Good call, Destructo. Assertion is no substitute for fact-based argument; nor are finger-pointing and jumping to conclusions.

  27. Thorin   August 17, 2010 at 12:23 PM

    As a self-described “green libertarian,” I see the trouble coming from both ends. On the one hand environmentalists repeating the mantra that “NO legitimate climate scientist questions global warming.” is both ridiculous and irresponsible. On the other hand, do we need to have proof of man-made climate change to take actions to both clean and green our environment? Using the argument that man is not causing climate change as an excuse to ignore the environment is equally irresponsible. Regardless of the global warming debate isn’t a cleaner, healthier environment desireable?

    I believe that finding better, cleaner and more efficient ways to live with respect to the environment should be a natural evolution as technology improves – leading to a greater quality of life for everyone. Bickering (and lying from both sides) about climate change is currently only serving as a distraction from the progress that could potentially occur.

  28. admin   August 17, 2010 at 12:48 PM

    Great post Thorin. We have to learn from the past; for example what happened with Tobacco and our society and prevent that same sort of lobbying to impact real solutions that benefit all of us.

  29. Desructo   August 17, 2010 at 6:04 PM

    Smee…I am aware of Alberta’s so-called rule. I am unaware of any progress made in this field. Please enlighten me with some documentation of this process. Anything, newspaper clipping, blog post, anything will do.

    Here is a link to a National Geographic article I read recently on the topic:http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/canadian-oil-sands/kunzig-text/6

    I have a section in particular you may find interesting, since it is a long story and you are clearly a busy man: McEachern, who works for Alberta Environment, a provincial agency, says the tailings ponds are his top concern. The mines dump waste­water in the ponds, he explains, because they are not allowed to dump waste into the Athabasca, and because they need to reuse the water. As the thick, brown slurry gushes from the discharge pipes, the sand quickly settles out, building the dike that retains the pond; the residual bitumen floats to the top. The fine clay and silt particles, though, take several years to settle, and when they do, they produce a yogurt-like goop—the technical term is “mature fine tailings”—that is contaminated with toxic chemicals such as naphthenic acid and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and would take centuries to dry out on its own. Under the terms of their licenses, the mines are required to reclaim it somehow, but they have been missing their deadlines and still have not fully reclaimed a single pond.

  30. Desructo   August 17, 2010 at 6:06 PM

    I apologize. Quotes would have been appropriate in front of “Meachern”, and following “pond”.

  31. Richard Komorowski   August 17, 2010 at 6:10 PM

    Just to elaborate on Tammy’s comment about reclamation in the Tar Sands, according to the Alberta Government: “Oil (sic) sands are contained in three major areas of northeastern Alberta beneath about 140,200 square kilometres, with approximately 602 square kilometres of land disturbed by oil (sic) sands surface mining activity.

    “In March 2008, the Alberta government issued its first reclamation certificate to Syncrude Canada Ltd. for the 104-hectare parcel of land known as Gateway Hill approximately 35 kilometres north of Fort McMurray.” (http://www.oilsands.alberta.ca/).

    I remember tar sands activity in the Fort McMurray area in the late 70s, early 80s. The 1.04 sq kilometer of reclaimed land, out of 602 sq kilometers so far strip-mined, is really impressive. This is an example of environmental action at its best, an example for us all to follow. At this current rate, (1 sq kilometer per 30 years), in only 18,000 years everything will be pristine again.

  32. smee   August 17, 2010 at 6:31 PM

    I do not think we need proof common sense dictates we need to improve.

    However speculation based on fear and ignorence is a dangerous combination ripe for the milking by wolves masquerading as politicians and industry

  33. smee   August 18, 2010 at 5:33 AM

    oh please don’t use the terms North of Fort Mac, not yet anyway *l*

    destructo,
    If it remains as you have stated in the ponds it is contained.

    National Geographic? Not a reputible source seeing as they are one of the entities benfitting from ‘ speculation based on fear and ignorence is a dangerous combination ripe for the milking by wolves masquerading as politicians and industry” in order to survive.

    Lobbying can be great for monetary gain

  34. Desructo   August 18, 2010 at 6:18 AM

    Rchard: Thanks for that info, nice to see the numbers…some people prefer to speculate based on rumours, and handed down stories. Me, I prefer facts to fight off ignorance.

  35. Reg   August 18, 2010 at 8:16 AM

    “Not a reputible source seeing as they are one of the entities benfitting from ‘ speculation based on fear and ignorence is a dangerous combination ripe for the milking by wolves masquerading as politicians and industry” in order to survive.”

    National Geographic / Conservative Party, potato / potahto.

  36. smee   August 18, 2010 at 11:26 AM

    destructo

    Now I know there are no moving pictures here but a little reading may improve your character

    http://environment.alberta.ca/01108.html

    Followed by

    “Alberta issues first-ever oil sands land reclamation certificate

    Former oil sands site transformed into forested area

    Edmonton… Alberta has designated a rolling forested area with hiking trails and lookout points as the first piece of oil sands land to be reclaimed.
    The Alberta government issued a reclamation certificate to Syncrude Canada Ltd. for the 104-hectare parcel of land known as Gateway Hill approximately 35 kilometres north of Fort McMurray.

    “To confirm the success of reclamation takes time,” said Environment Minister Rob Renner. “Both operators and government want to ensure that the reclamation is successful before a certificate is granted.”

    Under Alberta’s reclamation standards, companies mustremediate and reclaim Alberta’s land so it can be productive again. Alberta requires reclaimed land to be able to support a range of activities similar to its previous use.

    “This is an important first step in restoring land to its more natural state,” said Sustainable Resource Development Minister Ted Morton. “We are continually learning more about the science of land reclamation, and we will apply that learning to ensure we have continuous improvement.”

    The site was used for placement of overburden material removed during oil sands mining. By the early 1980s, the area was no longer needed and Syncrude began to replace topsoil and plant trees and shrubs.

    Typically oil sands mining requires the use of land for several decades. The reclamation process occurs throughout the life of the project, and the final reclamation certification occurs when the land is no longer in use and has been fully reclaimed.

    -30-
    Please visit http://www.syncrude.ca/users/folder.asp?FolderID=5703 for photos of Gateway Hill.

    Media inquiries may be directed to:
    Kim Capstick
    Director of Communications
    Alberta Environment
    780-427-6267
    Kim.Capstick@gov.ab.ca

  37. admin   August 18, 2010 at 11:29 AM

    Alas AM 1220 is no more. No word on Mr. Bolton’s local future at the moment…..

  38. smee   August 18, 2010 at 11:35 AM

    what did they do with am 1220?

  39. smee   August 18, 2010 at 11:36 AM

    Can we get CJSS back?

  40. val the impala   August 21, 2010 at 4:04 AM

    I doubt Bolton thinks climate change isn’t real, I guess no-one disputes that the climate has been constantly changing over the centuries. What he disputes is man made global warming, a totally different concept

  41. admin   August 21, 2010 at 6:16 AM

    I can never understand how anyone could be of that belief Val living in Cornwall. I know in my last near 7 years of living here our climate has changed. The air, the water – it’s changed…for the better, and we’re one slim example.

    Look at satellite pictures of parts of China and Russia now and you can see the impact of industrialization or heat maps of cities.

    Arguing the semantics of political positions rarely is productive. It’s one step above name calling when it comes to debating a point.

  42. Standup   August 21, 2010 at 7:44 AM

    Unlike calling someone’s view point “kinda retarded” as you did in your article admin?

  43. admin   August 21, 2010 at 7:51 AM

    I know, I’m just not a politically correct person 🙂 I won’t apologize for that neither. Our world is far too filled with conformists; and people who’ve eaten far too much genetically modified foods or molly coddled. Hyper-sensitivity isn’t good for the soul.

  44. Standup   August 21, 2010 at 8:15 AM

    Well, I just wanted to point out that as you say…name calling is not productive. So as much as I agree with your stance…I’m afraid that this hyper-sensitive, molly coddled conformist feels you could have used different terminology. I’m going to go have a breakfast of genetically modified food now.

  45. Cojones Kid   August 21, 2010 at 12:12 PM

    Its your microwave that genetically alters food

  46. smee   August 22, 2010 at 1:40 PM

    Jamie
    Global warming cannot be proven to be a result of people, Stay with me on this.

    If the world changes constantly and in the 70’s the planet was destined for the next ice age, now 40 yrs later we are on the brink of global warming. How is that possible considering industry and most and by most I mean way most *l* is undergoing change as well improvements in the way we live and produce are everywhere.

    Add to that they have nothing to compare it to. Current practices to determine change are based on what happened. Could it have been natural or is it a result of us? No proof and nothing to base it on other then speculation.

    Global warming is an occurrence of nature, the only thing people are doing now is using it as another approach to industrialization.

    I would stand beside, in front and or behind anyone that told government to issue change to industry not me.

    Why does the big three still manufacture such large gas guzzling trucks to the public? Why do we need hummer? Does any other industrialized country use them like we do?
    Why can they not test a diesel car for emissions? Is it possible that the fuel system is so efficient the emissions are negligible? If that is the case how come the big three do not manufacture them orwhy they are not legislated to do so.

    Volkswagen Lupo can attain 100Km on three litres of fuel, But we cannot buy it in North America

    Mc Guinty. Harper, Layton, Ignatief, Lauzon Brownell do not care so long as they keep us confused on the issue. There interest is better served if nothing is accomplished

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.