Global Warming Lie: The Real Data | Tom Harris

For decades now mainstream media and climate alarmists have been telling us that manmade emissions are going to cause a runaway greenhouse effect. They claim that ‘the science is settled’, and further, that 97% of scientists agree. Tom Harris has a master’s degree in mechanical engineering, with specialties in thermodynamics and fluid dynamics, two of the disciplines most qualified to assess our coming extinction via environmental disaster. Tom worked as an engineer for the National Research Council. As a lecturer at university, he taught climate change to 1500 students. For many years Tom was an advocate for the global warming movement, until another professor showed him some data that made him question. Since then Tom has been working hard to spread the truth about manmade global warming. And the simple truth is, it’s a lie. Tom joins me today with the real data on climate change, and proves that not only is manmade global warming a complete myth, but that the actions which are being taken by governments around the world to save us all from this non-existent threat could in fact result in severe environmental repercussions. Mr. Harris gives us the real data which shows that a new ice age may not be more than a thousand years away, and shares his concerns that attempts to address the global warming lie could in fact result in that new ice age starting, not in a thousand years, but before the end of this century. Indeed, as the global warming alarmists claim, we are running out of time to wake people up. Questions That Were Deleted by Rogers TV Before Uploading the Debate: Mindy J. Thomas, Ambassador of the Ontario Fringe Farm Network “My question is for Catherine [McKenney], Mark [Sutcliffe] and Ade [Olumide]. When it was brought up in debate #1 that Texas’s reliance on wind power led to 700 deaths when wind failed just before the cold hit last year, Catherine said, referring to Energy Evolution: ‘The key commitments for energy really are district energy, solar energy and looking at ways of reducing greenhouse gases. I don’t know that wind power takes precedence in it.’ That is deceptive and wrong. District energy doesn’t address how power is generated. Ottawa’s plans for wind power is about three times as much as solar. Did you vote for a fifty-seven-billion-dollar plan without knowing what was in it?” Jay Nera, a candidate for the People’s Party of Canada in the last federal election: “Fifty-seven point four billion dollars. In the first debate, I pointed out that Ottawa, if it reduced its emissions to net zero would only affect the global temperature by one-ten-thousandths of a degree Celsius. And the response I was given was that it’s important because Ottawa would lead the world. And we’re expected to believe that the world is going to follow Ottawa. China, the world’s largest emitter, twice that of the USA, has made it crystal clear that they are not slowing down. They are not following Ottawa. They are actually massively increasing, for example, coal consumption. So, when essentially no one of magnitude is following us, why is Ottawa expected to pay billions and billions and billions of dollars in expenditures for statistically zero global effect? LINK: ICSC Canada testimony to City of Ottawa
To access this content, you must be a member.