Children are taking to the streets to demand ‘climate action’ and they are issuing law suits as well. 

Quebec seems to be very activist on this file – but do the protesters even know what they are protesting about?

Sadly, this effort to push children to advocate for ‘climate action’ – a topic they know nothing about – may end in disaster for society, with indoctrinated youth unable to think critically or scientifically. Do they even know they are advocating for policies like biofuels that are deemed by the UN to constitute crimes against humanity and rapid decarbonization, which Prof. Michael J. Kelly explains would result in mass deaths?  Rather like the Children’s Crusade of Medieval times, this can’t end well. 

According to the chronicles, the Children’s Crusade was an utter disaster. Few of the Crusaders returned from their journey; most died of hunger or thirst or were drowned at sea, while others were sold as slaves.” 


Reynald Duberger recently posted an item on his blog on :


March for the Climate

For our English-speaking readers – the following is a Google translate of his commentary.

There is this Saturday in Montreal a “march for the climate”. If people are walking for something they call “the climate”, could there be people who are against this climate? And who would be against the sunsets too? I am a scientist and if I were in this walk I would have questions of a scientific nature to ask these demonstrators who claim to want to protect something which I am not sure they know and understand. And protect this climate against what? Or against whom?


The Earth has no climate. So we can not talk about the climate of the Planet. Climate is a regional and not a global concept. We can give a simple definition by saying, like my colleague geophysicist Vincent Courtillot, that climate is the average over thirty years of the weather in a region. And this weather is not only the temperature, but also the degree of humidity, the winds, the precipitation, the normal or “extreme” weather events as we scare the alarmists.


You would probably be surprised at the responses to my vox pop to these protesters if I asked them the following questions:


1- You manifest for “climate” … what is “climate”?


2- Do you pretend that the climate is threatened? And if so, by what or by whom and how?


3- What are the scientific observations on which you base your fears?


4- How do you explain the fact that the global average annual temperature has been stagnating or barely increasing over the last 20 years, despite the fact that more than 40% of all our CO2 emissions have been emitted during the same 20 years?


5- What do you call “greenhouse effect”?


6- What do you think is the most important “greenhouse gas”?


7- Does climate sensitivity mean anything to you?


I could stretch quite a bit and confuse the majority of these protesters who have a great emotional burden for the environment and think that their planet is in danger, but are unable to state any scientific argument on which they could sit their fears (apart from that of the pseudo-consensus that one has drummed into them in the media) … and it is very sad. How can people go out into the streets to demonstrate on an essentially scientific subject of which they know almost nothing and which they claim that their survival and that of their planet depends on?


Reynald was kind enough to also share his questions that he used in past university classes to get his students thinking.

(English translation)

Climate alarmists say that:

1- there is a global warming since the beginning of the industrial era

2- this warming is mainly due to our consumption of fossil fuels causing the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG)

3- If we do not reduce these GHG emissions, we rush straight and accelerated towards global average annual temperatures (TMAG) that lead us to disaster, or even to the apocalypse, by the end of this century.

They claim that their three statements are 95% sure, like the American Geophysical Union, which I am ashamed to have been a member for more than 35 years, said in its deplorable manifesto. They also claim that 97% of scientists able to pronounce on the subject, lean in their favor.

On my side, if I admit (1), I express serious doubts about (2) and (3). I think the predicted temperatures for the end of the century are clearly exaggerated. I therefore do not put forward any assertion, but instead oppose to their assertions the following 7 statements, which I invite them to comment on, or to attempt to contradict.

1- There is no evidence of significant human climatic warming (RCA – Réchauffement Climatique Anthropique/Anthropogenic Global Warming).

2- There is no consensus in the scientific community about this. The 97% nickname, launched by the article by Cook and Australians. al., does not stand up to critical analysis. There are no studies, no polls among the scientific community capable of deciding, as far as I know, any consensus. How do you identify a scientist who can pronounce?

3- There are no observations or data demonstrating that so-called “extreme” weather events (such as the recent floods in Quebec, Fort McMurray’s forest-fire drought, Harvey, Irma, Jose hurricanes) become more and more frequent and severe because of this supposed RCA.

4- As time passes and data and observations accumulate, forecasts from climate models increasingly deviate from observations by satellites and balloon probes – ie models are tainted by huge errors, and these models are therefore invalid-

5- There is no observed acceleration of rising sea levels.

6- The overall annual average temperature has stagnated or is barely increasing for more than 20 years now, despite the fact that 40% of all human emissions of greenhouse gases have been during the same 20 years. Do climate-alarmists have an explanation?

7. Researchers $, $ policy, $ activist $ group and $ media find their account and have $ obvious $ interest in maintaining dogma, ignorance and therefore climate credulity.

If any of these statements can be shown to be false, I will bow. In the meantime, I invite my fellow citizens to exercise rigor of thought, since it is science that we are talking about and not to hesitate to put these scientists, media, politicians and activist groups in the position of proving their claims.


Les climato-alarmistes affirment que :

1- il y a un réchauffement climatique depuis le début de l’ère industrielle

2- ce réchauffement est essentiellement dû à notre consommation de carburants fossiles causant l’émission de gaz à effet de serre (GES)

3- si l’on ne réduit pas ces émissions de GES, nous nous précipitons tout droit et de façon accélérée, vers des températures moyennes annuelles globales (TMAG) qui nous mènent à la catastrophe, voire à l’apocalypse, d’ici à la fin de ce siècle.

Ils prétendent que leurs trois affirmations sont sûres à 95%, comme l’American Geophysical Union, -dont j’ai honte d’avoir été membre pendant plus de 35 ans- , l’a déclaré dans son déplorable manifeste. Ils prétendent également que 97% des scientifiques aptes à se prononcer sur le sujet, penchent en leur faveur.

De mon côté, si j’admets (1), j’exprime des doutes sérieux sur (2) et (3). Je pense que les températures prédites pour la fin du siècle sont nettement exagérées. Je ne pose donc aucune affirmation, mais oppose plutôt à leurs affirmations les 7 énoncés suivants, que je les invite à commenter, ou à tenter de contredire.

1- Il n’y a aucune preuve d’un réchauffement climatique anthropique (RCA) significatif.

2- Il n’y a pas de consensus dans la communauté scientifique à ce sujet. Le pseudo 97% , lancé par l’article des Australiens Cook et. al., ne résiste pas à l’analyse critique. Aucune étude , aucun sondage parmi la communauté scientifique apte à se prononcer ne démontre, à ma connaissance, un quelconque consensus. Comment identifie-t-on un scientifique apte à se prononcer?

3- Il n’y a aucune observation ni aucune donnée qui démontre que les événements météorologiques dits « extrêmes » (comme les récentes inondations au Québec, les sécheresses – feux de forêts- de Fort McMurray, les ouragans Harvey, Irma, Jose) deviennent de plus en plus fréquents et sévères à cause de ce supposé RCA.

4- Au fur et à mesure que le temps passe et que les données et observations s’accumulent, les prévisions issues des modèles climatiques s’écartent de plus en plus des observations par satellites et par ballons sondes.- i.e. les modèles sont entachés d’énormes erreurs , et ces modèles sont donc invalides-

5- Il n’y a aucune accélération observée de la montée du niveau des océans.

6- La température moyenne annuelle globale stagne ou augmente à peine depuis maintenant plus de 20 ans en dépit du fait que 40% de toutes les émissions humaines de gaz à effet de serre l’ont été au cours de ces mêmes 20 dernières années. Les climato-alarmistes ont-ils une explication ?

7- Des chercheur$,, politique$, groupe$ activiste$ et média$ y trouvent leur compte et ont de$ intérêt$ évident$ à entretenir le dogme, l’ignorance et donc la crédulité climatique.

Si certains de ces énoncés peuvent être démontrés comme faux, je m’inclinerai. J’invite en attendant mes concitoyens à faire preuve de rigueur de pensée, puisque c’est de science qu’il s’agit et à ne pas hésiter à mettre en demeure ces scientifiques, médias, politiques et groupes activistes de prouver leurs affirmations.