You are currently browsing The Arbourist’s articles.
Much ado about Nut-thing… :)

Let’s look at the data and facts and see what happens. Find a quiet place in your consciousness away from some of the current climate alarmism and review some ideas that may not fall completely in lockstep with the narrative.
This except from ‘How to Teach Children About Climate Change‘:
“In addition, “teaching climate change” ought to include a deep dive into some of the more counterintuitive of humanity’s customs and practices. For instance, it would no doubt surprise many to be shown that curbside recycling programs actually increase carbon emissions. It would likewise be surprising, but true, to point out that despite pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, the United States is one of the only developed nations to meet carbon reductions goals, mostly because of fracking and the conversion of powerplants to natural gas.
It also flies in the face of the standard understanding to realize that diesel-powered cars have a smaller carbon footprint than do electric vehicles. If global temperatures indeed prove to be a significant and detrimental phenomenon, it is simple (theoretically) to induce managed global cooling with a small, controlled injection of Sulphur dioxide at the poles.
One suspects, though, that such facts are not what “believers” have in mind when it comes to teaching climate change. It’s not actually about the temperature, it’s about the control—the ever-so-delicious shared frisson of seeking to avert Armageddon. A clear-eyed, reasoned, non-coercive approach to helping us live in harmony with our planet isn’t on the syllabus.”
Let’s continue to look at the evidence and data, even if it does not precisely fit our preconceived notions of what is right.

This is why we need to be so careful with our language and people who want to deform it for their own political ends. The activist Left uses the same vernacular as most ordinary people do, but also have a second meaning which also use that reflect their true intentions. In an argument, they flip between what is commonly understood and their special meaning of the word. Until you stake out exactly what they mean, and get them to define their terms they will run you around the mulberry bush bouncing between the different definitions of the same word.
Need an example – Take the word “inclusion”. See what you think it means, then find out what how the activist Left uses the term.
Food for thought when you hear from the gender cultists – “Oh this doesn’t apply to children!”.
…
It most certain does, stop repeating the lie.

AAP announces they’ll do an evidence review
“The American Academy of Pediatricians (which also covers Canadian pediatricians) is starting to cave to pressure to evaluate their recommendations for gender-affirmation care. They announced this week that they would undertake a systematic review of evidence and update their guidance.
We see this as a ploy to buy some time as the AAP (hopefully) works out how they’re going to backpedal from the current policy they continue to promote. Three systematic evidence reviews have already been done in Europe and the Florida Medical Board has done a “review of reviews”. The findings from the AAP will not change.
Canadian research expert, Dr Gordon Guyatt of McMaster University was quoted in the New York Times yesterday saying the A.A.P.’s report will most likely find low-quality evidence for pediatric gender care. “The policies of the Europeans are much more aligned with the evidence than are the Americans’,” he said.”
All I can say is : ‘About Damn Time!’. Who would of thought that evidence based medicine should be based on evidence and proof of efficacy?

-Robin Morgan. (1973)


Your opinions…