‘Climate Denial’ a Crime? Canada Investigated 3 Groups Accused of Making These Claims

September 15, 2017

WRITER

Are we closer to a world where questioning climate change is illegal?

A Canadian agency spent more than a year investigating three organizations accused of “denying mainstream climate science.” An environmental group had complained about Friends of Science, the International Climate Science Coalition, and the Heartland Institute. The organizations were accused of making “misleading” claims, including pointing to the sun as a huge factor in climate change and saying that carbon dioxide isn’t a pollutant.

While the government has stopped poking around for now, the investigation could start up again if more people bring forward information, AKA accuses the groups of being “climate deniers.”

Pat and Stu looked at the Orwellian story and then discussed some easily debunked points about global warming using some handy hurricane data from the past 50 years.

This article provided courtesy of TheBlaze.

PAT: Do you know in Canada, they're also investigating climate denial? People who deny climate change are going to be investigated now.

So there's -- there's another thing that's coming to fruition.

JEFFY: You're darn right it is.

PAT: Is this politically correct viewpoint is now so entrenched, that if you don't subscribe to it, you could be investigated by law enforcement and perhaps eventually arrested and charged with it. It's just not that outrageous to think that could happen now.

JEFFY: It is not.

PAT: You better get on board with climate change, or we're going to put you in jail.

JEFFY: You pooh-pooh the congressmen and the senators that are crazy, and they say that at town halls, and they say that these people -- that it should happen. You say, eh, that will never happen. It's coming. They're going to try.

STU: Well, and here's the thing: If you actually go by the definition of, let's say Al Gore, you're going to find not just evil conservatives like ourselves, but the overwhelming majority of the people in the United States of America.

PAT: Right.

STU: Because what you have to believe, if you are Al Gore is not only is climate change happening. You have to believe that it is almost entirely or entirely man made. You also have to believe that it is catastrophic. And you also must believe that the government must take massive action to control the energy supply here in the United States. Because even if you believe the first three and you get to that last one, you say, you know what, I just think maybe the free market would be best at this. Or, maybe we should just like look at some -- you know, hopefully these companies can innovate. And we can create that.

PAT: Denier! Denier!

STU: You're a denier, unless you say absolutely without question to all of those things. For example, you also have to say that hurricanes are becoming more frequent, even though the science itself says they're becoming less frequent. Even though that's going on. Even though the NOAA actually says -- NOAA says that there is no indication in the last 120 years of any increase when it comes to hurricanes, at all, that is tied to man-made climate change, you still have to believe the opposite of those scientists.

PAT: Isn't there something we can do about NOAA? Can we not shut down that organization?

JEFFY: Or start telling people the truth. Can we, I don't know, bomb the organization?

STU: Is it Breitbart or is it NOAA? These bastards. It's so incredible.

PAT: It is. Because you could be reasonable and say, "Sure. I agree it's a little warmer than it was. But that's happened a million times." Well, that, you're a denier. You could also say, I think it's happened. And it's our fault.

JEFFY: Right.

PAT: However, it's a good thing because there's going to be more food that grows because it's a little bit warmer. And it's not a problem. You're still a denier. That's not enough. You have to go with the catastrophic thing. And you also have to agree to --

STU: With the government action to solve the catastrophic thing. Because if you believe catastrophic consequences, but believe we should do something else about it, you're also a denier.

And, again, when it comes to the hurricanes -- because this is what happened. Stevie Wonder did this, right? Stevie Wonder was on stage at this hurricane benefit and tied hurricanes to man made global warming.

PAT: Yeah.

STU: We now have 50 years of global hurricane data. There is no trend in the frequency or number of storms that reach hurricane force. This is from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at NOAA. Which I know you want to shut down NOAA. But listen to them for just a moment. Because I know everybody -- I know when I see Pat, a lot of times, he'll open his computer. I'll be standing behind him, and his home page will open up. It's almost always the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory.

PAT: It's my home page.

STU: It is your home page. You have -- when you email Pat, you can email him at Pat@GeophysicalFluidDynamicsLaboratory.net.

PAT: There's an ampersand in there. I don't know why. I don't know why.

(laughter)

STU: But it says -- this is a report they released -- not in 1912. Not 15 years ago. Not ten years ago, but August 31st of this year, as we led up to Hurricane Harvey and Irma --

PAT: Oh, my gosh, Stu, that's pathetic. How old were you August 31st of this year? Come on now.

STU: The same age I am currently. That's how old. Because it was just a few days ago. Okay?

STU: Oh.

JEFFY: Are you trying to make the case that Stevie Wonder saw this?

PAT: He did not see it.

STU: I don't think he did see it. He didn't see it. You know why? Because he doesn't choose to read the Geophysical Fluid Laboratory -- the Dynamics Laboratory material. It's not one of his main sources. That's why he can't see it. There may be another reason too. I don't know.

PAT: He should have them as his home page, like I have.

STU: There you go.

This is what they wrote: In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century, nor our analysis of trends in the Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts over the past 120 years support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic.

I don't know how -- they are saying not only does it not confirm it, it's not consensus. They're saying, it does not support the notion.

JEFFY: Period. Yeah.

STU: Period.

PAT: And yet, we're the freaks. We're the haters. We're the irresponsible people who deny science.

STU: Yeah. And what do you like that, when there's an investigation going on? Because Al Gore tells you that you have to believe that there's going to be more brutal storms. And these people that keep coming out saying, "Oh, well, look, it's obvious. Look at these hurricanes. You got both Irma and you got Harvey. It's terrible. Of course you got to believe global warming."

So we believe the last few weeks, but not the last 12 years? It's insane. They will jump through any hoop to prove this right. And because they know if people believe it and people come along on this -- and I think the younger generations show real signs that they do believe a lot of these things, and if they believe it, they will be able to control everything. They will be able to control every piece of the economic landscape in the United States of America. Because once you control power, you can do anything. If you can push around century like that, and you can justify any change in regulation based on the idea that global has to be solved and we're the only ones that can solve it, man, that's a lot of power.

It's the same thing we're seeing with this stuff with Title 9 at colleges with these rape accusations. And Betsy DeVos did a speech about this. And she made all these crazy claims about all these, you know -- kids were going through this in college. And all these crazy rape accusations. Every one of them that she made happened. All the crazy stories she made happened. And it's because we have accepted, generally speaking, as a society, this society that 90 percent of men that go to college are rapists. So because there's a, quote, unquote, rape culture, you can justify any action. Of course, we all want to stop brutal rapes. Of course, we do. So you can justify any action. Any dismissal of First Amendment rights of do you process. Any of that can be dismissed. Because we have this much larger thing that we have to address. Which is our rape culture. Or global warming. Whatever it is. Once you get those things set in motion, you can do anything with them. And that is the plan of the left. I do think there are scientists who believe this could be bad. I do think there's a lot of people who do think that it could be bad. I do think there's some evidence that shows that we have warmed.

PAT: It's not 97 percent, though, I'll tell you that.

STU: It's certainly not 97 percent. Also, Al Gore does not care if that's true. He does not care if one scientist believes it's accurate. He does this because he wants control and to personally enrich himself at this point. But, yes, he probably does believe it. But it's immaterial to what he's doing. He just wants to be able to control large swaths of the United States economy. And not him personally. But his movement.

PAT: You know what I think this diatribe of yours is all about?

STU: What?

PAT: Jealousy. I think you're jealous that is talented enough to write something as beautiful as this.

VOICE: One thin September soon, a floating continent disappears in the midnight sun. Vapors rise, as fever settles on an acid sea. Neptune's bones dissolve. Snow glides from the mountain. Ice fathers floods for a season. Hard rain comes quickly. Then dirt is parched. Kindling is placed in the forest for the lightning celebration. Unknown creatures take their leave unmourned. Horses ready their stirrups. Passion seeks heroes and friends. The bell on the city on the hill is rung. The shepherd cries, the hour of choosing has arrived. Here are your tools.

PAT: Here are your tools.

STU: That is one of the worst things I've ever heard in my entire life.

I cannot believe a person would go on television and say those words in that order that way.

JEFFY: And got praised for it, by the way.

PAT: Oh, listen to this.

VOICE: I'm so glad you read that. That was really --

VOICE: Thanks for asking me.

VOICE: I'm happy to hear --

JEFFY: Thank you for asking me.

PAT: And he went home and he wept.

JEFFY: No one ever asked me to say these words in public before. Thank you.

Breaking point: Will America stand up to the mob?

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

Glenn's Show Prep