‘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.

Silent genocide exposed: Are christians being wiped out in 2025?

Aldara Zarraoa / Contributor | Getty Images

Is a Christian Genocide unfolding overseas?

Recent reports suggest an alarming escalation in violence against Christians, raising questions about whether these acts constitute genocide under international law. Recently, Glenn hosted former U.S. Army Special Forces Sniper Tim Kennedy, who discussed a predictive model that forecasts a surge in global Christian persecution for the summer of 2025.

From Africa to Asia and the Middle East, extreme actions—some described as genocidal—have intensified over the past year. Over 380 million Christians worldwide face high levels of persecution, a number that continues to climb. With rising international concern, the United Nations and human rights groups are urging protective measures by the global community. Is a Christian genocide being waged in the far corners of the globe? Where are they taking place, and what is being done?

India: Hindu Extremist Violence Escalates

Yawar Nazir / Contributor | Getty Images

In India, attacks on Christians have surged as Hindu extremist groups gain influence within the country. In February 2025, Hindu nationalist leader Aadesh Soni organized a 50,000-person rally in Chhattisgarh, where he called for the rape and murder of all Christians in nearby villages and demanded the execution of Christian leaders to erase Christianity. Other incidents include forced conversions, such as a June 2024 attack in Chhattisgarh, where a Hindu mob gave Christian families a 10-day ultimatum to convert to Hinduism. In December 2024, a Christian man in Uttar Pradesh was attacked, forcibly converted, and paraded while the mob chanted "Death to Jesus."

The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) recommends designating India a "Country of Particular Concern" and imposing targeted sanctions on those perpetrating these attacks. The international community is increasingly alarmed by the rising tide of religious violence in India.

Syria: Sectarian Violence Post-Regime Change

LOUAI BESHARA / Contributor | Getty Images

Following the collapse of the Assad regime in December 2024, Syria has seen a wave of sectarian violence targeting religious minorities, including Christians, with over 1,000 killed in early 2025. It remains unclear whether Christians are deliberately targeted or caught in broader conflicts, but many fear persecution by the new regime or extremist groups. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a dominant rebel group and known al-Qaeda splinter group now in power, is known for anti-Christian sentiments, heightening fears of increased persecution.

Christians, especially converts from Islam, face severe risks in the unstable post-regime environment. The international community is calling for humanitarian aid and protection for Syria’s vulnerable minority communities.

Democratic Republic of Congo: A "Silent Genocide"

Hugh Kinsella Cunningham / Stringer | Getty Images

In February 2025, the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), an ISIS-affiliated group, beheaded 70 Christians—men, women, and children—in a Protestant church in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo, after tying their hands. This horrific massacre, described as a "silent genocide" reminiscent of the 1994 Rwandan genocide, has shocked the global community.

Since 1996, the ADF and other militias have killed over six million people, with Christians frequently targeted. A Christmas 2024 attack killed 46, further decimating churches in the region. With violence escalating, humanitarian organizations are urging immediate international intervention to address the crisis.

POLL: Starbase exposed: Musk’s vision or corporate takeover?

MIGUEL J. RODRIGUEZ CARRILLO / Contributor | Getty Images

Is Starbase the future of innovation or a step too far?

Elon Musk’s ambitious Starbase project in South Texas is reshaping Boca Chica into a cutting-edge hub for SpaceX’s Starship program, promising thousands of jobs and a leap toward Mars colonization. Supporters see Musk as a visionary, driving economic growth and innovation in a historically underserved region. However, local critics, including Brownsville residents and activists, argue that SpaceX’s presence raises rents, restricts beach access, and threatens environmental harm, with Starbase’s potential incorporation as a city sparking fears of unchecked corporate control. As pro-Musk advocates clash with anti-Musk skeptics, will Starbase unite the community or deepen the divide?

Let us know what you think in the poll below:

Is Starbase’s development a big win for South Texas?

Should Starbase become its own city?

Is Elon Musk’s vision more of a benefit than a burden for the region?

Shocking truth behind Trump-Zelenskyy mineral deal unveiled

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have finalized a landmark agreement that will shape the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations. The agreement focuses on mineral access and war recovery.

After a tense March meeting, Trump and Zelenskyy signed a deal on Wednesday, April 30, 2025, granting the U.S. preferential mineral rights in Ukraine in exchange for continued military support. Glenn analyzed an earlier version of the agreement in March, when Zelenskyy rejected it, highlighting its potential benefits for America, Ukraine, and Europe. Glenn praised the deal’s strategic alignment with U.S. interests, including reducing reliance on China for critical minerals and fostering regional peace.

However, the agreement signed this week differs from the March proposal Glenn praised. Negotiations led to significant revisions, reflecting compromises on both sides. What changes were made? What did each leader seek, and what did they achieve? How will this deal impact the future of U.S.-Ukraine relations and global geopolitics? Below, we break down the key aspects of the agreement.

What did Trump want?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Trump aimed to curb what many perceive as Ukraine’s overreliance on U.S. aid while securing strategic advantages for America. His primary goals included obtaining reimbursement for the billions in military aid provided to Ukraine, gaining exclusive access to Ukraine’s valuable minerals (such as titanium, uranium, and lithium), and reducing Western dependence on China for critical resources. These minerals are essential for aerospace, energy, and technology sectors, and Trump saw their acquisition as a way to bolster U.S. national security and economic competitiveness. Additionally, he sought to advance peace talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war, positioning the U.S. as a key mediator.

Ultimately, Trump secured preferential—but not exclusive—rights to extract Ukraine’s minerals through the United States-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, as outlined in the agreement. The U.S. will not receive reimbursement for past aid, but future military contributions will count toward the joint fund, designed to support Ukraine’s post-war recovery. Zelenskyy’s commitment to peace negotiations under U.S. leadership aligns with Trump’s goal of resolving the conflict, giving him leverage in discussions with Russia.

These outcomes partially meet Trump’s objectives. The preferential mineral rights strengthen U.S. access to critical resources, but the lack of exclusivity and reimbursement limits the deal’s financial benefits. The peace commitment, however, positions Trump as a central figure in shaping the war’s resolution, potentially enhancing his diplomatic influence.

What did Zelenskyy want?

Global Images Ukraine / Contributor | Getty Images

Zelenskyy sought to sustain U.S. military and economic support without the burden of repaying past aid, which has been critical for Ukraine’s defense against Russia. He also prioritized reconstruction funds to rebuild Ukraine’s war-torn economy and infrastructure. Security guarantees from the U.S. to deter future Russian aggression were a key demand, though controversial, as they risked entangling America in long-term commitments. Additionally, Zelenskyy aimed to retain control over Ukraine’s mineral wealth to safeguard national sovereignty and align with the country’s European Union membership aspirations.

The final deal delivered several of Zelenskyy’s priorities. The reconstruction fund, supported by future U.S. aid, provides a financial lifeline for Ukraine’s recovery without requiring repayment of past assistance. Ukraine retained ownership of its subsoil and decision-making authority over mineral extraction, granting only preferential access to the U.S. However, Zelenskyy conceded on security guarantees, a significant compromise, and agreed to pursue peace talks under Trump’s leadership, which may involve territorial or political concessions to Russia.

Zelenskyy’s outcomes reflect a delicate balance. The reconstruction fund and retained mineral control bolster Ukraine’s economic and sovereign interests, but the absence of security guarantees and pressure to negotiate peace could strain domestic support and challenge Ukraine’s long-term stability.

What does this mean for the future?

Handout / Handout | Getty Images

While Trump didn’t secure all his demands, the deal advances several of his broader strategic goals. By gaining access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the U.S. undermines China’s dominance over critical elements like lithium and graphite, essential for technology and energy industries. This shift reduces American and European dependence on Chinese supply chains, strengthening Western industrial and tech sectors. Most significantly, the agreement marks a pivotal step toward peace in Europe. Ending the Russia-Ukraine war, which has claimed thousands of lives, is a top priority for Trump, and Zelenskyy’s commitment to U.S.-led peace talks enhances Trump’s leverage in negotiations with Russia. Notably, the deal avoids binding U.S. commitments to Ukraine’s long-term defense, preserving flexibility for future administrations.

The deal’s broader implications align with the vision Glenn outlined in March, when he praised its potential to benefit America, Ukraine, and Europe by securing resources and creating peace. While the final agreement differs from Glenn's hopes, it still achieves key goals he outlined.

Did Trump's '51st state' jab just cost Canada its independence?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

Did Canadians just vote in their doom?

On April 28, 2025, Canada held its federal election, and what began as a promising conservative revival ended in a Liberal Party regroup, fueled by an anti-Trump narrative. This outcome is troubling for Canada, as Glenn revealed when he exposed the globalist tendencies of the new Prime Minister, Mark Carney. On a recent episode of his podcast, Glenn hosted former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, who provided insight into Carney’s history. She revealed that, as governor of the Bank of England, Carney contributed to the 2022 pension crisis through policies that triggered excessive money printing, leading to rampant inflation.

Carney’s election and the Liberal Party’s fourth consecutive victory spell trouble for a Canada already straining under globalist policies. Many believed Canadians were fed up with the progressive agenda when former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned amid plummeting public approval. Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party leader, started 2025 with a 25-point lead over his Liberal rivals, fueling optimism about his inevitable victory.

So, what went wrong? How did Poilievre go from predicted Prime Minister to losing his own parliamentary seat? And what details of this election could cost Canada dearly?

A Costly Election

Mark Carney (left) and Pierre Poilievre (right)

GEOFF ROBINSPETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

The election defied the expectations of many analysts who anticipated a Conservative win earlier this year.

For Americans unfamiliar with parliamentary systems, here’s a brief overview of Canada’s federal election process. Unlike U.S. presidential elections, Canadians do not directly vote for their Prime Minister. Instead, they vote for a political party. Each Canadian resides in a "riding," similar to a U.S. congressional district, and during the election, each riding elects a Member of Parliament (MP). The party that secures the majority of MPs forms the government and appoints its leader as Prime Minister.

At the time of writing, the Liberal Party has secured 169 of the 172 seats needed for a majority, all but ensuring their victory. In contrast, the Conservative Party holds 144 seats, indicating that the Liberal Party will win by a solid margin, which will make passing legislation easier. This outcome is a far cry from the landslide Conservative victory many had anticipated.

Poilievre's Downfall

PETER POWER / Contributor | Getty Images

What caused Poilievre’s dramatic fall from front-runner to losing his parliamentary seat?

Despite his surge in popularity earlier this year, which coincided with enthusiasm surrounding Trump’s inauguration, many attribute the Conservative loss to Trump’s influence. Commentators argue that Trump’s repeated references to Canada as the "51st state" gave Liberals a rallying cry: Canadian sovereignty. The Liberal Party framed a vote for Poilievre as a vote to surrender Canada to U.S. influence, positioning Carney as the defender of national independence.

Others argue that Poilievre’s lackluster campaign was to blame. Critics suggest he should have embraced a Trump-style, Canada-first message, emphasizing a balanced relationship with the U.S. rather than distancing himself from Trump’s annexation remarks. By failing to counter the Liberal narrative effectively, Poilievre lost momentum and voter confidence.

This election marks a pivotal moment for Canada, with far-reaching implications for its sovereignty and economic stability. As Glenn has warned, Carney’s globalist leanings could align Canada more closely with international agendas, potentially at the expense of its national interests. Canadians now face the challenge of navigating this new political landscape under a leader with a controversial track record.

Glenn's Show Prep