Expert Government Scientist Demonstrates Trudeau's Carbon Tax Policy Is Flim-Flam (Deceptive Nonsense)

"Trudeau’s ‘climate emergency’ meets his national muddle of malfunctioning carbon taxes".  That's the lead-in to energy economist Robert Lyman's National Post article on the flim-flam of carbon taxes imposed by Trudeau and his liberal-progressive gang on unwary Canadians.  Lyman's credentials are impeccable - he is retired from 30 years as a senior Canadian Federal Bureaucrat in the role of  an adviser and senior manager.  As well he has written and published a paper entitled “Carbon Taxation — The Canadian Experience”, to be released in a few days.  He blows away all the phoney arguments about how wonderful and fair Liberal carbon taxes are and reveals them to be pure Liberal partisan politics and nothing more.

The article is found at:  https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/trudeaus-climate-emergency-meets-his-national-muddle-of-malfunctioning-carbon-taxes

Just the flim-flam alone should be enough to destroy Trudeau's claim that he is entitled to use the Peace, Order and Good Government (POAGG) excuse to over-ride provincial jurisdictions under Canada's constitution and ram his tax-plan down everyones' throats.

In other words, carbon taxing is all political flim-flam (deceit, lies). 

Strangely, no province has sought to challenge, as part of the "national interest" or 'climate emergency" arguments made  by the Liberals in support of using the "peace, order and good government" clause in the constitution. 

This would mean the challengers presenting evidence that the underlying Liberal claim and premise that human-generated carbon dioxide is a significant cause of whatever global warming is happening is WRONG, and force the Liberals to respond with evidence to the contrary. 

Without that basic premise being demonstrated as fact, not dogmatic faith, there is no emergency and no excuse whatsoever for the use of the undemocratic "POAGG" clause. 

If the courts disregard this, then they will be acting politically by siding with the Liberals, which may be a likely thing, given their past behaviours.  At any rate, it would be useful to know for certain that the Supreme Court of Canada is, or is not, a political arm of the Liberal Party. 

As Mr. Lyman also suggests, the obvious fact that the alleged cure forced on Canadians by the Liberals, is so politically motivated, unfairly and diversely applied that their policy is not true "peace, order and good government" at all.  The whole picture must be examined, not just the government's mere unfounded assertions.

Stick that in your craw or other orifice, Mr. Coyne.