In my latest National Post column I say that neither Jane Fonda nor the rest of us can reach low-carbon nirvana just by really nicely really wanting it.

In my second video for Canadians for Energy East, a project of the Economic Education Association of Alberta, I explain what opponents should not say about them and what supporters should.

In my new video for Canadians for Energy East, a project of the Economic Education Association of Alberta, I explain why Energy East is the right practical answer to the actual choices we face in energy policy in Canada.

In my latest National Post commentary I reproach the government for the huge carbon footprint of its delegations to international climate conferences.

Another strange item from my "at last we can begin to live" files: a story in today's National Post says a new GMO potato has been approved for use in Canada that "is less likely to bruise or turn brown when cut." A solution to which, again, I search in vain for the problem. I'm not convinced that all the criticisms made of GMOs are entirely rational. But I do think that when we're messing with nature for reasons as trivial as this one we're risking trouble for nothing.

To be fair the story says the "Innate" potato has less asparagine, and that this "amino acid found in many starchy foods produces acrylamide, suspected to be a human carcinogen" when you cook potatoes above 120 C which many people probably do. But honestly, whose life was really rendered less fulfilling because potatoes turn brown when cut or produce trivial quantities of something "suspected to be a human carcinogen" when cooked?

In the entire history of mankind, how many lives have been lost because of the difference between the quantity of asparagine in a natural potato and the quantity in an Innate potato?

Either we're using science for such trivial purposes because we've run out of real problems that can be solved through science, as could arguably also be happening with the latest breathless improvements in smartphones, or because we don't know what real problems are.

So again, don't run screaming into the woods, or out of the fields, because of this new GMO potato. It won't eat Etobicoke. But it also won't solve any problem that matters.

In my latest commentary for the National Post I argue that the debate over carbon taxes as a key environmental policy is pointlessly obscured by bickering over whether this tax, and only this one, should be “revenue neutral”. Especially as a number of leading politicians seem to have no idea whatsoever what the term even means, let alone why it matters.

In my latest National Post commentary, I warn that the Liberals may be creating a pipeline policy where approval is impossible.

My friend Tom Harris is inviting people to attend a conference sponsored by his International Climate Science Coalition and others in Paris at the same time as the big UN affair. Even if you don't find yourself in Paris this coming week, it's well worth pondering the questions Tom and his colleagues are asking about the orthodox view. Most fundamentally, the ICSC and others ask for proper evidence on these three points:

• Recent climate change is unusual in comparison with historical records;
• Human emissions of carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouse gases' are dangerously impacting climate;
• Computer-based models are reliable indicators of future climate.

If the consensus is as solid as alarmists claim, it should be easy to provide. If they can't or won't provide it, something very unscientific is going on here.