Busy day in the bodyshop (next few days, actually), so things will get off the ground slowly today. Flames. Ugh. It’s not that I don’t like how they look – they’re just so bloody much work and technically unforgiving.
In the meantime, check out the blogroll. Plus, there’s lots of good items linked at National News Watch this morning.
Check ’em out, and I’ll be back when I get back.
As of this morning, Google News pulls up nothing from the MSM on the radioactive remarks by Liberal energy critic, Mark Holland.
And if you’re one of those out there scratching your head about why this is such a “big deal” – imagine, for a moment, that Stockwell Day had blown into Montreal in 2005 and mused on live radio that a Conservative government might make transfer payments to the province contingent on Quebec going English only.
That help?
I know this only sounds effective in a 1950’s movie kind of way, but one of the only ways to keep the MSM honest is to have an organized letter-writing/boycott campaign on the sponsers the media companies depend on.
When a large company receives a letter from a handful of people they can dismiss it, when they start receiving letters from dozens and hundreds of people they will start to take note; if you send letters to the sponsers of Global, CTV, Chum, Sun Media and so on saying that you think it is unreasonable that this story hasn’t been published and you will begin an organized boycott if they continue to support these media outlets something can happen.
Personally, the insane thing to me is how much coverage there was about a ‘dog’ comment …
I guess that a comment from the liberals that they will (potentially) be willing to destroy our economy in order to meet Kyoto isn’t newsworthy …
Please everyone write letters and emails to the newspapers and CTV news, Steady Eddie, Ted Morton, CPC, and MP’s. Lets not let the MSM kill this story.
Thanks for the analogy Kate.Most of the commenters here have the picture…it’s the ROC that is getting the 20 second pro-Lib soundbites from MSM where Dion looks like the real smooth operator.
There was a reference in the comments to Libs hidden agenda re: they don’t have the Alberta vote,so they might as well count on the the anti-west voters from La La L’otario…he was right on.
At least it wasnt ignored by all the media. The National Post has an editorial this morning about Stephane Dion, and the Mark Holland comments are front and centre. Here is a sample quote:
“Just how far Mr. Dion is prepared to go to capture the “green” sentiment of voters may have also been revealed, inadvertently, on Thursday by Ontario Liberal MP Mark Holland, the party’s natural resources critic. Speaking on the nationally syndicated radio talk show Adler Online, Mr. Holland told host Charles Adler that the Liberals were prepared to place severe restrictions on the development of Alberta’s oil sands in order to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas released in the mining process. “We’re going to say [that] you cannot exploit that resource,” Mr. Holland admitted, “[that you cannot] go in there and pump it out as fast as you can to give it to the Americans and sell out our national interests and blow apart our emissions targets.”
Talk about a “hidden agenda.” Mr. Holland’s remarks revived the twin spectres of the Liberals’ National Energy Program of the 1980s and their vehement anti- Americanism of the past decade, in one swoop. Meanwhile, Mr. Dion’s denial of an obvious admission showed his party still has trouble giving voters the straight goods. All of this should give voters plenty of food for thought in the next election.”
I just read the first 2 comments…I agree but…those e-mails get buried, filed under G, and no one is accountable to respond to them. Put more energy locally…let people know what is going on where you work, and at the arena, and if you are really brave at the family gatherings.Be ready with web addresses so they don’t have to take your word for it…they should check it out for themselves. All this assuming they aren’t in La La Land, and don’t care.I like to remind them about the little box in the corner of their paystubs that indicates a big chunk of their hard earned money is going for the useless CBC, and that the Libs stole some of it…that they should ‘care’.
Yes Kate the Holland toxic musings are a big deal. I don’t think any single item in recent momory has displayed how openly biased the eastern controlled Canukistani Media is.
Holland blurted out a policy so toxic to nation unity that you would think by the sheer ordacity of it the media would be all over it.
We westerners KNOW the LPC has had a west-hostile agenda to raid our resource wealth for decades…here ot is spelled out in black and white…Liberas musing over nationalization of our energy resources is bound to cause separatist backlash in Alberta….I can see how partisan-connected media would want to keep that quiet.
I decided today to make this Holland revelation a number 1 priority in postings to the alternative media….and to selected unbiased MSM sources.
As Adler mused; “What price are we paying for the Mainstream Media’s cold blooded decision to ignore the Liberal agenda.”
Just sent an email to Ted Morton. Damn I wish he woulda made it to Premier. I also tried post a comment on CTV’s question period political blog regarding the dirth of coverage that this is getting. I was very polite etc. will be interesting to see if the ctv blog “owner” posts the comment.
Didn’t the cbc used to have a comments section? Or am I remembering wrong? If they had one and took it down who could blame them. There would be people pointing out their poor journalism constantly.
I already have made my points ( yesterday ) to some of the biggies with copies to various others in the business so they are ALL know of the blogosphere’s awareness of the bias existing regarding Liberal oil sands issue.
Is it any wonder that the corruption of the governing Libs was able to go on for a decade.
Canadian MSM the Liberal government corruption enablers!
Dont know why but my last comment didnt post. I will try again. There is mention of the Mark Holland story in the National Post editorial today. A sample:
Just how far Mr. Dion is prepared to go to capture the “green” sentiment of voters may have also been revealed, inadvertently, on Thursday by Ontario Liberal MP Mark Holland, the party’s natural resources critic. Speaking on the nationally syndicated radio talk show Adler Online, Mr. Holland told host Charles Adler that the Liberals were prepared to place severe restrictions on the development of Alberta’s oil sands in order to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas released in the mining process. “We’re going to say [that] you cannot exploit that resource,” Mr. Holland admitted, “[that you cannot] go in there and pump it out as fast as you can to give it to the Americans and sell out our national interests and blow apart our emissions targets.”
“Talk about a “hidden agenda.” Mr. Holland’s remarks revived the twin spectres of the Liberals’ National Energy Program of the 1980s and their vehement anti- Americanism of the past decade, in one swoop. Meanwhile, Mr. Dion’s denial of an obvious admission showed his party still has trouble giving voters the straight goods. All of this should give voters plenty of food for thought in the next election.
The Fraser Institute has released ..
An independent review of the latest United Nations report on climate change shows that the scientific evidence about global warming remains uncertain and provides no basis for alarmism.
In 2006, independent research organization The Fraser Institute convened a panel of 10 internationally-recognized experts to read the UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) draft report and produce an Independent Summary for Policymakers. The result, released today, is a detailed and thorough overview of the state of the science. This independent summary has been reviewed by more than 50 scientists around the world and their views on its balance and reliability are tabulated for readers.
“While a lot of effort goes into producing the large IPCC reports, its complex message is often obscured by its accompanying Summary for Policymakers. That summary report does not come from the scientific community. Instead it is developed through political negotiations by unnamed bureaucrats from various governments. Critics of past summaries point out they downplay and gloss over areas of uncertainty and data limitations,” said Dr. Ross McKitrick, coordinator of the independent review and senior fellow with The Fraser Institute.
“The debate around climate change has become highly politicized and alarmist. So we asked a team of highly qualified scientists to look at the IPCC report and produce a summary that they felt communicates the real state of knowledge. Our intent with this document is to allow people to see for themselves what is known and what remains highly uncertain within climate change science.”
an example
• Data collected by weather satellites since 1979 continue to exhibit little evidence of atmospheric warming, with estimated trends ranging from nearly zero to the low end of past IPCC forecasts. There is no significant warming in the tropical troposphere (the lowest portion of the Earth’s atmosphere), which accounts for half the world’s atmosphere, despite model predictions that warming should be amplified there.
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=783
Nationl Post has some discussion of Holland’s verbal flatulence here (in the lead editorial):
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=fe14e961-1324-4cc9-9cf6-1fc6fc0b00cd
The National Post mentioned Holland’s remarks at the end of the article “Stephane Dion’s Kyoto problem”. National Newswatch has linked to it.
Perhaps the US media would be more interested in this story. Let them muse over how this might affect the future of the US if the Libranos ever get their kleptocratic claws on this nation’s throat again.
On the other hand, they may see additional states as a consequence. It’s no doubt a story of vital interest to Americans.
CTV’s blog has no comments on this.
They are moderated. No one has commented on this? From the comments here it appears they have tried but are being suppressed.
Not covering the story,
and
actively suppressing the comments about it?
We sure are fighting a stacked deck. The Liberals and almost all the MSM have closed ranks as one Battalion. They have proven to be a toxic team.
Our Prime Minister is fully aware of it and is working around them to get his message through to the people.
And we thought all along we were better than Banana Republics/Dictatorships?
The next election will answer the burning question,how dumb are the masses?
I tried posting at ctv politics blog about Holland..I guess I was rejected!How can something this blatant be ignored?
Anyone catch Drudge last nite?? He played part of a speech by Hillary,she flat-out stated that she wanted to “seize”huge profits of the oil bus.Hmmm,I guess the Libs are taking direction from those evil Americans.I didn’t catch whole speech,as radio reception not great.I blame that on global warming..after all it was -45 here in sunny Manitoba!
Anyone catch Dion on Lib.media(cbc) this a.m?He wants PMSH to “rook-a-nize”climate change is happening.Gotta stop watching,as it made me gag on my wheaties!
I’m sure that we can rest assured that Baird will bring that up every time a Liberal stands up to ask a question on the environment in Question Period today.
I’m wondering – the Liberals must be desperate to keep Holland’s remarks out of the MSM. They saw what happened with Dion’s remarks against Alberta’w workers, denigrating Alberta’s success as ‘easy money’.
But, there are several issues. The Liberal agenda is simple and singular. Winning power. They aren’t interested in Canada.
The key to power is the vote in Ontario and Quebec. Particularly in Quebec, because Quebecers are economically and socially cocooned within the economy of Canada; they rely heavily on massive federal subsidies for their socialist welfare lifestyle. But, the existence of the Bloc (which should be outlawed), a provincial-only party that is allowed to sit in the federal legislature, means that a genuine federal party has great difficulty in getting a majority because it cannot take seats in Quebec. The Bloc is the ‘natural governing party’, the default party in Quebec.
To entice voters away from the Bloc – The Liberals must bribe Quebec. With money. Where do they get the money? From Alberta. Why from the West? Because it has the money. The West is Canada’s economic powerhouse.
But – because the distribution of house seats is unfair – Quebec has 75 seats while BC-Alberta, with the SAME population as Quebec, has only 64 seats. In order for those two provinces to reach 75 seats, their population will have to increase about 1 and a half million OVER that of Quebec. This is what we have set up in Canada.
Two problems. One, allowing a province-only political party to sit in the federal house. Two, having an unfair distribution of seats in the House.
The issues are therefore, NOT about the environment, nor about the economy, nor about any basic issues concerning Canadians. The ‘kerfuffle’ going on now over the environment etc, among the Liberals and NDP – and the CPC, is about votes.
The environment? The Liberals don’t give a damn; they got us into Kyoto, which is a money transference scheme, not an environmental program, simply for the political show of it (Chretien vs the US). They did NOTHING to implement reduction of emissions for they knew this would cost them VOTES. Instead, they planned to ‘buy off’, ie, transfer billions out of the country – rather than investing that money into Canada.
Dion’s suggestions about the environment are, in a word, crap.
He suggests using cold water for washing your clothes, having only one car, using public transit. And..a ‘lot of determination’. Determination. Yes, that’s a great help. And, shutting down the oil sands, or, taxing them.
Wait – taxing them? That’s for MONEY. Where will that money go? To votes in Quebec. Remember Adscam? Using taxpayer money to pay for work done by ad firms to get the Liberals re-elected in Quebec? Remember? Well, this is the same thing. Using taxpayer money to bribe voters in Quebec.
How about health care? Dion’s suggestion is that of a pompous professor, suggesting that the problem is that the health care hospitals and staff are ignorant and don’t know the ‘best practices’ of moving patients rapidly through their system. Dion would set up the federal gov’t to find information on ‘best practices’ ..and send it to these ignorant uninformed health care practioners. That would, he feels, solve health care. Unbelievable – but, that’s his solution.
So- what is going on, I’m speculating, is a vote-buying scenario in Ottawa.
First, the Liberals and NDP are fighting each other for control of the left. They have, for some odd reason, focused on the env’t. This might have been because of the emergence of the Green Party, but – I have my doubts.
I think it’s because the issue is essentially so ambiguous, open and vague, and practically unsolvable by humans – that it’s open to Belief and Faith emotional systems rather than reason and proof. The Liberals and NDP are, because they are left, operating within EMOTIONS. And apocalyptic fiery-ending-in-hell are great attractions for the emotional junkies among the left.
Plus, the issue of Guilt Money from the Evil West being sent to the Victims of Capitalism (eg, China, India etc) ..well, the left love that kind of talk.
So- the env’t is really the Liberals and NDP battling for votes in latte-land of Ontario and Quebec.
The Alberta We’ll Come and Take Your Money tactic of the Liberals is to appeal to Quebec voters who are always desperate for Money, Money, Money. Because it’s their Natural Right to be supported by the ROC.
Are these valid election issues? No. I don’t think so. They are malicious, cynical tactics to manipulate voters – tactics particularly being used by the Liberals. I’m suggesting that the NDP are simply fighting for their life against the Liberals.
What are the election issues? Certainly, so far, the Liberals haven’t any. That’s because they are not interested in Canada or Canadians. Just in power – by manipulating people into scare votes or greed votes.
The issues remain, as the Conservatives have said, around the economy, energy – and the environment. BUT – note that key word of ‘energy’. To tax the oil sands, to reduce the output – will harm both the economy and the energy feasibility of Canada. Therefore, the approach to the env’t can’t implicate the first two parts of the approach.
Consider the Liberal’s key words of: a ‘sustainable economy’, ‘social justice’ and ‘the environment. Ahhh. Interesting. They’ve opened the door to semantic and emotional manipulation.
If you reduce the oil sands, you are ‘sustaining’ them for the future. If you tax the oil sands and give the money elsewhere – that’s ‘social justice’. And..you are ‘saving the environment’.
That’s pure political manipulation, which takes a reality and flips its meaning. Reminds me of Animal Farm.
RE:”Didn’t the cbc used to have a comments section? Or am I remembering wrong? If they had one and took it down who could blame them. There would be people pointing out their poor journalism constantly.
Posted by: johnboy at February 5, 2007 10:05 AM”
CBC got rid of their bulletin board around the time leading up to the last election. There were so many anti-Librano comments being posted, that the board suddenly went into “technical difficulties” from which it never recovered. :))
Just heard on the radio on the west coast that former Liberal cabinet minister David Anderson was quoted saying that Stephan Dion is late coming to the environment table. So much for Mr. Green Jeans, and his ‘sis-tain -able’ economy. The Liberals screwed themselves everytime they opened their mouths this weekend and the MSM kept mum about it. The talking heads are not reporting this because the powers that be are Liberal hacks in charge of everything in this country after years of Liberal rule. It is time the Conservatives did a complete housecleaning.
CBCpravda reporting this morning on another lawyer make work project from a group of people that cant look after themselves or their children.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/05/fontaine-complaint.html
“money for nothing and our kids for free.”
Today’s quizzie:
1. The Liberals dig up a five year old letter where Harper makes some uncomplimentary remarks about Kyoto.
2. The Liberals go on the record as planning to ignite a bitter conflict with a major province via an illegal and unconstitutional scheme to usurp the regulation of the province’s energy industry.
Which story gets all the coverage?
For the record, this is what I wrote today. I underestimated the issue and the feelings of Alberta’s resentment towards federal interference. I am big enough to admit when I am ill informed:
February 5, 2007 – There are two things that I want to get across this morning, before expanding later in the day.
First, I want to say that I severely underestimated the anger, alienation and fear that still resides in Alberta as a result of the NEP. I don’t believe that there has been any one issue that has garnered as much response from my readership as the content of my commentary from last Friday. My surprise is clearly an indication of not only my youth, but also my lack of knowledge about the sentiments of Albertans…I am smart enough to acknowledge both. The provincial jurisdiction over natural resources is far beyond an economic repository for Alberta residents – it is a way of life, and I suppose that the manner in which we dote on la belle province in terms of lifestyle should be applied to Alberta in its own way. I received a couple of emails that I will post excerpts from, just to display the passion and intelligence of those that lived through NEP, and who can now relate that experience to our federation.
Secondly, I sincerely believe that Mark Holland’s comments to Charles Adler were inspired by the desire for resource management in an environmental context, having nothing to do with aspirations to piggyback financially anymore than the federal government already does. That being said, if it is true that Mr. Holland stated this:
“If they refuse to work with us…there will be consequences.,”
during an interview with radio host Dave Rutherford, then that kind of language is completely unacceptable. I will reserve judgement for when I have confirmed this accusation, but once again, I will never support these kinds of words coming out of the mouth of an MP, regardless of where he or she comes from.
We are all Canadians, and we need to help each other out, and foster success in every region of the country. I am going to discuss this in a follow-up post today. Until then…
Watching an american weather forcast yesterday and it was reported that several states are in a severe deepfreeze, and it is predicted that Feb. will be the coldest month in those areas for the past five years. I am sure those sitting out in the rain at the SB game were wishing for some global warming.
Ted Morton should have won. I have faith that PMSH will find a way to get the truth out re the liberals.
I have quit using closed caption when stephen chavez is on, and it really is impossible to understand him. Today should be interesting in the HofC as Layton has a motion and a private members bill re Kyoto targets.
Now, when I call the cbc I call him stephen chavez and ask, is it true he wants to do to canada via Alberta what chavez is doing to venezuala. Watch that country collapse. I notice S chavez did not have his green ribbon on this a.m. Guess he got the message Green is the color of the terrorists. That message is what we should also spread, as he and Holland are acting like terrorists with their words.
Do you think I could join the Alberta arm of the Bloq Quebecsquawk?
Divert some izzy money to the Alberta separatists directly.
The IPCC’s recently released report is being sliced & diced all over but the Cdn MSM won’t print a word
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070201_monckton.pdf
SPM – Summary for Policy Mkers
SPM – Sales & Propaganda Manual
SPM – Sucker Punch Manual
According to the rightwing masses, the liberals did nothing of significance to control the adverse affects of oil sands processing for 13 years. Now, it was only during the last 2 years of their mandate that global warming achieved its present salience. During that period, however, they, in minority government status, could only enact policies with the succor of the CONservative Party of Canada who consistently demonstrated reluctance. I suppose it didn’t serve their dual constituencies, Alberta and the U.S., where the dichotomy increasingly blurs. So the CONservative party makes these ominous character-centric ads critical of Liberal leadership on this matter (cheers from stage right).
Now we have some rather foolish comments from a liberal M.P. proposing concrete action to address this issue (vitriol from stage right).
I was for action on global warming before I was against it.™
The answer to this is quite simple, Honest Ed should cut the flow of oil and cash off at Thunder Bay and let the East freeze in their warming.
Shutting down “my plane” Bombardier,the auto industry and Pratt and Whitney the big welfare companies would rudely awaken the East.
Every Alberta Family could enjoy a $10,000 bonus when they remove the hands from their pockets, the price they pay from easy money.
Isn’t cute how joe baloni spells CONservative. I feel so evil. By the way, they didn’t need the Conservative vote to move forward on Kyoto. The Bloc and the NDP would have voted with them on any bills put forward, meaning they could have passed anything they wanted to without Conservatve help. Duceppe and Layton are/were pro Kyoto I believe. Bottom line, Liberals did nothing, and no one can prove anything different. I am pretty tired of hearing that cop out about minority government preventing them from implementing.
A little of topic……but were the adds run on the Super Bowl?
I’m not a foot ball fan so I did watch to see if they were.
I also notice new style adds for conserving energy.
No Stephen Haprer quote shown.
joe, really, admit it. You don’t know your grass from a hole in the mound. 🙂
I understand the fury of our Western friends, but make no mistake, the average Ontarian a) is sold on the very idea of Global Warming or at least the need to curb industrial pollution, and b) is hostile to Alberta anyway – most Ontarians would be in favour of Holland’s plans and would simply shrug upon hearing his words.
“Oilsands: A couple people are going apeshit over Mark Holland’s comments about oilsands development.”
Only mention this surfer has found on liblogs. …-
cal2,I am also watching this new Fontaine Fiasco developing.I am convinced the Lib.party puts the First Nations people up to this “sh**-disturbing” Maybe someone could do a little digging into this accusation that there is unfairness in funding these kids…..from anything I’ve seen,Metis CFS,and First Nations CFS kids ARE funded BETTER..to the extent that some fos.parents specifically request these kids!I also KNOW that these agencies workers are paid a much better wage than the other agencies.Do some digging,those of you that can,and I will try to access union contracts to prove this point.
joe balogna-
do you want to detail the adverse affects of the oilsands for us?
you can start with the supposed “grin ‘ouse gazzes”.
how about used up all the water in the athabaska river – not.
how about the reclaimed land which is not swamp spruce covered bog but buffalo paddocks manned by our oh so sensitive first nations citizens.
how about the jobs for diplaced newfoundlanders.
how about the 9 billion a year revenue stream?
joebaloni, kindly take your baloney to some other site where the readership is sufficiently uneducated to perhaps believe that crap…try any “Liblog” or “Blogging Dipper” site…your baloney is fully recognized as what it is by the educated readership here.
Global warming only came to the fore in the last couple years? Chretian signed onto the Kyoto treaty in the 1990’s in complete and absolute ignorance, then?
Yeesh!
Global Warming must be taking effect here in Grey/Bruce counties as Enviroment Canada has cancelled the BLIZZARD/SNOWQUALL Warnings.
Mississauga Matt, I am not so sure that Ontario voters are sold on the global warming Kyoto scam. They still drive past me at 135+ on roads around the GTA. There is a hockey stick in the fuel consumption graph. Surely, with the quality education they are receiving in Ontario, they realize this?
If they were really, really, hand-on-heart concerned, they would slow down so they don’t drown the polar bears.
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don’t pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. “It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species,” wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970’s global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990’s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn’t occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, “State of Fear” he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen’s. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology – especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don’t understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: “the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.” Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky’s book “Yes, but is it true?” The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky’s findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky’s students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com
This page printed from: 3w.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Transfer payments? That’s a kick below the belt! LOL
I think the following weather forecast should be printed on a full size Jimmy Pattison billboard and be placed facing the front door of Stornoway so dat da guy wit da new exercise room an no ‘ot water can see when he open da door to take da public transit to da work.
Emblazened acrross it in large block letterings should read the following:
Global Warming? Bring It On, Stephane!
http://weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/city/pages/sk-20_metric_e.html
Per-aps Mrs. Dee-own can knit da sweater for da moose in Key Lac.
“Global warming good, Climate Change Better”
bah, bah, bah
the MSM are the Animal Farm sheep
Shaken,
Oh they’re sold all right. The just want the other guy to make changes to his lifestyle so that the day is saved. The other guy in this case is Alberta.
This I think is where the whole thing can be exploited: start pointing out the changes that people will have to make in their own lives to pull off Kyoto and other scams. I’d start with an immediate halt to funding for Bombardier (which I’d like to do anyway). Support will drop instantly.
Myself, I made a 75 kilometer round trip across the 401 this weekend, alone, ostensibly to put some highway miles on a car that only goes a few kilometers each day to the GO train station with front and rear defrost and music on blast, but really to pick up a dozen yummy bagels. I hope I polluted enough to raise the temps.
The Liberal web site has a Feb 2/07 release denying that Mark Holland wants to ‘shut down’ the Alberta oil sands. Instead, they say he just wants it to develop in a ‘reasonable and sustainable manner’.
That phrase ‘reasonable and sustainable’ is completely ambiguous; you can interpret it any way you want.
The Liberals then go on to blame the Conservatives for wanting ‘unlimited and unsustainable development’ that will damage the env’t.
Of course, they have NO proof of this – other than that completely false claim of the meeting of the gov’t with the US to develop those oil sands – a meeting arranged by the Liberals just before they lost power to the Conservatives.
But the Liberal web site states: “Recently, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, and Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn have each suggested a four to five-fold increase in production is feasible by 2015”.
And they link themselves to Loughheed, who ‘warned about the dangers of quick overexpansion of the oil sands’.
Nothing about ‘if they refuse to work with us, there will be consequences’. Nothing about taxation of emissions.
The focus is on the SPEED of development of the oil sands. Not a whisper about getting money out of it. Hmmm.
more for the lawyers. this is one that should be written in for Little Mosque on the Prairies.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/02/05/qc-reasonableaccommodation20070205.html
Im waiting for the one where they wear the down filled burkas to a Riders game just to find out that the game is played with a pigskin.
actually I wouldnt watch pravda if is was nothing but nonstop reruns of rainbow coalition country or the beachbombers.
M. Matt:
You hit the nail on the head with that description of the mindset of many in Ontario and Quebec.
I shared a table with some Ontario professionals in Victoria last week. We introduced ourselves, and over the course of the conversation, I mentioned Saskatoon having a population of 220,000.
One nice lady from Barrie looked at me quizzically and asked: “But what do they all DO?”
I didn’t tell her shooting gophers and cooking homebrew is our life. Tempted to, though…
This kind of general, unconscious arrogance will likely lead central Canada into a national unity minefield. And the MSM are facilitators.
I truly believe that there is a problem setting up in canada & that is that while most of us agree that there needs to be a made in canada enviro plan to curtail pollutants, We are hearing to much on the subject & we are starting to neglect key areas of concurn to the average canadian.
It’s a sad state of affairs when someone from Barrie feels culturally superior to someone else.
I wonder if Newman,or that other yap Van Doozy will grow a set of gonads,and mention this today?Julie,of the “egg-beater”hairdo,isn’t averse to attacking Cons.and asking the stupidest questions,but won’t touch this one!
Also,wanted to send my sincerest condolences to all the “brotherhood” of firefighters this morning on the tragic loss of 2 brothers in Wpg.today.My utmost respect and appreciation for all you do,and for putting your life on the line.I was saddened to hear of this tragedy.
Barrie Ontario. the toilet seat capital of Canada
“born in Barrie , raised everywhere” is the motto
how dare you think that Barrie isnt the centre of the next orbit from the sun Toronto.