With apologies to those who read this comment of mine before but I think it got buried and I believe is worth repeating:

Here in Canada we constantly get inundated with press releases and quotes from the Suzuki Foundation's "Climate Specialist", Ian Bruce. I always suspected this guy was full of hot air but now that ClimateGate is exploding all around us, the obvious question has to be asked:

"If actual facts do matter then isn't the media seeking knowledgeable quotes from a 'Climate Specialist' like finding a 'Coffee Specialist' to be some guy standing in line at Starbucks!"?

Robert W.
Your comment reminds me of comedian Dayton Allen on the old Steve Allen Show.
Quote:
"Although I never went to a real doctor school, I actually hung around a drug store a lot."

When seconds count, the police are only a quarter of an hour away...!

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=22746259

I'm just grateful that the situation wasn't made even worse by the mother having a gun on hand to defend herself.

Thanks, Alan Rock!

Suzuki & friends are Carbon Sales hucksters. The MSM are selling Carbon.. The Media is funded by advertising, front office, or hand to hand...

I think the "Truth in Advertising" regulations may be used against CBC, when a securities lawsuit is filed against the Chicago exchange.

The Chicago exchange web site had a Suzuki pop up...integrity NOT

Robert, Kurt Schlichter at BigGovernment would love to ask the CRU emails authors a few questions, too:

"A trial lawyer reading through the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) will immediately, almost unconsciously, begin generating a list of questions he would love to ask the authors if he were able to face them on the witness stand and under oath. The beauty of the adversarial process is how cross-examination tests and challenges the other side’s position – precisely what the emails indisputably show the CRU and its allies in the climate change scam have gone to shocking lengths to avoid."

Schlicter suggests a few hypothetical lines of examination:

• So, Dr. Jones, when you used the word 'trick,' you really meant that it was not a 'trick' at all but a valid, scientifically recognized process of data interpretation?

• Can you identify another instance in your experience where a scientist described his valid, scientifically recognized process of data interpretation with a term commonly used to describe a hoax, scam or fraud?

• And when you wrote the words 'hide the decline,' is it now your testimony that when you used the word 'hiding,' you were not actually 'hiding' anything, and moreover, though you used the word 'decline,' there was no 'decline' in temperatures to be hidden in the first place?

• So, if I understand your explanation, it is that you commonly use language in your communications which means precisely the opposite of the meaning that you are seeking to communicate?

• And if an email from those who disagree with your findings – who you call 'deniers' or 'skeptics' – were to be made public that described their use of a 'trick' to 'hide the increase' in temperatures, would you find this to be of no great import because scientists commonly describe their processes as 'tricks' and that their act of 'hiding the increase' must be purely benign based on the manner of usage you describe?

• So, is it only proponents of man-made global warming that habitually use words and phrases that mean precisely the opposite of their common usage to describe their work?

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climategate_how_faine_censored_the_sceptical_news/

We make decisions every day [based] on our own opinions about what we think are the main stories. And what we leave out is often as important as what we put in, and that was my judgement of this issue..

That was my assessment of whether this was actually of any significance or not, and I decided that it wasn’t and we wouldn’t spend time on it. It suits the conspiracy theorists beautifully...
It was a small, even a tiny fragment of a sidebar of a secondary issue to the edge of the periphery of something people were talking about other than the main game. That’s how I saw it.

There is a scathing article about Ignatieff in the current issue of Walrus (actually the January issue which is just out.) Ignatieff is portrayed as very shallow, and the group that persuaded him to return from the States as very stupid. A good read -- don't miss it.

Don't know why
There's no heat up in the sky
Stormy weath-ahh
Since my Mann ain't all togeth-ahh
Keeps cooling all the time
All the time....

Iain Murray:

"The CRU is the Pentagon of global warming science, and these documents are its Pentagon Papers.

"Here are three things everyone should know about the Climategate Papers. Links are provided so that the full context of every quote an be seen by anyone interested...."

The rest here.

LindaL, could you favour us with a choice excerpt or two from said article?

Don't know how old Rita Hayworth was in '57, but she could still play a trampy role well, and Frankie Notsohotra could still carry a tune. Don't know who the club owner was, but could have passed for one of Franks mafia buddies.

Darcy has left the building. He has gathered up his guns, perched his canoe on his sturdy head, and is leaving DustMyBroom to move on to Metis Online, where he's off to an auspicious start.

A small thing, but worth noting... I was in the Saskatchewan government liquor store on 8th St in Saskatoon this afternoon, and noticed that instead of bells, the Salvation Army volunteer had a sign that had "Ding" on one side and "Dong" on the other. Apparently the government union members find the bells distracting and offensive, so there will be no Christmas bells during the Christmas season at the government monopoly stores.

I'll be calling several politician's offices Monday morning about this incredibly stupid policy.

Dear Stephen Harper:

WTF is wrong with you?

http://tinyurl.com/y939bvs

Dan, I agree with you. The only thing I'm wondering about is whether Harper believes the whole Copenhagen farce will fail and then Canada will owe exactly $0.

"Canada has agreed to write a cheque for a $10-billion (U.S.) fund that would help poor nations cope with the consequences of climate change"

Have the Canadian government being blackmailed or something?

xiat:

I think the $10 billion quoted is the total amount for ALL Commonwealth countries to donate up to year 1012. However if Harper coughs up one nickle of my tax dollars for this scam he will loose my vote.

"...53 countries agreed to support a fund they say would be worth $10 billion annually by 2012."

Correction: My bad... Harper will LOSE my vote not LOOSE my vote. Sorry about that!

From comments on CTV site:

"I guess this headline should really read " UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand Getting Ready To Give Away Billions". Lets face it, those are the only 4 who are going to be able to contribute, but I guess that didn't stop the rest of the "Commonwealth" from signing with one hand, while holding out the other, waiting for their doomsday handout from their rich cousins!It is truly amazing that the press is not tearing the "scientific community" to shreds over those hacked emails, there is barely a peep in the mainstream media."

Well, at least CTV actually posted something from the commenters.

I'm beginning to wonder whether during a Conservative Party, Harper might have leapt to his feet without realizing he was under a table at the time. He's given a billion dollars to Gordon Campbell of Carbon Tax fame so that BC can have the HST. Now he's giving similar sums of money to the perpetually broke Commonwealth nations who will quickly salt it away in Swiss Bank accounts. At this point in time, it looks like the NDP are going to get another shot at destroying BC forever.

Mr. Harper is quickly losing my vote. While that may not mean much in my riding, I have canceled my donation to the party. On Monday I plan to call my MP's office to inform them that my money will be going to the UN by force rather than the CPC by choice.

Didn't the CPC get the memo? AGW has been called off. This is good news. The world isn't going to end. We don't need to adopt socialism to save it. The part that really slays me is that the reasoned skeptics have overwhelmingly come from Canada. Why can't Canadian politicians mention the science coming from Canadian scientists?

Look at this nonsense from Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/internal_ReutersNewsRoom_BehindTheScenes_MOLT/idUSTRE5AO4TW20091125

Here are a couple of choice sections:

CRU Vice-Chancellor of Research Trevor Davies responded in an official statement: "There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation."

Michael Mann, co-author of the Copenhagen Diagnosis and lead author of the UN IPCC Third Assessment Report, blamed skeptics for taking the personal emails out of context.

Mr Harper lost my vote on Oct 31, 2006.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

Falsification Of
The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects
Within The Frame Of Physics
Version 4.0 (January 6, 2009)

Gerhard Gerlich
Institut fur Mathematische Physik
Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig
Mendelssohnstrae 3
D-38106 Braunschweig
Federal Republic of Germany
g.gerlich@tu-bs.de
Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Postfach 60 27 62
D-22237 Hamburg
Federal Republic of Germany
ralfd@na-net.ornl.gov

Summary

"In other words: Already the natural greenhouse eect is a myth beyond physical reality. The
CO2-greenhouse effect, however is a "mirage" [205]. The horror visions of a risen sea level,
melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences
of fictitious physical mechanisms as they cannot be seen even in the climate model
computations. The emergence of hurricanes and tornados cannot be predicted by climate models,
because all of these deviations are ruled out. The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse
gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo-explanations, which are
not part of the academic education or even of the physics training. A good example are the
radiation transport calculations, which are probably not known by many. Another example
are the so-called feedback mechanisms, which are introduced to amplify an effect which is
not marginal but does not exist at all. Evidently, the defenders of the CO2-greenhouse thesis refuse to accept any reproducible calculation as an explanation and have resorted to unreproducible ones. A theoretical physicist must complain about a lack of transparency here,
and he also has to complain about the style of the scientific discussion, where advocators of
the greenhouse thesis claim that the discussion is closed, and others are discrediting justified
arguments as a discussion of "questions of yesterday and the day before yesterday"25. In
exact sciences, in particular in theoretical physics, the discussion is never closed and is to
be continued ad infinitum, even if there are proofs of theorems available. Regardless of the
specific field of studies a minimal basic rule should be fulfilled in natural science, though,
even if the scientific fields are methodically as far apart as physics and meteorology: At least
among experts, the results and conclusions should be understandable or reproducible. And it
should be strictly distinguished between a theory and a model on the one hand, and between
a model and a scenario on the other hand, as clarified in the philosophy of science.
That means that if conclusions out of computer simulations are to be more than simple
speculations, then in addition to the examination of the numerical stability and the estimation
of the effects of the many vague input parameters, at least the simplifications of the physical original equations should be critically exposed. Not the critics have to estimate the effects of the approximation, but the scientists who do the computer simulations.
"Global warming is good. The net effect of a modest global warming is positive."
(Singer).26 In any case, it is extremely interesting to understand the dynamics and causes of the long-term fluctuations of the climates. However, it was not the purpose of this paper to
get into all aspects of the climate variability debate.
The point discussed here was to answer the question, whether the supposed atmospheric
effect has a physical basis. This is not the case. In summary, there is no atmospheric
greenhouse effect, in particular CO2-greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering
thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting
solution for economics and intergovernmental policy."

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North"

Tiger Woods. Somebody had to say it.

Okay then, now we can move on.

So what happens to your vote now that Mr. Harper has found Jeans old kool-aid bottle? I seems we have come full circle on the Kyoto problem. The cure is now the disease. Mr Harper being the cure. Are people going to spoil their ballots? or just not show up at all? Five cents of my money to the scam is to much. May I also say support the ones that are on your side, see paypal button on home page. The CPC needs to feel major heat over this. Exposing the scam is done, it's exposed. Now the enablers need to be exposed. Thanks DanSC for the tiny url. CPC supporter from day one and mad as hell now.

Meanwhile, in the UK, it appears the people have turned. Read the comments :-)

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Warming-will-39wipe-out-billions39.5867379.jp

RW's post...

LOL... when I read that, at first I thought they meant global walarming will wipe out billions of dollars. I thought that was a very true statement.
But they meant people!
You would think the alarmists would be encouraging GW in order to wipe out billions of people. sheesh You just can't please them.

Things that make you go "hmmm"

"There is another side to climate science that needs to be remembered. (I can't find the web site where I first read this, but I want to disclaim this insight as my own.) Climate science may well be the only scientific study that has no utilitarian value. All other scientific disciplines enable some kind of improvement in the human condition. Physics enables space exploration and medical equipment such as MRIs, for example. Meteorology predicts weather which has all sorts of beneficial applications. Chemistry provides us with new materials and biology with health insights and improved crop productions. All of these things plus countless others.

Yet climate science has no "product." The outcomes of climate modeling cannot be used to do anything except what is being done with them - promote statist control of ever-expanding slices of national economies to conform to a transnationalist ideology.

If climate science could be used to do anything else, it would already be happening. But have you ever heard of any report of climate science's findings not in connection with expanding the power of the state or trans-state organs?"

http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2009/11/advocacy-science-climate-science-has-no.html

RW's post...

LOL... when I read that, at first I thought they meant global walarming will wipe out billions of dollars. I thought that was a very true statement.
But they meant people!
You would think the alarmists would be encouraging GW in order to wipe out billions of people. sheesh You just can't please them.

From sda coments Climategate: CBC Special Report

Most of ya'll back and forth (trying to be funny or whatever) is not relevant to the seriousness of the situation. They are trying to take over not only energy or the production of it, but in the larger sense...governments and the people within.

It's not funny at fucking all.

You had better get with the program and understand that they (who ever the hell they are)are only interested in controlling you and your family and friends and nation but making sure every dollar that you can produce will go into their pocket to be dolled out however they want.

Stop your bickering and joking and make a plan to stop this.

Papa Ray

Posted by: Papa Ray at November 28, 2009 8:29 PM

Kate: Check out the Toronto Sun. Lorrie Goldstein

Botch after Botch after Botch:

"I'm indebted to a Kate McMillin, the remarkable Canadian blogger...."

I am indebted too!

Climategate.
Connect the dots. follow the money.
These guys were just part of the propaganda arm of a much larger beast.
Gone are the days when the people could storm the castle on the hill.
It is becomeing clearer by the day that we are being manipulated by "them".
Its time to start naming "them".Examining "them".
Take the pitchforks and torches to "them"
My personal effort in this regard will be to vote
with my $.
Examine your investments and dump this crap.
I am sure that is a message they will understand.

Sorry Kate: "McMillan" I went to delete an "i" instead it was the "a". My apologies.

Everyone here should send Lorrie Goldstein's article to PM Harper and all his cabinet ministers.

Huh!
nearly all of your investment is touched by this crap?
Maybe you've been suckered again?

Huh!
nearly all of your investment is touched by this crap?
Maybe you've been suckered again?

What if market crashes are engineered?
They build "them"selfs up with our money...
then take it away.
It would explaine some bizzare economic policies.

No one questioned WHO's flew, er few? er flu? No one?
...-

"Asked why no one is questioning the pandemic label, Schabas said, "I don’t know. I shake my head. Mine is not the only voice questioning it, but there are not many."

H1N1: $1 billion spent, no pandemic, no third wave Special

Dr. Richard Schabas, Ontario's former chief medical officer, "shakes his head" about money spent on the global H1N1 panic because it fails to meet pandemic criteria for illness and deaths. And there will be no third wave, he said.
Now public health officer for Prince Edward and Hastings in Ontario, Schabas said in a telephone interview that, "I was critical of calling it a pandemic in May, and I still am, because the whole reason for defining [an influenza strain] as pandemic is that it will cause higher levels of morbidity and mortality than the seasonal flu.
"When H1N1 appeared, the WHO moved very quickly to call it a pandemic and promptly issued all kinds of ominous warnings, but there was good evidence very early on that it wouldn’t be serious enough to be called a pandemic."
A pandemic has specific characteristics, such as out-of-season outbreaks and strain replacement (ie, replacing the usual seasonal flu strains), which we have seen, he said. However, H1N1 is not causing the high levels of illness and death that would be expected of a pandemic as compared with seasonal flu.
"There is a culture of catastrophe at the WHO that has spread through public health agencies in many countries, including Canada, and there’s a whole corporate empire built around this that encompasses many of our public health agencies, and even the CDC," he said.
"[These bodies] have built a tremendous pandemic response capacity and there is a need for them to justify the money invested. Three years ago, the Public Health Agency of Canada received $1 billion to build pandemic response capacity, so a lot of people are invested in demonstrating that capacity."
Pharmaceutical companies have also profited, Schabas said, "but I don’t think we can put the most of the blame at their feet. This crisis was delivered to them by public health officials. They are the ones who created this panic, and the pharmaceutical companies have been only too happy to profit from it."
Asked why no one is questioning the pandemic label, Schabas said, "I don’t know. I shake my head. Mine is not the only voice questioning it, but there are not many. I’ve tried to base my opinion on evidence of what we’ve seen.""
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/282815

I think we need to be realistic about the billions in Commonwealth aid going from Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc to developing Commonwealth countries..primarily in Africa, under the rubric of 'climate change' aid.

Because the aid is going under this name doesn't mean that Harper or anyone else supports the ideology of 'climate change' - and Harper has said before, that it's a scam.

The money could be spent on dealing with malaria; it's increasing there because the Greens won't allow the use of insecticide; of course the Green say that the cause is, heh, 'global warming'. The end result is the agenda - treating malaria.

It could be spend on schools, roads, digging wells, waste treatment, and etc. The fact that it is sent under a generic title is not relevant.

I think we should remember that politicians have to deal not merely with We Who Know The Truth and who do indeed use reason in our approach to life; they also have to deal with those citizens who prefer to live in a fantasy world of emotional apocalypses and tactics for cleansing oneself of Sin.

Remember also that we humans are fallible and all of us live with a certain amount of guilt, even if it was only snitching on one's siblings to one's parents. Themes of apocalypse and tactics of redemption are always attractive.

Therefore, calling this aid by a generic title, and using it for what is needed - can be two different things...and appeases that portion, a very large portion, of citizens who prefer to live in a fictional world.

from wiki.
Magna Carta was the first document forced onto an English King by a group of his subjects (the barons) in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges. It was preceded by the 1100 Charter of Liberties in which King Henry I voluntarily stated that his own powers were under the law.

Maybe it's time for a modern magnacarta to take the power away from the barons.

We KNOW Kate has now come into her own - she is ahead of Drudge by a day or so.

And besides, Drudge is not capable of 'two by four over the head' post titles !!

Why has the world gone crazy ?

Simple. Walk into any bookstore and count the ratio of fiction to non-fiction.

I usually come up with 10 times as many fiction (aka non sense, no sense).

Kibitzing around with the store manager - I mentioned this. Her reply 'well, people spend their days in the real world and want an escape'. OMG !!

Fine, if that is where they want to spend their time. Problem arises when they want others to spend $Trillion$ on a proven scamy religion.

Finally found this little nugget buried on the CBC website:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/quirks-blog/2009/11/climate_science_still_sound.html

No facts, just opinion. Apparently, the discussion is "open". Uh-huh.

RE Questions "Kurt Schichter" EBD

I would suggest that the CRU files have bigger smoking guns than have been discussed....The fraud goes deeper...

Kurt Schichter, or any lawyer should first seek an understanding of Project Management to explain the "flow" control between Susan.(IPCC)..and the CRU useful freaks

I say that all original data is still with Susan & the IPCC. {I think they say in the Emails that everything came from IPCC.. nothing directly to them)

This hour's lead story on CBC.ca
"Swiss vote to ban new mosque minarets"

Yes folks, you read that correctly.
Your taxpayer dollars at work. No reporting of the recent killing of 4 police offcers in Tacoma, no mention of Climategate,no mention of anything of importance, just this compelling story that will have a huge impact on Canadians of all stripes.
Sheesh!

The ambush in Tacoma---,http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/breaking/story/973573.html

With the all-hell-breaking-loose (TM) ClimateGate scandal, I find myself thinking about the central thesis of the late Jane Jacob's last book: The Coming Dark Age. I haven't read it, but reading a review a while back I can remember being cheered by her remarks about the corruption in the [the self-regulating] professions, a subject upon which I am, betimes, wont to rant.

BRIEF BOOK SUMMARY from google hit:
Takes a close-up look at the patterns of dark ages throughout human history and applies these patterns to five key institutions of contemporary North American civilization--the nuclear family, higher education, scientific inquiry, governmenal representation, and the idea of self-regulation--to reveal why weaknesses in these institutions warn of a coming dark age.

I also find myself recollecting a reader's tip [EBD?] on a piece by Colby Cosh concerning the public's resistance to the flu vaccine and the internet's role in this. Considering the pandemic that wasn't, and now ClimateGate, is it any wonder that, pace Cosh's scold, the general public is sliding into new age nostrums and superstitions.

Thanks "V"

My fondest memory of Frank Sinatra is the song "Somethin' Stupid." It was #1 (1967) on the charts in US and Canada for four weeks straight. In the heat of Beatlemania, the Rolling Stones and Elvis, "Old Blue Eyes" and his daughter Nancy blew them all off the charts.

An interesting story. In the summer of 2006, my friend volunteered for church duties in Calgary. They had a large well lit parking lot, kids began to gather there at night with theirs cars and pickups. The "Church Fathers" did not like the idea of kids loitering on their lot--yet they didn't want to make waves and evict them--so of them got the bright idea that if they played Frank Sinatra songs on the PA system, the kids would go away. Much to their surprise, one night my buddy came to check the church for Sunday service, a group of kids were dancing to the songs of "old blue eyes." That story made my day--I now believe there is hope for the human race after all.

If you're interested in things like trust and self-regulating professions,
Me No Dhimmi, then I recommend Baroness Onora O'Neill's excellent
talk, which we discussed here at SDA on September 6, 2009. Also, for
your ease of reference, the Cosh essay referred to by EBD is here.

Atric has already drawn attention to this story: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/11/29/swiss-minarets.html#socialcomments

I believe the top recommended comment is from our own "ET".

Switzerland has much more direct democracy than we do over here. I think this backlash has much more to do with people being upset with Political Correctness than it does with Islam itself. Put another way, the annoyance against Islam is a symptom but the actual disease is Political Correctness.

Vitruvius. I just went back to the September 6, 2009 archive and went through the complete thread. That discussion is so apt in the climate (not a pun) in society today. Thanks for drawing our attention to it again.

That Frank.

I notice he doesn't like that lyric either:

She's broke ... but it's oak ?????

'Third time he gets to this line, he leaves out "but it's oak."

Is the lyric actually, “but it's OK,” and the singer has to make it rhyme with broke?

Frank was a thug and a cad, but he sure could sing.

Thanks, Vit.

Jim Treacher debates with a global warming zealot ... the one in his head.

It is VERY funny!

Robert W- No, I never read or comment on the CBC site.

The only other site I comment on - is at Pajamas Media, as ETAB.

There's only so much time and brain activity....

The top comment was from a person named "Edward Treacher" - my mistake!

On another note . . .

You know that movie scene of Hitler that is used by various people to make a funny video by adding subtitles regarding a current news story?

Well, may I submit a different one for ClimateGate?

The new title of this video would be: "Australian Global Warming Zealot After Hearing of ClimateGate": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPC59KfOw3A

Thanks Vitruvius, I'll have a look at that talk of September 6th as soon as I can.

It's great that you keep these archives!

to minaret or not to minaret, that is the question:

ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/091130/world/switzerland_referendum_islam_religion

Officers Mark Renninger, Greg Richards, Tina Griswold, Ronald Owen - R.I.P.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/78101617.html