UPDATE
Stephen Taylor is breaking that Wajid Khan will cross to the Conservatives tomorrow.
I am now reporting that Wajid Khan will join the Conservative ranks tomorrow as a backbench MP. Doing so protects Khan from cynicism of the press and opposition of making such a political move for career advancement, or for monetary considerations. Khan joins the Tories without taking a position in either cabinet or as a Parliamentary secretary.
This move has been a long time coming and I expected to report on this just after the Liberal leadership convention as such a move would have been wise political strategy to deflate the post-convention bounce in the polls that would benefit the Liberal party.
Khan is expected to make a formal announcement tomorrow and will likely describe that he is switching parties because of the “values” that the Prime Minister represents.
h/t Eugene in the comments.
Cabinet shuffle Details here… open thread.
The U.S. climate center the NOAA has a comparative climate data calculator that will show trends. If one compares the past 10 years to the past 110 years it will show a cooling trend for North America. The NOAA is a rabid global warming advocate but their own data betrays them. There are always anomalies is weather but overall the trends are relatively normal. Kate is bang on when she says that selective memory is a huge problem. Where are all the hurricanes that were predicted for this year.
Climate change is not new religion it is a cult with followers almost a wacky and potentialy as self destructive as the Waco nut bars. These nut jobs will be willing to screw up economies for no real gain because the Hail-Bob comet told them to commit economic suicide. I just hope Harper doesn’t go to far with his new environmental program.
Ambrose was just a sacrificial lamb. She’s young, with a long political career ahead of her and was willing to make the personal sacrifice of taking on the impossible job of placating the envionuts. She’ll retire with a long portfolio and be remembered as a good trooper for the CPC, whatever she does from now.
Ted – interesting, thoughtful comments
ET – good job again. It is hard to argue your point that Kyoto compliance will actually increase CO2 emissions.
Watchingyou2 – have to admit I didn’t see Baird’s comments, so I’m not sure of perspective. Maybe he’s saying that he believes we are warming. It doesn’t necessarily follow that CO2 is the culprit, especially given that methane and water vapour are far more prevalent GHGs.
Bottom line – we need to look at this issue realistically. Even if CO2 theory is bunk, some of the elements of reducing emissions are still a good idea. Why? Because CO proliferation is the far more serious problem. Think of the problems we had with pollution, acid rain, dead lakes and so on. We have cleaned those up. We have an opportunity to develop clean (non-burning?) technologies, that we can share (notice I didn’t say sell) with the developing world. Otherwise, the problems we faced in the 70s and 80s will be dwarfed by what India and China alone will face.
If we are going to spend $billions/trillions on environment, let’s get an actual benefit, rather than the pie in the sky, corrupt money laundering scheme that is Kyoto
I truly can’t understand why people support the Kyoto accord/scam. I can understand why people are concerned about global warming; I don’t remember this many January days above 50 degrees in Toronto in my 50 years on the planet. But let’s look at the possibilities:
First, is global warming man-made? The debate is still open. The many different models presented by the anthropogenic-climate change crowd have many flaws (and I say this as an engineer and data analyst, where I’m paid to question raw numbers and drill down to reality). Jeremy Siegel, a much quoted professor, has written http://finance.(yahoo.com/columnist/article/futureinvest/11579) that every 10 ppm increase in CO2 atmosphere concentration results in a 10 metre (that’s 33 feet) increase in sea levels. But CO2 ppm has increased by 100 since 1900, so by his reckoning, we should see sea level 100 metres above 1900 levels. If sea levels were 330 feet above 1900 levels, most of the eastern seaboard of the US would be underwater, along with huge parts of the rest of world.
But what’s the reality? In fact, average sea level has increased by 3 cm, or little more than an inch. Now, when I see a theory that says we should see an increase of 10,000 cm, but instead see an experience of 3, I feel inclined to distrust the theory, especially when it has 100 years to work. I know there are some who will say “these effects take years to work their way through the global environment” but the first 10 ppm occurred from 1900-1910. If, in 100 years, we are only seeing 0.3% of the predicted effect, I have to wonder if the science is correct.
So the science is not proven. What harm, you might ask, is it to reduce CO2 emissions on the off-chance that it might help the planet? And if the Kyoto deal was that all countries were committed to reduce emissions, I might support it. But when that deal/scam allows China to build 250 new coal fired electric plants that will produce more CO2 emissions than Canada does at a whole, and do so with no economic penalty, but Canada has to pay a penalty just for keeping emissions at current levels, well, I just have to say “no deal”.
I agree the earth is warming; I’m skeptical that it’s man-made; and I’m adamantly opposed to a “solution” that allows China to increase its emissions to where they are more than Canada’s scot-free while penalizing Canadians if our emissions don’t decrease.
PS If the Wajid Khan story is correct, and he helps the Tories win a new mandate, all GTA residents will be greatful for not having to listen to his commercials.
hey tex:
“Looks like Ambrose took the bullet for the team. The MSM definitely painted her as a lame duck minister ”
if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck …..
rona in the political cartoon recycle blue box. priceless.
“frankenreformaservativeral!”
HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!! this is why I read blogs for gems like this !!!
Rona Ambrose told us the truth, and gets turfed for it.
We need to think of the REAL accomplishments in 10 short months.
Seems to me that Canadians want more blather and bullshit rather than truth and action.
If Baird goes for the man – caused global warming nonsense we will all be the worse off for it.
And it will be the last time i ever vote.
The ultimate in a pandered to and entitled populace,(some) Canadians think their government can change the weather.
I heard a radio interview yesterday – The fellow actually said, “my gawd, the icebergs are falling off Ellesmere Island- what is going to happen next if we dont do something?”
The MSM has won this one for now, fortunately for us their attention span is only as long as the next headline. Maybe by the time Mr. Baird slows this legislation down Ontario will have a nice -30 spell and will think we have reduced greenhouse gases too far.
I tried to use my slide rule but couldn’t tell the difference. Went back to using a calculator to determine that the percentage change in women went from 6/27=22.22% to 7/32=21.88%. So rounding, that would be a change from 22% to 22%.
Since you have so much free time, why not take up dating?