In fact, predicting climate change and forecasting weather are different issues. Unfortunately, too many politicians, environmental activists and media who often have a political agenda to ram through the Kyoto accord, are deliberately blurring this important distinction.
This is understandable because the UN treaty is highly controversial.
Many Kyoto critics charge it is more concerned with transferring wealth from the First World to the Third World than seriously reducing man-made greenhouse gases.
So is it possible that Kyoto is actually a form of enforced U.N. global tithing for the benefit of 'developing countries' such as China who are let off the hook?
To be sure there is a lot of hysteria and political twisting of 'facts' at the polar opposites (sorry) of the debate, but I suspect the increased focus goes deeper than that.
Why all the hype right now? Why is this such a crisis today and supposedly on the minds of Canadians more than the threat of terrorism, inadequate health care or poverty?
First of all, I would suggest that MSM has a lot to do with it. Unsubstantiated or exaggerated claims are often made by junk-scientists and used by MSM as an enticement to sell their product. Repetition is used to reinforce the belief. Environmental fear sells papers, encourages people to watch propaganda on television, the internet and in the cinema.
Of course, environmental lobbyists and green industries have a vested interest too. But it's not all about the money.
The second reason why I believe this is such a hot topic today is that there is a huge spiritual void that the worship of the environment and earth serves to fill; especially by those who have abandoned traditional religion.
To be sure most Christians, Jews, Muslims and followers of other faiths have a respect for the earth as a gift from their God and believe in the importance of being good stewards, but for some people, the earth has become their god.
M.I.T. Professor Richard Lindzen articulated this concept quite eloquently in a speech given at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.:
"Do you believe in global warming? That is a religious question. So is the second part: Are you a skeptic or a believer?"
"Essentially if whatever you are told is alleged to be supported by 'all scientists,' you don't have to understand [the issue] anymore. You simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief..."
Once a person becomes a believer of global warming, "you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists -- except for a handful of corrupted heretics..."
"The research and support for research depends on the alarm," Lindzen told CNSNews.com following his speech. "The research itself often is very good, but by the time it gets through the filter of environmental advocates and the press innocent things begin to sound just as though they are the end of the world.
This all seems to dovetail well with a letter in today's Sun:
Green doom
Re "The New Pornographers (Lorrie Goldstein, Jan. 7): I've always been amazed by the fact that if someone stands on a street corner and preaches apocalyptic doom, many consider that to be a sign of mental illness. However, if one preaches apocalyptic doom, but does it within the confines of environmental concern, this is deemed as being honourable and compassionate. Strange days indeed.
Indeed. Better pull out your Kyoto bible and bow to High Priest Suzuki.
Is global warming - or to use the new buzz word climate change actually occurring? I don't see how that can possibly be disputed or denied. However the relevant question is to what degree are man-made greenhouse gas emissions responsible and what can we do about that in practical terms?
I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in between the hype and self-interest at both ends - possibly in that middle ground that Colby Cosh suggests where climate change can be seen as a rational probability requiring thoughtful consideration and policy development, but not necessarily mandating a panicky, paranoid reaction.
That goal would especially not be well-served by joining the Kyoto Kult.
Update: Kate points out a disturbing POV from the Weather Channel - "Sing from the Same Hymn Book". Stripping the Kyoto heretics - it fits in perfectly with my religion analogy.
41 comments:
First of all, Joanne, I really enjoy your blog site.
I too think that Lorrie Goldstein has written some terrific columns about the global warming hysteria, and has debunked some of the pervasive myths floating around, or at least questioned them. I agree with all of the points you made.
I however, have a question that doesn't really pertain to the politics and religion of Kyoto, and perhaps someone more informed than I could answer.
Lorrie states that predicting climate change and forecasting the weather are two different things. This is where I get confused. Isn't the weather - daily, weekly or yearly - part of the data that is accumulated to show what the climate of an area is? Isn't predicting and forecasting the same thing....using the science of what we have, the technological tools, our eyes and ears, etc....and then making the best "guess" we can with those tools???
So....how is predicting climate change and forecasting the weather two different things?
Thanks for the kind words, Anon.
Isn't the weather - daily, weekly or yearly - part of the data that is accumulated to show what the climate of an area is?
Let me first say that I am no expert on this matter, but I have done a lot of reading from various viewpoints. My take on this is that weather forecasting even in terms of a year ahead, is more of a short-term exercise, whereas predicting climate change focuses more long-term with discussions of how much of a degree the average temperature will rise over a decade or more.
That is my very unscientific response, but I will try to get some kind of reply from Mr. Goldstein on that.
Thanks again for your visit and comment.
I've already asked him, Joanne.
I just have to read his answer to me and wrap my head around it. If I understand it, then I might be able to understand the root of my confusion with this whole issue.
Maybe this is the crux of the confusion with a lot of people, and thus feeds into the politics and religion of this issue, rather than understanding what the facts are???
Anon, I admit it is very confusing and most people won't bother to take the time and effort to try to understand.
Mr. Goldstein has done a lot of research and is well-equipped to help us through this quagmire. Would you be able to share his response here?
Uhmmm, no
CWTF - What does that mean in response to item #4?
but not necessarily mandating a panicky, paranoid reaction.
i agree.but who is mandating a panicky, paranoid reaction anyhow?
the biggest paranoid and panic-stricken reaction i've seen in recent history has been the reaction among some to the threat of global terrorism. easier to fear the muslim bogeyman and shift responsibility to the bad guys then to accept that our own culture of consumerism, for it's own sake, is costing us dearly.
with all due respect, the vast majority of serious scientists believe man-made greenhouse gases are the chief cause of global warming. even preston manning has started talking about a new green conservatism. he actually calls for govt regulation in a BIG way. there's really no credible science out there that doesn't accept the overwhelming consensus. human beings are causing global warming.
the tim balls and tom harris' of the world are carnies selling junk science to those who would rather obses over islam and homosexuality than accept the cold hard facts.
Jeff, if you're referring to the infamous hockey-stick graph, I think you should remember that a lot of political interests ride on both sides of that debate.
Joanne, after reading some of the comments here, I don't really think I'd ask Mr. Goldstein if I could share his comments here.
In my experience, he's been very open to answering questions and having a discussion about his columns. That has certainly helped me in sorting out the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
after reading some of the comments here, I don't really think I'd ask Mr. Goldstein if I could share his comments here..
Anon, I hear you, and I'm sure Mr. Goldstein appreciates your discretion.
I find it very refreshing that he is so willing to discuss his columns and other topics with readers.
I see that Baird called Suzuki after being appointed environment minister and stated that he belived in the science behind climate change. It should be funny to see you all change your statements once Baird's position becomes official party policy.
It should be funny to see you all change your statements once Baird's position becomes official party policy.
Gah!!! What part of this do you not understand? - Is global warming - or to use the new buzz word climate change actually occurring? I don't see how that can possibly be disputed or denied.
Try reading the whole post next time. Thanks.
I realize that I'm not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I'm still waiting for someone to explain exactly how our buying carbon credits would help lower greenhouse gas emissions.
So I'm moving around alot of my boxes that were in storage way back in those "forbidden Zones"
of the closets in my older solid brick home to free up space and finally pick a spot for my PC work area and HDTV/dvd set-up , and low and behold I spot a old milk crate with magazines from my Science section and one jogged my memory as I glanced at the cover page.
There was a cartoon style free-hand drawing of N.Y. city with large ships sailing down the main streets because of Global warming and the Ocean rising 20-30 feet as the Polar caps melt from the Greenhouse effect and Ozone holes
moving the Greenbelt further North and further South to the perma-Frost areas.
But guess what.....it was a copy of "Discovery" science Mag which was the prelude to the Cable TV channel , it featured reputable Scientists like the types that Jack Layton and Liberal Dion like to cite to back their theories and the date on the cover was 1985.
So 22 years later we now have the same fear mongers in Politics
selling doom and gloom to justify
a Carbon-tax to Tax Air , we also have little done about solar powered homes because they haven't figured out how to Tax sunlight or slay the massive Nuclear power Plant Monsters intended to be a Public benefit for near-cost consumption for the Canadian system set up by Adam Beck almost 100 years ago.
Dalton McGuinty stills blames the USA while he now tells us the coal-fire Plants will stay open and he wants more Nuclear Monsters
that are money pits for endless problems and no place for the waste other than launching the stuff into Space towards the sun or another galaxy like a land fill deal with Michigan to take Torontos garbage that merely shifts where the waste ends up.
Brian in Calgary, it's called "theory".
You know, kinda like when you were in university and the profs told you stuff that sounded great at the time, but then you got out and... Poof!
In a perfect world it would work. This world is far from that.
Anon at 06:13:57 PM EST - Are you sure you're not a Tory Rick Mercer? That was very well done.
brian in calgary: Skip the passive aggressive "I'm not exactly the sharpest knife" stuff. I'm sure you are at least of normal intelligence, and would assume you are above average intelligence, since you have formulated a question that contains a logic trap.
The trap is that any response will not sound like simply going to a store and buying greenhouse gas emissions, thereby keeping them out of the atmosphere. It will talk about indirect effects and incentives. You would respond that therefore if there is no direct effect, we should ditch Kyoto.
The purchasing of ghg credits will not in itself, and in isolation, reduce ghg emissions. Just like car insurance does not prevent accidents. It will, however, attach a cost to doing nothing. You can continue to do nothing and keep buying credits, or you can find ways to reduce your own emissions, using the same money you would have spent on the emission credits. And once your improvements are paid for, you can actually sell credits to others who decide doing nothing is ok.
Some people rent their living space their entire lives, instead of buying a place and eventually paying off the mortgage. But if the choice was between living some place for zero rent, and buying a house with a mortgage, who would ever buy?
So the emissions trading system attaches a cost to doing nothing. That gives the financial analysts in companies something to work with. It becomes cheaper to do something than do nothing.
As for "climate change" did anyone "not" explain the climate to change when we live in a world, universe that is constantly changing???
I think I'm confused as to all of the brouhaha about climate change, and maybe that's not necessarily a bad thing. All I know from my time on earth is that everything has been changing (including the color of my hair) since I took my first breath.
Does that mean that we don't live responsibly and clean up the environment that we use? No....it's because if we are good stewards of this planet that we live on, then we will take good care of it. However, I don't think that we can blame human beings for being "human"....beings and actually living. When we live, we pollute. How could we not? To make this a political, religious issue is wrong however.
Do I trust what the fear-mongers say? Nope.
Rambling here, because it occurred to me today that life is to be lived, and that every time I try to figure it out, I feel nutty.
So I'll leave the bigger questions to more well-researched and bigger brains than the one I have. :-)
Anon at 07:28:21 PM EST - Rambling here, because it occurred to me today that life is to be lived, and that every time I try to figure it out, I feel nutty
That's actually the sanest thing I've heard all day.
cwtf...still chewing on that sock from the other site?
still chewing on that sock from the other site?
Are we talking about Dark Blue Tory's debate? Man, those guys take their climate change straight up, eh?. I like mine on the rocks.
.I think the last anon was referring to your 'Dion-Alberta'
discussion where poor CWTF turned him/herself inside out trying to insult Harper but the truth was presented and CWTF was clearly caught with foot in mouth.
Ah, thanks Vicki. I thought the reference was about that very serious 100+ comment debate at Dark Blue's.
Great dicussion here Joanne in spite of the rude comments
There were some rude comments? I think I've become immune. ;)
Too many anons to want to figure out what he's talking about...
Yes, it would be good if the Anons would sign at the end with a first name or something.
Anon at Sun Jan 14, 01:14:30 PM EST:
Isn't the weather - daily, weekly or yearly - part of the data that is accumulated to show what the climate of an area is?
Lorrie Goldstein has very kindly provided me with an excellent answer to your question:
"Joanne: The basic difference is that predicting climate change involves estimating what things like the world's average temperature, greenhouse gas concentrations, sea levels, ocean currents etc., will be like decades and centuries into the future.
Weather forecasting is about predicting immediate weather events in specific locales.
The simplest way to keep them straight is to note that a climate change scientist can, based on scientific observation and computer modeling, predict, say, how much the earth's average temperature will rise over the next 100 or 1000 years if present trends continue.
That will obviously have a profound effect on the weather over the long term.
What he can't tell you is what the temperature will be in Toronto, Washington or Moscow two weeks from now.
Similarly, a climate change scientist may argue that over the next decade or century, global climate conditions suggest there'll be more hurricanes and stronger ones, on average - not necessarily year after year, but over a span of time.
What he can't tell you is where the next hurricane will hit or how strong it will be - that's weather forecasting."
Thanks, Lorrie.
Climate scientists claim to be able to predict the climate a decade or a cenyury from now. In the seventies they were predicting a coming ice age and look hiow that turned out.
liberal supporter:
Thank you for at least responding to the question. While I question the usefulness of your analogy to renting v owning, I began my post the way I did (by the way, why did you seem to find it so offensive?) because this was not the first time I had asked that question (albeit the first time on Joanne's blog). No one had answered it before, or even addressed the theoretical connection between ghg credits and doing something about ghg emissions.
I agree with you that it would be far better to put the money to work to do something practical to first stopping the growth of ghg emissions, then reversing the trend. Regardless, it will take a lot longer than either of us want, no matter which party is in power. The reason? This is not a perfect world, as Joanne pointed out in her first post following mine.
Now, if you could answer one more question for me, I shall shut up about this topic: How come, under the Liberal watch, the ghg emissions went up at about twice the rate they did in the US (which is not part of Kyoto)?
Now, if you could answer one more question for me, I shall shut up about this topic
Don't shut up on my account. BTW, I'm looking forward to hearing the answer to your question as well, Brian.
Sometimes it's just better to quote at length what someone has written.
Michael Jenkinson, "Is it Warm in Here?" from today's Edmonton Sun online.
" "There is an undeniable focus right now on the environment in public opinion," declared Dimitri Pantazopoulos, president of Praxicus Public Strategies.
Right. And those same Canadians who are so focussed on the environment right now are drinking their $6 lattes out of disposable cups while driving their $76,000 SUVs at 110 kmh down residential streets to get to their 3,500-square-foot homes so they can rip open an overpackaged box of preprocessed packaged food so they can eat dinner quickly over their laptop while they plan their jet-setting holidays in Mexico to get away from Edmonton's oppressive cold.
So pardon me if I'm skeptical that saving the planet is really the highest priority for Canadians. "
Interesting, no???
We're being scammed by the press/environmentalists. Do you think they might have their own agenda???? :-) Could it be politics and religion as Joanne stated??? Environmentalism, the new religion.
...." So is it possible that Kyoto is actually a form of enforced U.N. global tithing for the benefit of 'developing countries' such as China who are let off the hook?...."
Yep!
Joanne, I made a promise to liberal supporter, and I will keep it. Of course, I don't ever expect a meaningful answer (one that actually makes sense) to my question, so I don't expect to have to shut up about Kyoto. And, if liberal supporter surprises us all, well, I'll apply the old saying I first heard as a boy (was it that long ago?): "You made your bed, now lie in it."
By the way, the promise doesn't extend to any hatred & venom (for example, about how Tories are evil or intellectually challenged, or both) spewed by pro-Kyoto cultists. I would still reserve the right to address any such venom without referring to Kyoto. Since liberal supporter is sure I am a person of at least normal intelligence, I should be able to manage it.
Cherniak and others that have fallen for the man made global climate change hysteria should take a few minuts and read just one of the studies that debunks the UN's hockey stick graph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
brian in calgary: I didn't check this thread until now. I wasn't particularly offended, but I have seen a lot of "enlighten us idiots" kind of stuff lately. I suppose it sounds like the old "liberals are elitist" stuff. Even though I have seen liberals play dumb at times too.
No need to "shut up" even if you like my response, there's no need to stop discussing this stuff.
I haven't researched this fully, so it's mostly my impressions from what I have read.
The US emissions did not grow more slowly because they reneged on Kyoto. I've read that coincidentally their emissions dropped a lot in the same year they decided not to sign (2001), but there was a drop due to the decrease in air travel after 9/11, which nearly bankrupted the airline industry. Airplane emissions are often weighted more heavily since they are directly emitted into the upper atmosphere, so reduced flying would show a steeper drop (or steeper slowing of increase).
I suspect that overall the US emissions grew a bit more slowly due to aviation cutbacks, while Canadian emisions grew more quickly due to new tarsands operations.
Just as the US emissions did not grow more slowly due to not ratifying Kyoto, Canadian emissions did not grow more quickly due to signing Kyoto.
I've commented about "not doing anything" elsewhere, I think the government was waiting until Kyoto came into effect, at which point it would be a big push. Having an international treaty coming into effect has the result of everyone getting down to work on the numerous problems to be solved. Plus there were doubts about when Russia would ratify (if at all).
The Montreal Protocol on reducing CFCs that destroy the ozone layer is the best example of international cooperation of this kind. There was doom and gloom but once in effect, everyone got busy. Now the atmospheric CFCs are stabilizing and expected to decline, and the only costs were are seeing is extra charges for air conditioner servicing and disposal for refrigerants. I paid $15 to dispose of an old Kelvinator last year. I was expecting it to cost hundreds, but it was just $15.
Since Kyoto did not come into effect until 2005, not a lot was done in the mean time, so it was basically pre-Kyoto business as usual.
It is certainly a reasonable criticism to say they should have been following it before ratification, but then we are putting ourselves at a disadvantage, incurring costs that others do not, and without being sure that the playing field will soon be leveled.
Given the 7 year delay from agreement to ratification, I've always maintained that we should be able to have the deadlines extended a similar amount. I certainly see no reason to simply write cheques to other countries, but the amounts of such hypothetical cheques should be the kinds of money we put into our own new technologies.
To liberal supporter:
Thank you for your response. I shall mull over what you have said. I may even agree with it. At any rate, it is good to have a discussion on issues, particularly one as important as the subject of this post. I've always found name-calling to be so immature. Thank you, Joanne, for not encouraging it (like too many bloggers, even conservative bloggers, do).
This is certainly one of the most civil discussions I've ever seen; largely due to the two of you refraining from personal attacks.
I admit L.S. has advanced several solid ideas which I am still contemplating myself.
Actually, Joanne, it is quite easy to hold a civil discussion with someone like liberal supporter. He/She DID take exception to how I opened my first post, but, now that I read it over, again, I can certainly understand why. You both may be sure I shall NEVER use that approach again.
I shall also double my efforts to be a lot less combative with someone I feel the need to take the gloves off with (I just finished, I hope, a "verbal" sparring match with a fellow poster on Steve Janke's blog: He got my dander up when he referred to the Tories by the acronym(sp?) "CCRAP")
"Ken said...Cherniak and others that have fallen for the man made global climate change hysteria should take a few minuts and read just one of the studies that debunks the UN's hockey stick graph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml"
That is not a study. That is an article by a viscount who has absolutely NO education in ANY scientific field. But somehow his opinion is more worthy than the thousands of scientists who actually have training in climate related fields. There is a sucker born every minute.
His calculations are filled with errors, he cherry picks info like crazy and regurgitates historical "facts" that have long been shown to be completely wrong.
If Monckton really thought that his science was even remotely accurate then he would have had it published or reviewed at a scientific journal or magazine. He didn't, because he knew that the scientific would have (and did) find massive holes and glaring errors in his "research."
George Monbiot wrote an article about Monckton's piece. It can be found here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1947245,00.html
It should be said that Monbiot is as far to the left as Monckton is the right. I personally wouldn't say that he is a scientist, but he does have scientific training.
There was also an article about it here which along with the almost 200 comments is more scientific.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/
I know that climate-change denialists will continue to grasp harder and harder for any faint hope that they might be right, so I don't expect to change anyone's mind.
I am sure that most people here would rather have brain surgery done by a brain surgeon then, say, the cafeteria lady.
I am sure that most people here would rather have their car fixed by a mechanic then their hair dresser, or vice versa.
But when it comes to climate change it is far better to continue to listen to people with no training in scientific fields like Monckton then say reading something written by real scientists, peer reviewed by real scientists, etc. Oh well
"Swift said...
Climate scientists claim to be able to predict the climate a decade or a cenyury from now. In the seventies they were predicting a coming ice age and look hiow that turned out."
That is kind of an exaggeration.
In the seventies most climate scientists were predicting global warming. You can see that if you look at scientific journals. The thing is - no one cared or took notice, so what if it gets a little warmer.
A much smaller group of scientists then wondered - what if it got colder? maybe an ice age? Colder? Oh my god, that IS a big deal - cover of TIME etc.
The science never provided much support for that small minority of scientists even the seventies. It just had bigger play with the media.
"Brian in Calgary, it's called "theory"."
In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.
(wikipedia)
Kyoto says...China, Russia and India, (and the developing
world) should be allowed to increase their emissions.
Kyoto says...the western industrial nations, should cut their
emissions and pay fees to allow the developing nations to increase theirs.
The western media, says without the wests complete submittal to Kyoto,
the planet is doomed....doomed I tell ya.
Well ah...
Is there a climate change problem or not?
China, Russia and India seem to disagree.
Building all those new power plants, says to me...What climate problem!
They don't seem too concerned about any climate change problem at all...
Their only concern seems to be ..who is going to pay for all
those power plants, now that Harper has cut 12 billion out of
the Kyoto (gravy train) pipeline.
What a scam the socialists had cooking....
Why is this climate change problem, linked to our cutting
emissions, but the rest of the world can increase theirs?
One more time...is there a climate change problem or not???
It seems the Kyoto environmentalists have a major credibility problem.
Just asking.
One more time...is there a climate change problem or not???
Yes, Virginia, I do believe there is such a thing called "climate change".
Sorry, just had to say that. But seriously, the climate has been "changing" since the beginning of our planet.
The crucial question is actually two-fold: How big a role do man-made emissions play, and (b) is Kyoto the answer?
Personally, I think the jury is still out on (a), and (b) is only going to make developing countries such as China richer and stinkier. Stinking rich.
We will get poorer and stinkier.
Climate change is as undeniable as changes in the weather...climate change is not in the debate...the debate is about what causes these changes....the current cult frauds at issue here are:
A) Kyoto ( The insane belief that taxing a common gas exchanged by living organisms is effective....particularly as this tax regime is strictly enforced in industrial nations with environmental laws while exempting developing nations with no environmental laws who do most of the polluing. It is insane to belive this is somehow a solution and only mindless cult followers still cling to this canard....and of course the profiteers who are skimming this tax regime)
B) That this climate change is man made when the theories/models that pose this discount the number one climate changer ...the sun and its flaring activity....and a second fact that the earth has entered a charged particle belt that it crosses every 3200 years.
There is much room for debate on these "theories"...and they ARE theories.
As for the original question as to why the big Kyoto/climate doom push now by Canadian media, chattering classes and cultist left, well that's simple...because this is the only hope Borat Dion has of resonating with an Anglosphere voting public....he's really an obnoxious stilted nerdy little prick who can't speak English and this fraudulent Climate doom schtick is his only hope to appear as a messiah=prophet to lead a brainwashed cult from certain doom.....the fearmogering of Liberal political campaigns has hit a new low....now our air is against us...not just the evil christian conservative west and their evil oil barons...these people are now dooming the planet and only the good shepherds from the liberal cult can save the nation and globe from certain eco-doom at the hands of evil Harper and Alberta....so we see all the usual lib-cult suspects ( CBC, Suzuki, TS, G&M) out virulently spreading Kyoto myth and eco-doom propaganda, conditioning the public for eco-Messiha Dion to run with.
I'll make only one prediction: It's pretty much unpalatabe to westerners to have to put up with the regula doses of toxic lib-cult fear mongering and delusional dogma that oozes from the eastern media on any given day....but the BS of Suzuki and Dion ganging up to scape goat the Alberta oil patch as a public enemy and set it up for another Ottawa revenue pillage, will net this nation a broken confederation....Alberta will pull the plug on political association with Ottawa in a Calgary Minute on ANY liberal scheme to trash their economy and oil patch a second time...using fallacious climate science as an excuse.
The west will leave this sinking ship of latte sipping eastern socialists....and leave Borat Dion blurting out unintelligable mouthings of alarm as the Canadian ship of state sinks in a sea of fradulent cultist ideologies.
It is insane to belive this is somehow a solution and only mindless cult followers still cling to this canard....and of course the profiteers who are skimming this tax regime)
Excellent point! In fact, once I try to separate the rhetoric from the main thrust of your post, I find myself agreeing with almost everything.
Post a Comment