Using Anthropomorphism as Propaganda Tool

Have you seen that commercial yet from a well-known big-box store where the woman screws in a CFL bulb, and the box in which it was packaged suggests that the earth might have a crush on her because she is so eco-friendly? She blushes and stammers in return. (Never mind that it's 'Mother Earth' that she's flirting with... Yeah we won't go there.)

This is becoming an increasingly common media and activist ploy - ascribing human attributes to inanimate objects or non-human life forms in order to garner public sympathy and increase activist support. I assume the theory is that if we can identify with something in human terms, then we will be more inclined to accept the message.

And so we to try to "Save the planet" instead of trying to save the people on the planet. Instead of trying to be good stewards of the earth so that we can continue to sustain ourselves here, the focus is on getting rid of the human filth that degrades the earth. Barbara Kay alluded to this mindset in a recent column, Hug the Earth, kill the humans:

...Watson is the symbol of a movement that originated in a desire to improve the planet's physical condition, but transmogrified into the zero-sum dogma of eco-spirituality, in which the object of worship is the environment, and the messianic goal its return to a pre-civilization Edenic state. In this scenario, Earth is perennial victim, mankind eternal villain, the consumption of natural resources original sin. No emotionally manipulative appeal is beyond the pale for this pagan religion's demagogues, even the shameful appropriation of racist tropes. Alpha eco-spiritualist novelist Alice Walker claims, "the Earth is the nigger of the world..."

In today's Sun, Michael Coren also sees this as a worrisome trend:

... Here lies the point. Life matters much, much more than the planet, which is merely a place on which humans live. We need to care for Earth not because of it, but because of us. Pure self-interest. If humanity did not exist, to hell with the planet. It's a means to an end. We're the end; Earth the means.

Problem is, fashionable thinking has reversed the equation. The planet is to be saved because it is precious in itself and we, dangerous intruders, are the problem. Earth is to be revered, loved and even worshipped. Like some perverse replacement theology, Mother Earth takes on the role of real mothers and fathers....

And even more perverse is the notion that animals are more valuable than human beings. Bishop Fred Henry notes:

...As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, "When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife."

Nevertheless, it turns out that some animals are more equal than others. One would expect that consistency would demand the condemnation of poisoning babies in the womb with a saline solution or cutting them up with surgical tools but Newkirk and Singer don't believe that human beings have the right to life...

I suppose the most frightening aspect of all of this is the mass brain-washing done in our public school system:

Dear Mother Earth,

What is our earth? I know it is the animals. What we can do? We can pick up the garbag and we can take care of the animals. Why is it important? to love you? I love you Mother Earth. If we don't love you everything wil go away.

Perhaps the school system should focus more on spelling than scaring kids into submission.

'Raising awareness' with ad hominems

Sounds like Lorrie Goldstein gets more than his fair share of ranting emails from the Kyoto crowd.

In today's column (Let's clear the air here), Goldstein lays out his stance on global warming and climate change, which I find to be moderate, non-partisan and entirely reasonable:

For more than a year now, having done a fair bit of research about the issue on my own, I've been writing critically about global warming. During that time, I have stated the following:

That I accept the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the Earth is warming unnaturally and that it is "very likely" human activity is the cause.

That, regardless of global warming, it's important to conserve energy and to burn fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) as cleanly and efficiently as possible, not just for environmental reasons, but for geo-political ones. The less we have to rely on Mideast oil, the greater our security will be.

I've said Canada, as a resource-rich country, should be a leader in the responsible use of fossil fuels and government subsidies to the oil industry -- unnecessary when oil costs more than $100 a barrel -- should be re-invested into Canadian research and development of new sources of renewable energy and clean technologies.

I've said if Canada imposes a carbon tax, presuming a majority of Canadians favour this, it must be done in concert with the U.S. and our other major trading partners, so as not to damage our economy.
I've argued it must be truly revenue neutral, providing already overtaxed Canadians with realistic ways of moving toward a carbon economy...

Then he goes on to explain why he doesn't support the Kyoto protocol which, as he agrees with Harper, really is a 'socialist, money-sucking scheme'. Worse, it is not realistically designed to lower man-made GHG emissions due to the exclusion of certain countries such as China and India, and the fact that the U.S. has not ratified the treaty "dating back to the Bill Clinton/Al Gore administration".


Also:

...Climate hysterics, led by environmental radicals and opportunistic politicians, who screech that every time there's an extreme, or even unusual weather event it's "proof" of man-made global warming, don't know what they're talking about. They constantly confuse "weather" and "climate."

They don't understand the difference between man-made global warming and the Earth's natural greenhouse effect, which keeps us all from freezing...

...Kyoto isn't an environmental plan. It's a plan to transfer wealth from the First World to the Third and damage the American economy in particular...

As if we need that right now! As we can already see, a worsening U.S. economic situation can seriously impact our economy - especially in Ontario.


Please read the whole article. It's a no-nonsense approach to a very highly-charged, political argument. Yet the emails still pour in calling him names for this moderate stance.

Maybe that's because when they've run out of facts, then name-calling is the only thing left to fall back on.


Or is it?

They could always try locking him up.

* * * *

Update: Great somewhat-related post here at Mesopotamia West - How to Appeal to Liberals.

The Great Canadian Carbon Tax Swindle

Last week when David Suzuki rolled out his Amazing Carbon Tax Schticht prior to the Federal Budget, I asked Sun columnist Lorrie Goldstein if he'd be doing a response. He replied, "All in due time..."

It was well worth the wait.

In The carbon cops are coming, Goldstein exposes the intellectual dishonesty of environmental advocates and politicians who try to woo us to the Green side with tales of how their schemes will be 'revenue neutral'. As a public service, Lorrie offers his three-pronged guide designed to help us sort through the hot air emanating from Suzuki Nation:

1) When any of them tell you "polluters will pay" to reduce greenhouse gases, they mean you and me.

Whenever they talk about a carbon tax, a "cap-and-trade" system, carbon credits or the regulation of industrial greenhouse gases by government, they are talking about the same thing -- higher taxes.

( . . . )

2) This brings us to the second point of our guide: Whenever a politician, or anyone else, claims a carbon tax will be "revenue neutral" nail them down on exactly what they mean.

Politicians and environmentalists like to toss around "revenue neutral" because it sounds as if even with a new carbon tax, you will pay no more in total taxes than you do now.

That's not what it means. Even if a government was considering a truly "revenue neutral" tax, it may well not be neutral for you. Say you need your car to drive to work because you live in one city and your job is in another. If the government imposes a carbon tax by hiking gasoline prices, it may claim it's "revenue neutral" because it's going to return an equal amount in tax incentives for people to take public transit. Problem is, if you don't have a realistic transit alternative for getting to work, your carbon tax is no longer "revenue neutral." .

( . . .)

3) Finally, when a politician or environmentalist tells you a carbon tax can be imposed with "minimal" harm to the economy ask them what assumptions they base this on.

In both the recent study on carbon pricing by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, and in the one released by the Suzuki Foundation last week, the authors simply assume that while Canada is taxing carbon, the U.S. and our other major trading partners will be doing the same...

And that's a huge assumption.

Even the Toronto Star takes note of the fact that while this may be a desirable situation, it is clearly not going to happen anytime in the near future. Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty, brother of the current Federal Liberal environmental critic David, is not jumping on the bandwagon. He rightly realizes that such a plan would devastate the Ontario economy which is already facing huge challenges competing with China, etc.

As in all things, buyer beware.

Losing patience with the deniers*

* Denier - Anyone who crosses David Suzuki.

* * * *

Tomorrow, Kyoto überkop David Suzuki will use a news conference in Ottawa in another attempt to shame the Federal Government into including in its budget a "carbon tax or carbon trading system to cut greenhouse gas emissions".

If that doesn't work there's always jail.

Meanwhile, Kate has highlighted two excellent columns in today's Sun. Angelo Persichilli asks for some truth from the media about how much environmental changes will cost us and how effective (or ineffective) they're likely to be - Science and politics overlap the truth.

The ever-witty Lorrie Goldstein explains how the 'Suzuki Nation' attempts to shame us lest we dare complain about the high costs of going green and how we're being hoodwinked into thinking that something might actually be accomplished in the bargain - It's green fever madness!

Best line:

...And finally in crazytown ... Ottawa ... where, amongst so many other absurdities on the environmental front, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, a man who can't control his caucus, has a plan to control the climate...

But Kate's got a few little gems of her own as she exposes the hypocrisy of jouralists who pretend to care about the environment:

...But let's back up a little, for this is the end of civilization as we know it, and they're apparently convinced of that. A planetary emergency, no less.

How does one convinced of impending planetary doom get up in the morning to work in the industry they do - an industry that employs vast numbers of people to travel the country via commercial jet and automobile, that sustains huge media complexes clogged to the ceilings with electricity consuming CO2-belching technology, that hauls tons of satellite equipment to produce on-the-scene reporting?

That indulges in the broadcasting of sporting events? And entertainment "news"?

"We interrupt this report on the last remaining meter of Arctic sea ice to bring you live footage of Britney Spears' entourage leaving the hospital ... John, you're in the helicoptor, what can you tell us?"

When it comes to curtailing wasteful practices and excessive C02 emissions, shouldn't they be among the first to go?

From SDA: Y2Kyoto - The Twilight Zone.

Brilliant stuff, Kate!


So as Saint Suzuki gets on the media pulpit tomorrow to whip up his congregation into another lynch-mob frenzy, just remember that there are a few truthful media pundits left.

Cherish them - before they join Harper in the gallows.

* * * *

Monday Update: Halls of Macadamia - "Federal Carbon Tax Proposed".

Lorne Gunter - Forget Global Warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age.



For further background, please check out Lorrie Goldstein's previous column, "Green taxes put us in the red". Sun articles don't stay online forever so read it while you can. Some memorable lines:

In reality, there's no way governments can or will make "Big Business" pay more for disgorging carbon into the atmosphere and heating up our planet.

Obviously, they'll just pass along the added costs to their captive customers -- us...

...It's the part the charitable David Suzuki glosses over when he rants (non-partisanly, of course) about how we should throw politicians such as Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper in jail, or out of office, for doing nothing about global warming for the past two years and ... uh ... what? ... replace him with the Liberals who did nothing for 12?

...B.C. will bribe taxpayers with $100 of their own money, just before it introduces its escalating carbon tax July I, which it promises to keep "revenue neutral" via other tax cuts.

You can decide, gentle reader, on the likelihood of that promise being kept over the long term, but early skeptics (should we jail them for climate change denial?) include B.C.'s NDP and Green Party.

On the other hand, The Suzuki Foundation and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce both pronounced themselves pleased.

Where the rubber meets the road - Part Deux

From the school of harsh reality - Carbon Tax Bill in the Mail (Gazette) H/T National Newswatch:

"They said consumers would not pay for this - and now here we are, paying for it."

When the Liberal government introduced the carbon tax, it said it was targeting oil companies with deep pockets.

"We are asking them to be good corporate citizens," Natural Resources Minister Claude Béchard said at the time.

He added that the plan is based on the principle that the polluter should pay.

How naive.


In the end, there really is only one taxpayer - whether you pay the bill directly or as a consumer - or even as a laid-off worker.

* * * *

Related: Lorrie Goldstein has a gutsy column this morning - The New CEO of Sharia Green (H/T Canadian Blue Lemons)

Premiers back stricter emission rules, Campbell says - Globe

More bad tax news here for Ontario - CTV

Where the rubber meets the road

Funny how when it comes down to actually having to open our wallets, suddenly we value the green we're forced to shell out more than the greening of the environment.

H/T National Newswatch.

* * * *

Sunday Update: To work, carbon tax must sting - Star.

Fit for the round file

This morning Lorrie Goldstein shows us the underlying contradiction in the recent report presented by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy's (NRTEE) - Only one place for this report:

...Indeed, the NRTEE paper, Getting to 2050: Canada's Transition to a Low-emission Future warns 10 times that its proposals won't damage our economy only if the U.S. and our other major trading partners are simultaneously implementing similar measures. Its optimistic economic modelling is based on that.

And yet bizarrely, it also concludes, without qualification, that: "It is not the NRTEE's view that any of this should be justification for not taking action now to either reduce emissions now, or put in place the most effective policy framework for deep, long-term reductions in the future." Excuse us?

Exactly.

So while our own efforts alone would likely return negligible results on a global scale and would likely damage our economy if the U.S., China and others refused to join the cause, we should still soldier on with the proposals in the faint hope that everyone else will follow our example?

Well, here's the problem. Not every country in the world has a Lemming mentality. If Canada's economy is going down the tubes, that is of little concern for the rest of the world. In fact, it could be a plus for China, which is already getting the benefit of our collapsing manufacturing sector.

I see little incentive for the others to join our little march over the cliff.

Perhaps the environmentalists should follow their own advice and try to tone down the gaseous emissions rising from this pile of manure.

* * * *

Related: Great discussion regarding carbon credits and other climate change topics at an earlier post - My 'email interview' with Lorrie Goldstein.

JR has an excellent post with more links - Carbon Tax Insanity.

Sunday Update: Cooling the hot air - Lorrie Goldstein.

My 'email interview' with Lorrie Goldstein

As I mentioned in the previous post, with all the Kyoto misinformation being tossed about, it is refreshing to come across a voice of reason and healthy skepticism in MSM. Lorrie Goldstein has done a tremendous amount of reading on all sides of the debate, and provides a balanced, rational approach.

I asked him by email if he would sum up his position as being an "AGW believer; just not a Kyoto advocate in particular?"

His reply was as follows:

...I agree with the IPCC's latest report that AGW is "very likely", although I do not automatically dismiss anyone who disagrees with this theory as a "denier".

I do not agree there is any scientific consensus on how fast it is happening, how dramatic the impact will be or, most important, what we should do about it, the latter of which is a political issue, not a scientific one.

I oppose the Kyoto accord for reasons I have highlighted in today's column and many others.

I believe we should purse a made-in-Canada policy which emphasizes practical energy conservation, not just reducing GHG emissions, but air pollution as well, another byproduct of burning fossil fuels.

I would end public subsidies to the fossil fuel industry (how much subsidy do you need when oil is $100 a barrel and rising?) and earmark those funds for credible public and private sector research in Canada into ways of combatting pollution and global warming, including burning fossil fuels as cleanly as possible.

I would also invest money now going into public subsidization of the fossil fuel industry into credible public and private sector research and development of renewable energy resources, especially solar power, which I consider more potentially promising than wind.

I believe we should offer such technology to the rest of the world on fair and reasonable financial terms.

Finally I believe in the responsible use of nuclear power, the only practical man-made energy source we have right now that does not emit GHG or significant amounts of air pollution, to fill in the energy gap as we start to wean ourselves off fossil fuels.

Makes sense to me. How about you?

* * * *

Monday Update: Lorrie has passed on his research list, which not only establishes his excellent credentials as a columnist on the topic of Global Warming, but also provides a bibliography for others who wish to become better-informed:

(1) The Rough Guide to Climate Change by Robert Henson, the best all-round book on the subject I've seen.
(2) The Heat is On by Ross Gelbspan
(3) The Revenge of Gaia by James Lovelock
(4) Heat by George Monbiot
(5) The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery
(6) Stormy Weather, 101 Solutions to Global Climate Change by Guy Dauncey with Patrick Mazza
(7) The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Envrionmentalism by Christopher C. Horner.

The first six of these books support the theory of AGW although they suggest different solutions. The last is by a skeptic.

I have also seen and researched the following documentaries from beginning to end.

(1) An Inconvenient Truth, by Al Gore
(2) The Great Global Warming Swindle by Channel 4 in Britain
(3) Exposed: Climate of Fear by Glenn Beck on CNN

The first of these is, of course, the most famous individual work promoting the theory of APG. The other two are by skeptics.

I have also read IPCC docuents, hundreds of newspaper and magazine articles, both pro and con, as well as a number of political books and documents that deal with climate change as one of their subject areas.

This includes the 1993 Liberal Red Book of election promises where Jean Chretien and Paul Martin (who co-authored the document) promised to reduce Canada's man-made greenhouse gas emissions by 20% below 1988 levels by 2005. What they "achieved" during their 12 years in power from 1993 to 2005 was, roughly 29% above 1990 levels.

Loonie trumps Environment - Updated

(Update at end)

In spite of all the histrionics emanating from Bali last week, the issue of the Environment didn't even make CTV's Top Ten Canadian Stories.

More bad news for the Kyoto Kult - The Looney was Number One.

Reality bites, huh?

* * * *

Related: Lorne Gunter - For Kyoto's Champions, the meetings never end:

...Achievement means little to the UN's climate crusaders. It's the appearance of activity that counts. Keep moving, keep meeting, keep the shrimp toast and single malts coming, and the need actually to accomplish some tangible environmental outcome becomes inconsequential.

The Kyoto process is the ultimate triumph of symbolism over substance.

Consider the reception for Kevin Rudd, the new Australian prime minister. He wins power on the eve of the Bali conference and announces his first act as PM will be to sign the Kyoto accord and agree to deep emissions cuts --perhaps as much as 60% by 2020. He then flies off to the Indonesia resort where the 15,000 delegates and hangers-on welcome him as a conquering hero.

But three days into the UN gathering, Australia's electricity commission tells the new prime minister that his government's proposals will lead to a rise in electrical bills of at least 30%, perhaps more. Such an increase would almost surely stunt Australia's booming economy. So Mr. Rudd backs down. He announces his country will not agree to immediate cuts, but rather now favours cuts of 50-60% by 2050.


These are the same levels and deadline that have been advocated by Canada's Conservative government for more than a year. But because our Tories refuse to pay homage to Kyoto as the be-all and end-all of environmental compassion, they are vilified by delegates while the Rudd government is celebrated. Symbolism over substance...

One of Lorne's best columns, IMHO.


Also see Grey Canada - Emissions by country.

* * * *

Tuesday Update: Remember Austyn, our resident Political Prodigy?

Well it seems that last night he and his Dad were discussing BCer in Toronto's post - CTV omits global warming/environment from top stories list.

His Dad sent me this email:

Hi Joanne,

I'm not sure if you remember me, but I'm pretty sure that you remember my very smart son Austyn.

He was reading over my shoulder as I was going through my regular reads of blogs on the internet. As I was scrolling through liblogs he got me to go back to BCer's. He wanted to read it and after we read it and the comments he asked me if I noticed anything.

Austyn's point was someone that is so concerned that the environment/global warming was not in the top ten of Canadian news stories, but still flies all over to re qualify for Aeroplan Elite status, obviously is not actually concerned about global warming...

I see a future Blogging Tory in the making. Well done, Austyn!

Bali Bunk

Kudos to Jonathan Kay for diffusing some of the hot air emanating from yesterday's Star.

Today's National Post editorial focuses on the failures of Kyoto and the ironic hypocrisy of the upcoming Bali conference itself - Son of Kyoto:

...The UN is hosting a major conference this week and next in Bali, Indonesia, to negotiate a successor agreement to Kyoto. What lessons have the delegates drawn from the first treaty's flaws? None, apparently. If anything, their proposals for a Kyoto II suggest an accord that would be worse than the original.

While nominally binding more nations to reduction targets, the UN in reality appears intent on making the same three dozen wealthy countries make the bulk of the sacrifices. At the same time, it would saddle them with an additional burden: sending hundreds of billions of dollars in aid to developing nations in order to ensure that what marginal emission reductions those countries are called on to make can be achieved cost-free.

The sheer size of the Bali gathering shows how the global-warming movement has become an industry unto itself. During their negotiations on emission reductions to save the planet, the 20,000 delegates and observers in Bali will generate a greater carbon footprint than all the residents of a city the size of Victoria, Halifax or London, Ont., would produce in a month. The Canadian Climate Action Network, which includes some of this country's best-known eco-crusaders, boasted Monday that it was sending 60 participants. Flying those delegates and their confreres from around the world to the remote resort island will generate 110,000 tonnes of CO2, alone.

But then, this do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do attitude should not be surprising: The most strident champions of carbon abatement are unaccountable NGOs and celebrity environmentalists who travel around the world feting one another, drinking their own green Kool-Aid...

Exactly. And if any of those eco-evangelists feel the need for a brief diversion, there's plenty to atone for afterwards.



Cutting through the hype is a challenge for the average Canadian, but let me make this perfectly clear - It will affect your own bottom line. As Ultramar vice-president Louis Forget said of Quebec's 'green tax', "Somehow, the consumers will pay for it."

Oh yes, we will pay and pay and pay again.


Those of us who still have jobs, that is.

* * * *

Related: Adam Daifallah - Cooling it.

Bali Deadlock (Liberal, but still worth the read)

Help please! Update: Jonathan Kay to the rescue!

Evening Update: It appears that Jonathan Kay intends to publish this editorial in tomorrow's Post - Dump Kyoto, Save Lives. (H/T National Newswatch)

It's a direct rebuttal to Byers' Star piece (see below).

...My problem with the Kyoto camp isn’t that it’s peddling “junk science.” It’s that, like Byers, they go straight from the science to the politics without stopping to count the money. What if global warming is real, but Kyoto is still a rip-off — even according to the big-hearted humanitarian logic at the core of the pro-Kyoto camp?

On that note, here’s something that pops out at you when you read Byers’ op-ed: a total absence of numbers. The same is true of most pro-Kyoto articles, and sometimes even whole books. Too often, the argument for fighting climate change is based on vague appeals to cuddly polar bears, our moral debt to mother nature, the “will of the international community” — as well as the usual litany of worst-case (and, often, worse-than-worst-case) disaster scenarios. You rarely see anyone actually crunch the numbers and prove Kyoto’s worth on a cost-benefit basis...

Consider: The global all-in compliance costs of Kyoto amount to about $180-billion per year. Yet all these billions — even paid in perpetuity — would delay the globe’s expected rate of heating over the next century by just 5%. Assuming Kyoto is allowed to expire in 2012, its total effect will have been to delay the pace of global warming by one week. In terms of Canada’s contribution to Kyoto, the effect would be measured in hours. Think about that the next time Dion or David Suzuki lecture you about Canada’s lost opportunity to save the world.

Thank you Jonathan for this refreshing reality check. If only all my wishes were answered so swiftly.

* * * *

I can't let this one go by, but I need some help due to time constraints.

Please read this opinion piece by Michael Byers - Prime Minister Stands out as Small Man of Humanity (Star). If you're a True Blue Conservative, this one's gonna make you see red!


Here's what jumped out at me:

Harper's antipathy to international environmental co-operation is well known. He once dismissed the Kyoto Protocol as "essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations." But his concerns about burden-sharing and free-riding are misplaced. Firefighters don't check tax records before responding to an emergency call.

Now this sounded vaguely familiar, and then I remembered. That analogy was used in a recent Record editorial (which we totally picked apart):

If rich and poor houses on a street were on fire, would Harper wait until everyone paid the same taxes before calling the fire brigade?

So what's up with that? Is this the latest revelation from some kind of Kyoto New Testament or something? I guessed I missed that service. (Oh, yeah. We were snowed in.)


Lots more to challenge in the article.

Have fun.

Bad news for Lizzy May and company - Bumped with update

(Update at end)

Environment Canada forecasts "coldest winter in almost 15 years".

If November is any indication, I'm inclined to agree.


Oops. Stephane must have read the same report! Y2Kyoto: Politics ends at the swim up bar.

"We are speaking about the worst ecological threat that humanity is facing, and I will do my best to get out of this damn frozen country."

* * * *

Saturday Update: Speaking of Bali, this is a must-watch video - Rex Murphy (Bali Logic). H/T Socialist Gulag:

...If global warming is the imminent and catastrophic peril to the earth that everyone from the IPCC to David Suzuki to Al Gore and every socially-conscious celebrity on the planet have been telling us it is, then there can be no serious argument for Canada to make mandatory commitments, while exempting the giant emitters of the world such as China and India. This is like plugging a leak while ignoring a flood...

An inconvenient mess

Oh the irony...

The eco-cruise ship which belongs to Al Gore's buddy Bruce Poon Tip and sunk in the Antartic, is fast becoming a huge eco-disaster - Sunken Antarctic cruise ship leaves oil spill, threatening 2,500 penguins (MS Explorer).

Thomas Mulcair - Lots of style; little substance - Updated

Tuesday afternoon update: MacEachen office denies he urged bail for Schreiber - Chronicle Herald. (H/T National Newswatch).

Mr. Mulcair’s comments in the House are protected by parliamentary privilege from libel actions. When asked outside the House to comment on his mention of Mr. MacEachen, Mr. Mulcair instead discussed the nature of the public inquiry into the relationship between Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney.

I'm getting sick of this garbage - Say anything you want in the House; then obfuscate outside. No wonder people are getting turned off politics and not bothering to vote.

* * * *

I was really hoping someone else would pick up on this, but since I don't see a post in Blogging Tories, I will proceed.

On MDL tonight, Duff interviews Environment Minister John Baird and discusses the 'nasty' atmosphere in Question Period.


The ever-pompous Thomas Mulcair was shown in a clip, right after Dion. He rants for a while, and then says this:

"...We're talking about the greatest ecological crisis the world has ever faced. All of the scientists that have looked at this issue agree with it..."

All of the scientists???? There are no opposing scientific views? I had no idea.


Or is exaggeration also covered by 'Parliamentary immunity'?


Tuesday - Exact quote from Hansard now available:

Mr. Speaker, we do not have hard targets. We do have aspirational goals, as in the void, the vacuum, created by the vacuous statements of that irresponsible government. We are talking about the greatest ecological crisis the world has ever faced. All of the scientists who have looked at this issue agree with it.

* * * *

Tuesday Update: Last night on MDL, Duff made some reference to Elizabeth May and Hitler. That is explained here at AGWN.

MSM split on Harper's stand re: Kyoto

Well, it's hardly surprising that the left-wing media are all over Harper like a pack of jackals. The Record has this editorial offering today - Harper drops the ball on climate change.

Here's a classic line:

To be sure, implementing an international plan to deal with climate change will not be cheap. Every cleanup comes with a cost. Harper's approach of waiting for all countries to be able to pay is naive. It will just delay the process. If rich and poor houses on a street were on fire, would Harper wait until everyone paid the same taxes before calling the fire brigade?

What a weak analogy!!!

For one thing, Harper isn't 'refusing to call the fire brigade'. He simply realizes that it's pointless to fight a wildfire that's engulfing a whole neighbourhood if the poorer houses refuse to have their gas turned off. No matter how hard you try to stop your own house from burning, the fire from your neighbour's house is going to affect yours unless they stop it at the source.


Next they make this disingenuous comment:

Interestingly, Australia's prime minister, John Howard, who opposed Kyoto, has just been defeated by Labour Leader Kevin Ruud, who has pledged to sign the accord. From both a policy and a political perspective, Harper would be wise to become a more ardent opponent of climate change.

Well, Dr. John Ray from Brisbane thinks Rudd's stance is just so much hot air:

...And the resolve of Prime-minister-elect Kevin Rudd to sign the Kyoto treaty is a good example of such tokenism. Australia's emissions of carbon dioxide are already in line with what most of Europe has achieved so the signing will make little difference.

It should also be noted that Rudd will have to get the treaty through the Senate and, in a quirk of Australian politics, he is unlikely to be able to do that until July, 2008. Senate membership does not change until then and the present Senate is conservative-dominated. So Rudd's talk of "immediate" action is just the usual political flim-flam.

By contrast, the National Post has quite a different take on things than the Record - Standing tall in Uganda:

At the Commonwealth meeting in Uganda, Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi professed himself "disappointed" with Mr. Harper's stand. No wonder. Under the original draft, nations such as Malaysia would have been subject to no emission limits unless they were also recipients of large cash payments.


Putting aside this attempted cash grab, our more fundamental objection to Kyoto, and any plan that requires large-scale cuts in greenhouse gasses, is that it would hobble our economy -- especially our already-struggling manufacturing sector. Mr. Dion may not admit it, but the drastic cuts he seeks would essentially kill whole industries -- including, most likely, Ontario's auto industry. In recent months, Mr. Harper has been accused of ignoring the financial needs of the Greater Toronto Area by snubbing its demands for more federal cash. Ironically, his rejection of the logic of Kyoto has, in one fell swoop, done more to help the region than any of the bailout schemes proposed by Mayor David Miller.

Exactly. With the auto manufacturing sector already on the skids and begging for help, signing Kyoto would only worsen an already troubled Ontario economy. People are losing their jobs. They have to eat and be housed.

And where does that money come from? Taxes.

Are you willing to pay the price?

* * * *

Related:

Tip from a loyal reader - Al Gore buddy owner of sunken ship that left huge carbon footprint on Antarctic Ocean floor: CFP.

Elizabeth May - Global Saboteur. Bourque gave this the following headline - Liz May: Climate Change Worse than Nazis.

Some people never learn.


Elizabeth May goes too far - EcoLibertarian.

Of real leaders and stinky pools

Funny how a headline pertaining to the same story can be torqued in so many different ways.


Anyway, The Wudrick Blog contains an excellent analysis. Just don't drink yellow beverages and read at the same time.


This, of course, was predictable - Dion condemns PM's climate change stance.

Hunter - Media uses Lethal Weapon!

Interesting comments at the end of this CTV report. (H/T Trusty Tory).

* * * *

Sunday Update: Not a lot of time to blog today, but please check out Lorrie Goldstein's, "What about all that hot air?".

One of the most commonsense, non-partisan editorials I've read in a long time.

Since CM is enabled, you may not see your comment posted for a while. Don't worry, it will show up sometime, unless your name is Red Tory or Kevron.

Star - Won't repeat Kyoto error: PM

There's one born every minute

I guess I'll throw my two cents worth in here about Al Gore winning the Nobel peace prize (Terence Corcoran reams the decision in today's Post - A coup for junk science).

In spite of the recent British High Court judgment labelling "Inconvenient Truth" as a 'political' film, some people think that the prize somehow legitimizes Gore's efforts, and that indeed he should now seriously consider challenging Hillary Clinton.

I agree. He should go for it. This award has proven that he has what it takes - the ability to deceive, bend the truth and manipulate the masses. All great assets in the game of politics.

* * * *

Update: Check out PTBC - Fox News report on Gore's Nobel 'Peace' prize. (H/T Bluetech).
That was one of Corcoran's points - that this badly flawed piece of propaganda hardly improved world peace.

Gore and Peace - Peter Foster

Globe - A word or two, Mr. Gore.

Star - Gore's Nobel has Sides Lined Up.

Ottawa Citizen - If only there were a Nobel Peace Prize for Deception.

All weather is climate change

L. Ian MacDonald gives us a science lesson.

And I'm still having trouble figuring out this double negative:

Climate change? Something is going on. There hasn't been an evening in the last two weeks when it hasn't been cool enough to start the fireplace - in July. In two decades of summers here, this has never happened before.

Thanks, Ian. I can skip today's brain teaser. (That should set up Red Tory quite nicely for a snarky comment.)

* * * *

Related: Good chance Mayor Andy Wells isn't a member of the Gore-Suzuki fan club.

More Great Inconvenient Letters

Now the Post has letters responding to letters regarding shutting down the classroom debate on global warming, and using Gore's film as gospel truth.


From B. Mark Podolak of Ottawa:

Kenneth Paradis of Wilfrid Laurier University states in his letter that opponents of Al Gore's views should "be given an amount of classroom time in proportion to their representation in the scientific literature," before he rather contemptuously adds, "there certainly might be a minute or two presentation of alternative theories."

It is this attitude that causes academics to be held in such low regard in the real world. The professor should remember two important points: 1. Academics are granted tenure in order to ensure that debate of the common orthodoxy can take place in the universities; and 2. the common academic orthodoxy once held that the Earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth -- and debate on that idea was not allowed.

If the professor is unwilling to allow debate on climate change, then one must conclude that he fears the results of that debate.

Well, Gore's fans seem to be saying that any further debate is a waste of time; that it is ignoring the obvious:

..Isn't it enough that there is a significant consensus among scientists that human activity is contributing to global warming? Doesn't reason suggest that there is a greater likelihood that the prevailing scientific view is right? And given the consequences if we continue to ignore what they are telling us, isn't it the worst kind of folly to just sit back and hope against hope that they are mistaken?

However, Professor R.M. Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University in Townsville, Australia states:

Al Gore's film conveniently ignores that we live on a dynamic planet, and that all of the phenomena about which he raises alarm fluctuate naturally all the time. If teachers are to show An Inconvenient Truth in classrooms at all, then they must inform students that the ex-vice president's arguments are very weak.

As an example, take Mr. Gore's statements on glaciers. Students must be taught that glaciers flow. The rate of advance or retreat of their snout is a function of the overall mass balance of the glacier and the rate of flow. The mass balance includes the melting or breakaway at the bottom end. That parts of the Larson B ice shelf broke off from Antarctica in 2002 is part of the natural process of glacier flow off Antarctica that has gone on for eons.

Teachers must also explain that both the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps are thickening, and that the temperature at the South Pole has declined by more than one degree Celsius since 1950. And the area of sea ice around the continent has increased over the last 20 years.

It is incredible that this scientifically unbalanced "docu-ganda" is commanding any public attention at all.

"Docu-ganda". Heh.


But this one by Jack Sands of Markham, Ontario is my favourite; probably because it resonates so well with the quote posted above my blog profile:

A brilliant scholar once told my class, "It's not the truth that makes you free; it's the search for truth." People who want to impose their "truth" without discussion, about climate change or anything else, are a menace not only to science but to a free society.

I couldn't agree more.

Critical thinking - No longer required in the Nanny State

There is an interesting selection of Letters to the Editor in today's National Post, which serves to back up a comment I recently made about the vilification of Global Warming deniers; a comment to which Red Tory took great exception:

...I think the point is that we need to be able to talk about this or else it's going to be pushed into a closet just like the abortion discussion.

Skeptics and deniers will be called heretics, and vilified if they even ponder bringing up the subject.

Red Tory responded:

...Funny, I’ve stated repeatedly that I’m agnostic when it comes to climate change and that this is the only reasonable position for a skeptic and rational empiricist like me to take. The vast majority of my liberal friends respond with “fair enough” or something along that line. Perhaps you can explain why I am not denounced as a heretic or vilified as you assert will always be the case regarding those even pondering such unorthodox thoughts.

Well, I'm not exactly sure which segment of humanity Red's liberal readers represent, but I digress...


In the wars of the Professors Emeritus this morning we have a Jon Van Loan decrying Kevin Libin's Gore smack-down:

Al Gore's well researched An Inconvenient Truth, even with its over-simplifications and the odd error, is still an excellent approach to jolting the public conscience into considering a problem that is now occurring and will -- if left without immediate and proper redress --lead to irreversible disaster...

Odd error??? Pull-eeze!

Here is the dangerous part:

A large panel of Nobel Prize science winners, along with greater than 90% of the scientists who have examined this problem in detail, believe that human-induced climate change is occurring. Thus, I would say to contrarian individuals that it would be time wasting, misleading and counterproductive to give "The Other Side" much of a mention.

In other words, ignore the dissenters. Shut down debate - just as we have with the discussion to limits on abortion.


This very frightening viewpoint is brought up again by Prof. Kenneth Paradis, Contemporary Studies (English), Wilfrid Laurier University in Brantford, Ontario:

...However, almost the the entire community of climate change scientists agrees with the basic reality of the global warming situation Mr. Gore describes. Why, then, would you argue that there is a "debate" on this issue and that classroom treatments of it should give equal time to an opposing view?

Instead of using the lack of absolute consensus as an excuse to manufacture a "debate," perhaps we should advocate that the positions be given an amount of classroom time in proportion to their representation in the scientific literature. So after Mr. Gore's film, there certainly might be a minute or two presentation of alternative theories, but even that goes against good pedagogical practice and common sense...

Read the whole thing. You won't believe it. These illustrious professors are forming the minds of our kids, folks!!


Fortunately the Post has published a few letters from the side of reason, that request that skill of critical thinking be taught in the classroom, rather than outright propaganda. Professor W.G. Hopkins of the University of Western Ontario writes:

...Our schools are clearly failing on the critical thinking part, at least when it comes to the global warming controversy. When An Inconvenient Truth, with all of its distortions, scientific inaccuracies and pure propaganda is thrust upon the student as the only and final answer, then this is no longer education. This is now indoctrination. It is also a distressing commentary on the quality of both the school system and its teachers, not to mention our prospects for the future.

You see, what's at stake here isn't so much the environment, as is the state of democracy in Canada.

Because if we shut down debate and only teach one side of an issue without encouraging critical thinking, we are churning out a country of sheeple.

With that, democracy is in serious peril.

* * * *

Update: Ah, finally some sanity from the left (H/T Steve Janke):

A top United Nations official says he is no longer alarmed by Canada’s stand on the Kyoto Protocol now that he better understands the Conservative government’s position.

“I must admit, I was worried for some time, but I was much encouraged by the clarification,” Yvo de Boer, executive secretary to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, said in Montreal Tuesday.

He said he now understands that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government wasn’t rejecting the value of the Kyoto accord, but rather observed its objectives cannot be met within the target deadline.

David Suzuki will not be impressed!

Also please check out Conservaparanoia - Thinking Deep.

And speaking of David Suzuki, check out Steve's Hypocrite or Henpecked?