Archive for the ‘Canadian government’ Category

The new CEO of Sharia Green

January 24, 2008

 Editor:
Life is strange. I never cared for the Toronto Sun or Stephen Harper, but they seem to be the only ones trying to inform Canadians about some very important realities. Harper is blocking Kyoto because he knows what it’s about. It’s about giving up the sovereignty of Canada to the UN. I’m not sure why Harper is working behind closed doors to integrate Canada the USA and Mexico. To save us from the UN takeover? The result will be the same, the lost of Canada’s Sovereignty.
Send Lorrie an email or a letter to the paper and encourage him to continue to inform his readers about the reality of “GREEN” 

Lorrie Goldstein

Thu, January 24, 2008
The new CEO of Sharia Green
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Lorrie Goldstein reporting live for Sun TV. Today it’s my pleasure to introduce you to a global warming expert who’s taking the world by storm — Osama bin Kyoto, founder and CEO of the environmental organization, Sharia Green.

“Mr. Osama bin Kyoto, welcome to our show.”

“Thank you, infidel.”

“May I call you Mr. Kyoto?”

“Of course, infidel.”

fctAdTag(“bigbox”,MyGenericTagVar,1);

“Thank you. Mr. Kyoto, what is your reaction to the latest roller coaster ride of the world’s stock markets and hysterical media reports of impending global economic collapse?”

“This is wonderful news, infidel. We applaud global economic collapse because it’s the only conceivable way major industrialized nations can achieve their greenhouse gas reduction targets under the Kyoto accord. How do you think Russia and all those other former Soviet satellites got to be world leaders in reducing GHG emissions and now have billions of dollars of hot air credits to sell to suckers … uh, I mean to countries like yours? Energy-efficient light bulbs? Wind farms? Solar panels? Stop, you’re killing me! No, they achieved it through total economic meltdown. Why do you think we chose 1990 as the base year for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, just as the Soviet Union was imploding?”

“Uh … to screw the United States?”

“Exactly!”

“But Mr. Kyoto, surely you’re not suggesting global economic collapse and the resulting human carnage, social deprivation and widespread suffering that would result would be a good thing?”

“Of course it would be good, infidel! Economic collapse means you will have less money to buy stuff and the less stuff you buy, the fewer greenhouse gas emissions there will be. Our computer models show that for every 2,000-point drop in the Dow, not only will your retirement date be pushed back five years, but 56.7 polar bears in the Arctic will be saved from drowning.”

“But Mr. bin Kyoto, you folks can’t even agree on whether last year was the second, fifth or seventh warmest in the past century or so. How can you have a computer model that relates drops in the Dow to my retirement date and polar bear drownings?”

“It’s the same one that allows us to predict the precise impact of a carbon tax on the cost of living 50 years from now. Next question.”

“Mr. bin Kyoto, suppose China stops using coal to power energy plants. Suppose the developing world abandons the use and development of fossil fuels. Won’t millions of people in the poorest countries die as a result? Why do you only talk about shortened life spans people might suffer due to climate change, never about the certain deaths we know will occur if the developing world never … uh … develops.”

“Why, infidel? Because that’s complex thinking and we prefer mindless simplicity. So what if a few billion people die? People are a major source of man-made global warming — except for me, of course.”

“But Mr. bin Kyoto, your position is just knee-jerk anti-growth, anti-development, anti-capitalist, anti-Western and especially anti-American. It shuns complex thinking in favour of simplistic and false moral imperatives its adherents accept on blind faith and which ultimately hold human life to be cheap. Mr. bin Kyoto, you and Sharia Green sound a lot like Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.”

“Your point, infidel?”


• You can e-mail Lorrie Goldstein at lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca

• Have a letter for the editor? E-mail it to

Advertisements

Big Green Environmentalism

January 21, 2008

 Editor:
In order to understand wind farms and the renewable energy push, you must understand the environmental movement. You need to educate yourself in order to be in a better position to fight your govt. and the wind industry. 

“On a still day you can just hear the plutocracy laughing. Environmentalism is a dark green tarp they have thrown over North America”.

The money and guidance flowing from the foundations to Big Green is but a fraction of the support elite circles muster on behalf of environmentalism. In addition to the pro-green foundations there are currently over 1,000 commercial corporations affiliated with either the “World Business Council for Sustainable Development” or the “Business Environment Leadership Council”; including about 100 of the world’s largest multinationals. These corporations now give money to environmental activists, lobby governments for specific, self-serving environmental regulations, and incorporate “green” messaging into their advertising and memoranda. As well, governments throughout the English-speaking world and Western Europe, since 1970, have established a myriad of state Environmental Ministries which, via their stringent imposition of regulatory green tape onto industry, have engendered a caste of professional environmentalists. These Eco-Ministries also quietly lavish funds upon environmental activist groups in sums comparable to the collective contributions of the major Green foundations. Then there are the great immeasurables. Immeasurable contributions such as the incalculable amount of free and slanted publicity given to eco-issues by the mass media or the equally priceless support environmentalism has received by virtue of changes to public education curricula, over the last 4 decades, which converted “Ecologism” and “Malthusianism” from obscure 19th century reactionary ideologies into mainstream courses with their own faculties and textbooks. Hence the foundations are but one pillar of support for environmentalism along side high schools, universities, certain industrial corporations, and the mass media.

I view the population control movement and the environmental movement as one indistinguishable whole, founded and funded by the same people and possessing mutually reinforcing and overlapping rhetoric and goals.

Conclusion

On a still day you can just hear the plutocracy laughing. Environmentalism is a dark green tarp they have thrown over North America. They have decreed development be slowed to a crawl and enlisted a vast ‘army of the night’ to implement this command. Here in the trenches we never engage the Kennedys, the Trudeaus or the Windsors. No, down here we get to argue with kids with daisy-counting diplomas from community colleges in their hands and grant applications to the Ford Foundation in their hip pockets; and good luck trying to change the minds of people like this. If not for environmentalist suppression of economic activity North America would be experiencing a tremendous and sustained boom that would reduce unemployment to a smidgeon of its current rate. The responsibility for all of the under-employment, all of the want of opportunity, the lack of housing, the scarcity of public funds, the poverty, the hardship, hard times and heartache people are experiencing shall be layeth upon the well-guarded doorsteps of Big Green. We smolder, we seethe and we type on.

Read entire article –ecofascism.com

National Round Table on the Environment

January 10, 2008

This week the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy basically recommended Canadian taxpayers should fall on their swords for the sake of winning a Pyrrhic victory over global warming.

The government advisory panel called for Ottawa to impose a carbon tax on Canadians and/or establish a “cap and trade” carbon emissions trading scheme for industry (which has been something of a fiasco in Europe) to achieve “deep” greenhouse gas (GHG) emission cuts.

In reality, the NRTEE is telling us to do two contradictory things: Act in concert with the rest of the world to combat global warming and, regardless of what the world does, act unilaterally now.

The NRTEE acknowledges that: “With respect to environmental risk, Canada’s share of global emissions and hence its contribution to the stock of atmospheric carbon is low, and if action is not taken globally, Canada’s efforts alone could do little to stabilize atmospheric concentrations.”

Plus: “We believe that the most critical assumption that the NRTEE has made in its work, particularly in our modelling, is that whatever policy framework Canada puts into place, it is comparable to its competitors and trade partners, predominantly the United States … If our major trading partners, particularly the United States, do not implement comparable policies within a reasonable time frame, the economic risk of the deep domestic reductions investigated in this report rises.”

fctAdTag(“bigbox”,MyGenericTagVar,1);

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?

Canada, which like many countries will miss its Kyoto targets, accounts for 2.1% of global GHG emissions.

The U.S., our largest trading partner, responsible for 20.6% of emissions, has refused to ratify Kyoto since the Clinton administration. What would the NRTEE have us do? Arm-wrestle the U.S. into submission?

Speculation the next American president will ratify Kyoto is merely that, speculation.

In 1997, when GHG guru Al Gore was Bill Clinton’s vice-president, Democratic and Republican members of the Senate, which must ratify Kyoto, voted 95-0 against, arguing it was detrimental to American interests because developing nations weren’t required to cut emissions. Today the developing world, led by China, is balking at accepting cuts even after Kyoto expires in 2012.

As things now stand, the NRTEE is effectively recommending Canadians pay significantly more for carbon (meaning for virtually everything) for decades to come, at the risk of severely damaging our economy, especially in Alberta and Ontario, for what would be a futile gesture to combat global warming even if successful, and even if countries responsible for up to 10 times our emissions do nothing.

But if everyone else suddenly reverses course inspired by our example, we should be okay.

That’s not a policy. It’s insanity.

The Harper government requested this report. It should thank the NRTEE — and shelve it.


• You can e-mail Lorrie Goldstein at lorrie.goldstein@sunmedia.ca

• Have a letter for the editor? E-mail it to torsun.editor@sunmedia.caTorontoSun.com – Lorrie Goldstein – Only one place for this report

Global Warming the Fraud Continues in 2008

January 9, 2008

2008 will be the year that the climate alarmists will be discredited
Media Promotes Global Warming Alarmism by Jack Kelly at RealClearPolitics via Yahoo News:

About this time last year, Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit of East Anglia University in Britain, predicted 2007 would be the warmest year on record.

It didn’t turn out that way. 2007 was only the 9th warmest year since global temperature readings were first made in 1861.

2007 was also the coldest year of this century, noted Czech physicist Lubos Motl.

Both global warming alarmists like Dr. Jones and skeptics like Dr. Motl forecast that this year will be slightly cooler than last year. If so, that means it will be a decade since the high water mark in global temperature was set in 1998.

And the trend line is down. Average global temperature in 2007 was lower than for 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002 and 2001. November of last year was the coldest month since January of 2000, and December was colder still. “Global warming has stopped,” said David Whitehouse, former science editor for the BBC. “It’s not a viewpoint or a skeptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact.”

But observational fact matters little to global warming alarmists, particularly to those in the news media. “In 2008, your television will bring you image after image of natural havoc linked to global warming,” said John Tierney, who writes a science column for the New York Times. “You will be told that such bizarre weather must be a sign of dangerous climate change — and that these images are a mere preview of what’s in store unless we act quickly to cool the planet.”

“Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter,” said Steven Guibeault of Greenpeace. There is no dispute among scientists that the planet warmed about 0.3 degrees Celsius between 1980 and 1998. What is in dispute is what caused the warming, and whether it will continue. The alarmists say the warming was caused chiefly by emissions of carbon dioxide from our automobiles and factories, and that, consequently, it will continue at an ever increasing rate unless we humans change our behavior. The skeptics say the warming trend was caused chiefly by natural cycles, and that it is at or near its end.

“The earth is at the peak of one of its passing warm spells,” said Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. It’ll start getting cold by 2012, and really, really cold around 2041, he predicts.

The news media promote global warming alarmism through selective reporting. Dr. Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado noted that a paper published in an obscure scientific journal that argued there was a link between hurricanes and global warming generated 79 news articles, while a paper that debunked the connection published in a far more prestigious journal generated only three.

“When the Arctic sea ice last year hit the lowest level ever recorded by satellites, it was big news and heralded as a sign the planet was warming,” Mr. Tierney wrote. “When the Antarctic sea ice last year reached the highest level ever recorded by satellites, it was pretty much ignored.”

Two studies published last year which indicated the melting of Arctic sea ice was due more to cyclical changes in ocean currents and winds than to planetary warming also attracted little attention, Mr. Tierney noted.

And though the record melting of Arctic sea ice this summer was widely reported, the record growth of Arctic sea ice this fall (58,000 square miles of ice each day for 10 straight days) was not.

More than 400 scientists — many of them members of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — challenge the claims of the leading global warming alarmist, former Vice President and now Nobel laureate Al Gore, said a report issued by the Republicans on the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works committee last month. Kailee Kreider, a spokeswoman for Mr. Gore, said there criticisms should be discounted because 25 or 30 of the scientists may have received funding from the Exxon Mobil Corp.

It’s Mr. Gore who is the crook, says French physicist Claude Allegre in a new book. He’s made millions in an eco-business based on phony science, Dr. Allegre charges.

Mr. Gore isn’t alone, says Weather Channel founder John Coleman: “Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming,” Mr. Coleman wrote. “Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going…In time, in a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious.”

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax

December 15, 2007

Editor: How long can the media ignore the truth about the Global Warming Scam? The entire scam is about One World Order and the carbon tax is the vehicle to accomplish the task. The entire renewable energy business is about creating carbon credits for the large multi-national corporations. They win you lose. Not hard to understand if you open your eyes. What is to become of Al Gore, former Vice President and David Suzuki, recipient of the Order of Canada? Will the media continue to hide the truth until North America is a wind farm ghetto. Interesting times indeed.

A salute to the scientists who continue to work under difficult conditions to bring the truth forward.

 

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax

By Tom Harris: John McLean Friday, December 14, 2007

Al Gore, Climate ChangeIt’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over – ‘2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis’.

But it’s not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled. As lies go, it’s a whopper. Here’s the real situation.

Like the three IPCC ‘assessment reports’ before it, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released during 2007 (upon which the UN climate conference in Bali was based) includes the reports of the IPCC’s three working groups. Working Group I (WG I) is assigned to report on the extent and possible causes of past climate change as well as future ‘projections’. Its report is titled “The Physical Science Basis”. The reports from working groups II and II are titled “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively, and since these are based on the results of WG I, it is crucially important that the WG I report stands up to close scrutiny.

There is, of course serious debate among scientists about the actual technical content of the roughly 1,000-page WG I report, especially its politically motivated Summary for Policymakers which is often the only part read by politicians and non-scientists. The technical content can be difficult for non-scientists to follow and so most people simply assume that if that large numbers of scientists agree, they must be right.

Consensus never proves the truth of a scientific claim, but is somehow widely believed to do so for the IPCC reports, so we need to ask how many scientists really did agree with the most important IPCC conclusion, namely that humans are causing significant climate change–in other words the key parts of WG I?

The numbers of scientist reviewers involved in WG I is actually less than a quarter of the whole, a little over 600 in total. The other 1,900 reviewers assessed the other working group reports. They had nothing to say about the causes of climate change or its future trajectory. Still, 600 “scientific expert reviewers” sounds pretty impressive. After all, they submitted their comments to the IPCC editors who assure us that “all substantive government and expert review comments received appropriate consideration.” And since these experts reviewers are all listed in Annex III of the report, they must have endorsed it, right?

Wrong.

For the first time ever, the UN has released on the Web the comments of reviewers who assessed the drafts of the WG I report and the IPCC editors’ responses. This release was almost certainly a result of intense pressure applied by “hockey-stick” co-debunker Steve McIntyre of Toronto and his allies. Unlike the other IPCC working groups, WG I is based in the U.S. and McIntyre had used the robust Freedom of Information legislation to request certain details when the full comments were released.

An examination of reviewers’ comments on the last draft of the WG I report before final report assembly (i.e. the ‘Second Order Revision’ or SOR) completely debunks the illusion of hundreds of experts diligently poring over all the chapters of the report and providing extensive feedback to the editing teams. Here’s the reality.

A total of 308 reviewers commented on the SOR, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. Only about half the reviewers commented more than one chapter. It is logical that reviewers would generally limit their comments to their areas of expertise but it’s a far cry from the idea of thousands of scientists agreeing to anything.

Compounding this is the fact that IPCC editors could, and often did, ignore reviewers’ comments. Some editor responses were banal and others showed inconsistencies with other comments. Reviewers had to justify their requested changes but the responding editors appear to have been under no such obligation. Reviewers were sometimes flatly told they were wrong but no reasons or reliable references were provided. In other cases reviewers tried to dilute the certainty being expressed and they often provided supporting evidence, but their comments were often flatly rejected. Some comments were rejected on the basis of a lack of space – an incredible assertion in such an important document. The attitude of the editors seemed to be that simple corrections were accepted, requests for improved clarity tolerated but the assertions and interpretations that appear in the text were to be defended against any challenge.

An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”

In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.

Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article – Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr. Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the “Greenhouse gas forcing …” statement above, Professor McKitrick explained “A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed.”

Dr. Gray labeled the WG I statement as “Typical IPCC doubletalk” asserting “The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model.”

Determining the level of support expressed by reviewers’ comments is subjective but a slightly generous evaluation indicates that just five reviewers endorsed the crucial ninth chapter. Four had vested interests and the other made only a single comment for the entire 11-chapter report. The claim that 2,500 independent scientist reviewers agreed with this, the most important statement of the UN climate reports released this year, or any other statement in the UN climate reports, is nonsense.

“The IPCC owe it to the world to explain who among their expert reviewers actually agree with their conclusions and who don’t,” says Natural Resources Stewardship Project Chair climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball. “Otherwise, their credibility, and the public’s trust of science in general, will be even further eroded.”

That the IPCC have let this deception continue for so long is a disgrace. Secretary General Ban Kai-Moon must instruct the UN climate body to either completely revise their operating procedures, welcoming dissenting input from scientist reviewers and indicating if reviewers have vested interests, or close the agency down completely. Until then, their conclusions, and any reached at the Bali conference based on IPCC conclusions, should be ignored entirely as politically skewed and dishonest.

John McLean is climate data analyst based in Melbourne, Australia. Tom Harris is the Ottawa-based Executive Director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (nrsp.com).

Visit Canada Free Press