Archive for the ‘CBC’ Category

China Building 500 Coal Plants

January 29, 2009

At the two minute mark of the video below, from Australia, we learn that China is building 500 coal plants over the next ten years — One new power plant every four days.

China is  exempt from KYOTO

Think About it!

In Ontario, Canada, the govt. is filling rural Ont. with wind turbines under the guise of saving the environment and closing our four coal plants. ( wind has never been responsible for the closure of any fossil fuel plant)

We are going to close four coal plants at the same time China builds one every four days.

Think About it!

In the USA Obama said he will bankrupt the coal plants.

Think About it.

The Scam is Huge

and

it’s not about saving the environment and it’s not Green

Think About it!

Where is Maurice Strong? Father of Kyoto and Mentor of Al Gore and David Suzuki

CHINA


Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about
?”
Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP

Think About it!

Advertisements

BLACKOUT BRITAIN WARNING – A Warning for Canada and the USA

September 10, 2008

IF you live in North America you better pay attention! The renewable industry is a sham. It is designed to wreak havoc on you and the economy. This is not by mistake – it was planned and now the plan is in full swing. Without reliable energy, you and the economy are screwed.

Unless you want to move to China or India.

Read the

Green Agenda

Daily Express

BLACKOUT BRITAIN WARNING

Story Image

Power cuts ‘could spark disorder’

Sunday September 7,2008

By Jason Groves

Britain is “quite simply running out of power” and blackouts are almost inevitable within the next few years.

This is the stark warning from the head of an energy think-tank who believes power cuts could be serious enough to spark civil disorder.

Campbell Dunford of the respected Renewable Energy Foundation  said: “It’s almost too late to do anything about it. Nothing will stop us having to pay very high prices for power in future.

“If we pull our finger out now we can limit blackouts but it’s going to be pretty grim whatever happens.”

Gordon Brown pledged last week to end Britain’s reliance on the “dictatorship of oil” but Mr Dunford believes the Prime Minister’s new interest in the security of energy supplies may have come too late.

Only last Thursday, National Grid issued an urgent call for power after a series of power station breakdowns. Suppliers were asked to bring all their available generating capacity online, including costly oil-fired stations.

In May, hundreds of thousands of people in Cleveland, Cheshire, Lincolnshire and London suffered blackouts when seven power stations were closed.

The electricity industry estimates it needs to spend £100billion on new stations to ensure supplies.

It criticises ministers for focusing too heavily on such untried renewable energy sources as wind and tide power, rather than making sure that secure new power generation was put in place.

The report concludes: “A near fatal preoccupation with politically attractive but marginal forms of renewables seems to have caused a blindness towards the weakening of the UK’s power stations and a dangerous and helpless vulnerability to natural gas.”

The REF warns that as many as nine million people could be plunged into fuel poverty, defined as spending more than 10 per cent of their income on energy bills.

Ministers are already under massive pressure to do more to help people trapped in fuel poverty this winter because of soaring prices. Up to six million families are expected to face a stark choice between heating and eating following the series of massive energy price rises that have made a mockery of Labour’s target to eradicate fuel poverty by 2016.

Mr Dunford said worse was to come: “Certainly we’re going to be heading to eight or nine million in fuel poverty.

“There’s a very real chance that power, will not even be there when you need it. That’s when you start worrying about social disorder.”

Ministers have launched a belated plan to plug Britain’s energy gap, including the construction of a string of nuclear power stations. power stations take up to a decade to build though and many experts believe the Government’s move has come too late.

Full story at Daily Express

Global Warming Censored

March 11, 2008

Editor
This is a good article and confirms what I have been saying for a long time.

The debate cannot be over if it was never allowed to take place to begin with, and the media has become a Global Warming propaganda machine.

Neither of these situations should  ever be allowed to happen, nor should they be acceptable in a democracy.

Global Warming Censored

How the Major Networks Silence the Debate on Climate Change

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A study from the Business & Media Institute

By Julia A. Seymour and Dan Gainor

Full Report | PDF Version | Sidebars


Global warming crusader Al Gore repeatedly claims the climate change “debate’s over.” It isn’t, but the news media clearly agree with him. Global warming skeptics rarely get any say on the networks, and when their opinions are mentioned it is often with barbs like “cynics” or “deniers” thrown in to undermine them.Consistently viewers are being sent only one message from ABC, CBS and NBC: global warming is an environmental catastrophe and it’s mankind’s fault. Skepticism is all but shut out of reports through several tactics – omission, name-calling, the hype of frightening images like polar bears scavenging for food near towns and a barrage of terrifying predictions.The Business & Media Institute analyzed 205 network news stories about “global warming” or “climate change” between July 1, 2007, and Dec. 31, 2007. BMI found a meager 20 percent of stories even mentioned there were any alternative opinions to the so-called “consensus” on the issue.

• Disagreement Squashed: Global warming proponents overwhelmingly outnumbered those with dissenting opinions. On average for every skeptic there were nearly 13 proponents featured. ABC did a slightly better job with a 7-to-1 ratio, while CBS’s ratio was abysmal at nearly 38-to-1.

• Can I See Some ID?: Scientists made up only 15 percent of the global warming proponents shown. The remaining 85 percent included politicians, celebrities, other journalists and even ordinary men and women. There were more unidentified interview subjects used to support climate change hype than actual scientists (101 unidentified to just 71 scientists)

Full Report at Business and Media Institute

How to grow your own wheat

March 10, 2008
Editor
As more cracks appear in the global warming scam, the very news agencies that people look to for truth continue to ramp up the rhetoric. The UN has decided it is a good idea to grow crops but instead of using those crops for their intended use – food, they have decided that burning your food for fuel is a better use of crops.
So, as they burn your food and drive prices ever higher, they want you to grow your own.
In the near future you won’t be able to afford food or electricity.
But then again that is the plan of the UN, isn’t it.
How do I know Global Warming is a FRAUD? They said it not me. They came up with the idea of global warming and then fit the science to  their needs. Anyone who disagreed  with their science was shunned and belittled. 

In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill …All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome.
The real enemy, then, is humanity itself
.”

Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution,
consultants to the UN.

“…we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…. So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts…. Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.

Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology
lead Author of many IPCC reports


We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.
Timothy Wirth,
fmr US Under Sec of State,
current Head of the UN Foundation


No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

And from the father of Kyoto, Maurice Strong

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about
?”
Maurice Strong, former Secretary General of UNEP

How to grow your own wheat

Field

Your garden will probably not look like this

By Finlo Rohrer
BBC News Magazine

Global stocks of wheat are plummeting and people are starting to worry about the price of staples like bread. But can you beat the commodity market by growing your own?Look out your back window. How’s the grass?

If you’ve got a garden at all, it might be that the grass is an unloved scrub as sparse as Elton John’s hair used to be. Or it could be a lush strip of glorious verdure.

HOW TO GROW WHEAT

infographic

Prepare the ground by finely raking the soil as you would to plant grass.

infographic

Scatter the wheat seed evenly by hand and rake over. Consider a bird-scaring device.

infographic

Harvest with sickle or scythe. Leave 2-3 inches of stubble. Tie stalks into sheaves.

infographic

Thresh by placing sheaves into pillow cases and hitting against brick wall.

infographic

Winnow by throwing wheat and chaff up into breeze from fan. Chaff should blow away.

Either way, the odds are you’re not getting much use out of it. Wouldn’t it be great if you could improve your health, help the environment and at the same time do your part to fight inflation?

The world is running dangerously low on wheat, one of civilisation’s original staple foods. Drought in Australia and China and a switch to meat in the newly prosperous parts of the world are putting the squeeze on wheat. Prices are at a record high.

EU/UK POLITICS

LATEST SCIENCE

IPCC ASSESSMENT

CBC – Global Warming Doomsday Called Off

March 3, 2008

 Editor:
Some quotes to set the mood

“…we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination…. So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts…. Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.

Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology
lead Author of many IPCC reports

We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.
Timothy Wirth,
fmr US Under Sec of State,
current Head of the UN Foundation

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
fmr Canadian Minister of the Environment

New Report counters IPCC AR4.

February 25, 2008

New Report counters IPCC AR4.

The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (N-IPCC – not to be confused with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC) has been published by the Heartland Institute.

It has been described as the most complete, up-to-date, authoritative summary of peer-reviewed critical positions with respect to “Anthropogenic Global Warming”.

The report is titled Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate and is edited by S. Fred Singer. From the report’s Forward:

In his speech at the United Nations’ climate conference on September 24, 2007, Dr. Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, said it would most help the debate on climate change if the current monopoly and one-sidedness of the scientific debate over climate change by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were eliminated. He reiterated his proposal that the UN organize a parallel panel and publish two competing reports.

The present report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) does exactly that. It is an independent examination of the evidence available in the published, peer-reviewed literature – examined without bias and selectivity. It includes many research papers ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific results that became available after the IPCC deadline of May 2006.

The report is highly critical of the UN’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released last year. From the N-IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers (SPM):

The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group-1 (Science) (IPCC-AR4 2007), released in 2007, is a major research effort by a group of dedicated specialists in many topics related to climate change. It forms a valuable compendium of the current state of the science, enhanced by having an index, which had been lacking in previous IPCC reports. AR4 also permits access to the numerous critical comments submitted by expert reviewers, another first for the IPCC.

While AR4 is an impressive document, it is far from being a reliable reference work on some of the most important aspects of climate change science and policy. It is marred by errors and misstatements, ignores scientific data that were available but were inconsistent with the authors’ pre-conceived conclusions, and has already been contradicted in important parts by research published since May 2006, the IPCC’s cut-off date.

In general, the IPCC fails to consider important scientific issues, several of which would upset its major conclusion – that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” (emphasis in the original).

The IPCC does not apply generally accepted methodologies to determine what fraction of current warming is natural, or how much is caused by the rise in greenhouse (GH) gases. A comparison of ‘fingerprints’ from best available observations with the results of state-of-the-art GH models leads to the conclusion that the (human-caused) GH contribution is minor. This fingerprint evidence, though available, was ignored by the IPCC.

The following is taken from the report’s Conclusions:

The extent of the modern warming – the subject of the first question – appears to be less than is claimed by the IPCC and in the popular media. We have documented shortcomings of surface data, affected by urban heat islands and by the poor distribution of land-based observing stations.

(…)

This report shows conclusively that the human greenhouse gas contribution to current warming is insignificant. Our argument is based on the well established and generally agreed-to ‘fingerprint’ method. Using data published by the IPCC and further elaborated in the U.S.-sponsored CCSP report, we have shown that observed temperature trend patterns disagree sharply with those calculated from greenhouse models.

And finally, this statement on Policy Implications:

Our findings, if sustained, point to natural causes and a moderate warming trend with beneficial effects for humanity and wildlife. This has obvious policy implications: Schemes proposed for controlling CO2 emissions, including the Kyoto Protocol, proposals in the U.S. for federal and state actions, and proposals for a successor international treaty to Kyoto, are unnecessary, would be ineffective if implemented, and would waste resources that can better be applied to genuine societal problems [Singer, Revelle and Starr 1991].

Even if a substantial part of global warming were due to greenhouse gases – and it is not – any control efforts currently contemplated would give only feeble results. For example, the Kyoto Protocol – even if punctiliously observed by all participating nations – would decrease calculated future temperatures by only 0.02 degrees C by 2050, an undetectable amount.

In conclusion, this NIPCC report falsifies the principal IPCC conclusion that the reported warming (since 1979) is very likely caused by the human emission of greenhouse gases. In other words, increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible for current warming. Policies adopted and called for in the name of ‘fighting global warming’ are unnecessary.

It is regrettable that the public debate over climate change, fueled by the errors and exaggerations contained in the reports of the IPCC, has strayed so far from scientific truth. It is an embarrassment to science that hype has replaced reason in the global debate over so important an issue.

Contributors to the N-IPCC report are: Warren Anderson United States, Dennis Avery United States, Franco Battaglia Italy, Robert Carter Australia, Richard Courtney United Kingdom, Joseph d’Aleo United States, Fred Goldberg Sweden, Vincent Gray New Zealand, Kenneth Haapala United States, Klaus Heiss Austria, Craig Idso United States, Zbigniew Jaworowski Poland, Olavi Karner Estonia, Madhav Khandekar Canada, William Kininmonth Australia, Hans Labohm Netherlands, Christopher Monckton United Kingdom, Lubos Motl Czech Republic, Tom Segalstad Norway, S. Fred Singer United States, Dick Thoenes Netherlands, Anton Uriarte Spain, Gerd Weber Germany.

Source: A Dog Named Kyoto

Green taxes put us in the red

February 21, 2008

Lorrie Goldstein

Thu, February 21, 2008
Green taxes put us in the red
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

checkCookie();

Premier Gordon Campbell’s Liberal government in British Columbia has done a public service by introducing Canada’s first real carbon tax this week.

What it demonstrates is that when governments “go green” they are essentially launching a tax attack on the middle class, while letting big industrial greenhouse gas emitters off the hook.

That’s already happened in the European Union’s three-year-old carbon emissions trading market, where big energy companies are doing fine, while electricity rates for many consumers have skyrocketed.

It’s what has started happening in Quebec, where the public was told by the government a pseudo carbon tax would be paid for out of oil and gas industry profits, when in reality the province’s fossil fuel industry has simply passed along the new tax to its customers, and will now remit that money back to the Quebec government for its so-called green fund. Government spokesmen are now telling angry consumers that of course the new tax means they’ll pay more for gasoline and natural gas, because how could the government possibly control the market decisions of oil and gas companies?

That’s almost as disingenuous as the coal-fired electrical utility in Europe which, when asked why it was passing along the entire cost of buying carbon permits under Europe’s cap and trade emissions trading scheme to its customers, when the utility had received the initial permits for free, responded the whole purpose of cap and trade was to raise electricity rates.

fctAdTag(“bigbox”,MyGenericTagVar,1);

SURPRISE!

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.

And don’t worry about Big Oil. At $100 a barrel and rising, it’s going to come out of this global warming “crisis” just fine, while Big Government works hand in glove with Big Business to screw us.

That was the part Al Gore left out of An Inconvenient Truth.

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?

Meanwhile, Suzuki-endorsed Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, whose “green” plan involves building more nuke plants (does Dr. Suzuki know?) while allowing pollution-spewing, coal-fired energy plants to choke the life out of Ontarians until 2014, after promising in 2003 to have them all closed by now (“Paging Dr. Suzuki! Paging Dr, Suzuki!”) — has no real “green” plan either. Unless you think paying boutique, solar energy plants outrageous sums of taxpayer money to subsidize the production of very little power qualifies as “green.”

NEUTRALITY

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.


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

The Sad Legacy Of David Suzuki

February 12, 2008

The Sad Legacy Of David Suzuki

By Dr. Tim Ball  Monday, February 11, 2008

David Suzuki's LegacySo David Suzuki’s next ‘Nature Challenge’ is apparently challenging students to determine if there isn’t some “legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing [about climate change] is a criminal act”, to quote the National Post (Feb  7, 2008).

It appears that a religious fervor for protecting nature has transformed Canada’s leading environmentalist into an emotional bully intolerant of anyone, including other scientists, who don’t see things his way.

Over the years, I’ve heard and read statements by David Suzuki that are too often misleading or incorrect, especially about climate. He, and many like him, claim natural events are unnatural thus guaranteeing that they appear right. What he conveniently overlooks, and may have learned had he remained a scientist rather than becoming an activist, is that nature and climate frequently change dramatically and in very short time periods.
Suzuki gets away with this misinterpretation by fully exploiting the false authority of his claimed and cultivated position as a scientist and environmentalist. He does this despite the fact that he deliberately abandoned his university research position in the 1980s and has no more qualifications as an environmentalist than many of us.

Indeed, it is arrogant for people such as Suzuki to claim that they are environmentalists as if it were some sort of exclusive club, inferring they care and the rest of us don’t. It is more likely he, and those who work with him, are pushing a political agenda to create the world they want. H. L. Mencken, one of the most influential American writers of the early 20th century, said, “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”

Suzuki’s image is being increasingly tarnished as evidence accumulates against his positions and statements. This was bound to happen with climate because he ignores the standard scientific method, which tries to disprove hypotheses. As Richard Lindzen said about the hypothesis that human addition of CO2 would cause significant global warming; the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.

Despite personal attacks and a campaign of disinformation by alarmists, it is science that is destroying the human-caused climate change hypothesis. The disinformation of alarmists, Suzuki included, has gone through many phases–the now familiar ‘consensus’ argument, the ad hominem attacks (’climate deniers’, ‘climate criminals’, ‘international outlaws’, etc.) to presenting misinformation to political leaders.

The latest position is that ‘the science is settled’.

In February of last year, Suzuki stormed out of an AM640 Toronto radio interview when interviewer, John Oakley, made the accurate observation that global warming science is not a “totally settled issue.” Besides Suzuki’s aggressive behavior, his promotion of certainty in a field scientists understand to be immature, is counterproductive to climate research. If the science is settled then why is there literally a deluge of scientific papers coming out on the topic? If the science is settled, then this all must be an enormous waste of money.

Suzuki raised the spin to a professional level when he teamed up with James Hoggan of Hoggan and Associates, one of Canada’s largest public relations firms. According to Hoggan’s Web site, “Hoggan has provided strategic communications services to the DSF [David Suzuki Foundation] for more than 15 years, providing communications advice on salmon farming, climate change, forest preservation and international conservation projects.

Hoggan continues to provide ongoing support to the DSF Nature Challenge and its Capital Contribution campaign. Hoggan also recently prepared a report for the DSF Board based on extensive national research on how to guide the evolution of the DSF’s communications strategy to help become more effective in building broad-based support among decision makers, opinion leaders and other influential Canadians.”

It would be hard to imagine a closer relationship between supposedly distinct entities that that which exists between Hoggan and Suzuki. Hoggan and Associates list the David Suzuki Foundation as one of their “Research Sponsors” and Hoggan himself has served on the Board of the DSF for the past 11 years, now even replacing Suzuki as Chair of the Foundation.

According to the DSF 2006 annual report, Hoggan and Associates is a large financial donor to the Suzuki Foundation and Hoggan has personally arranged “a future gift” to the society.

Not surprisingly, Suzuki regularly boosts Hoggan’s global warming projects in the media and Hoggan is quick to use his project to attack those of us who dare disagree with Suzuki. That Hoggan’s project has been funded by an Alberta-based lawyer who has pleaded guilty to multi-million dollar money laundering charges seems to bother no one.

Complete article at CFP (Canadian Free Press) 

Elizabeth May has radical environmental agenda

January 24, 2008

Editor:
The Green Agenda that both May and Dion are involved in is based on the teachings of Gaia, the pagan earth goddess. The movement blames Christians for the ills of the world. The Green Movement also wants to reduce the world population down to 2 billion from its present 6 billion. Beware the GREENS. They are not about saving the environment, they are pushing the NEW WORLD ORDER agenda. I thank Ms. May for letting the cat out of the bag. Will the media take this opportunity to tell Canadians the truth?

Read and learn The Rise of Global Green Religion

and Agenda 21 

So the deal boils down to this. Vote for the Liberals or the Green Party and they hand the sovereignty of Canada over to the elites at the UN.

Vote for Harper and he hands over the sovereignty of Canada to the USA.

Time to wake up Canada, because if you don’t, Canada won’t be around much longer. 

Green Party Leader and Stéphane Dion ally Elizabeth May criticized the presence of Canadian and other ISAF forces in Afghanistan as representing a “Christian/Crusader heritage,” that would actually “fuel” the “jihad.”

Elizabeth May’s comparison of the Afghan protection and reconstruction effort as a Christian Crusade is evidence of her shocking ignorance of foreign policy, Afghanistan and the current mission.

The Canadian Forces in Afghanistan are serving at the invitation and with the active encouragement of the Afghan Government.  Every day the brave men and women of the Canadian Forces are risking their safety and security to help the people of Afghanistan live peaceful and secure lives. Considering that Canadian soldiers have lost their lives protecting the people of Afghanistan, it is outrageous that a Canadian politician would make such an insult of this sacrifice.

Ms. May’s comments also betrayed a shocking lack of knowledge about Afghanistan’s people and its history.  None of the Crusades ever came anywhere close to Afghanistan.

These kind of ignorant, insensitive comments have sadly come to characterize Stéphane Dion’s alliance partner.  Elizabeth May has repeatedly referred to those who do not share her radical environmental agenda as being guilty of “a grievance worse than Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of the Nazis.”

Stéphane Dion can no longer ignore Elizabeth May’s inflammatory and insensitive rhetoric.  His already weak leadership was left reeling when his musings about invading Pakistan drew a sharp rebuke from that country’s government.  Now the woman with whom he has chosen to form a “Red Green” alliance—and whom he is running as his Liberal candidate in the riding of Central Nova—has, in one breath, managed to insult both the Canadian Forces and the people of Afghanistan.

Gore quotes NHL icon in apparent dig at Canada's climate stance

December 13, 2007

Editor:
Gore looks like a lunatic. Here is a guy who uses more energy than any one man should be allowed to use, telling people how to live. Gore and Suzuki are fanatics and they are both dangerous. Suzuki gets the NHL to endorse the carbon credit scheme and then Gore uses references to the NHL to call down Canada. The tag team of Gore and Suzuki, with the sheep cheering in the background, take on the world. Al and David seem to take great pleasure in scaring children, telling them the world is going to end. The worst part of this whole thing is the way the media panders to them. Maybe the time has come to order a mental assessment of these two fanatics. If I had young children I would be spitting sparks. If you don’t speak up your children will be paying carbon tax on everything the rest of their lives. Gore has already made fifty million off this scam. It’s not about global warming. It’s about the money. Gore needs all the countries to join to make his carbon credit scam really take off. Who the hell do Gore and Suzuki think they are, demanding that you, I or Canada do as they say. These guys are certifiable.

Gore and Suzuki should be branded as child abusers

Gore quotes NHL icon in apparent dig at Canada’s climate stance

In language suited to the ears of Canadians, former U.S. vice-president Al Gore quoted the wisdom of a hockey legend on Thursday at a summit in Bali, apparently criticizing Canada’s stance on climate change during UN talks on the issue.

Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore addresses the UN climate change conference Thursday in Bali, Indonesia.Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore addresses the UN climate change conference Thursday in Bali, Indonesia.
(Dita Alangkara/Associated Press)

Although he never named Canada directly, Gore’s hockey-referencing address to the 190-nation summit hinted that he was pointing a finger at Canada for blocking a climate-change framework that includes hard targets. That document would set binding targets of a 25 to 40 per cent reduction for industrialized nations by 2020.

Aside from Canada, the U.S., Japan, New Zealand and Russia also oppose such language for the emissions limits.

CBC