Archive for the ‘Stephen Harper’ Category

National Round Table – Agenda 21

July 21, 2009

Please take the time to read the bio’s of the members – half way down the page under members.
You cannot fight wind farms unless you understand the depth of the treason that has descended upon this country.

Emerging from the famous Brundtland Report, “Our Common Future”,1987 the NRTEE became a model for convening diverse and competing interests around one table to create consensus ideas and suggestions for sustainable development.

The Round Table will be providing leadership in the new way we must think of the relationship between the environment and the economy and the new way we must act.
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, October 1988 Since its creation in 1988, concerns about climate change, air quality, and water availability have made Canadians and their governments increasingly aware of the need to reconcile economic and environmental challenges as they have become increasingly interlinked.

Excerpt from the 1993 NRTEE Act

The purpose of the Round Table is to play the role of catalyst in identifying, explaining and promoting, in all sectors of Canadian society and in all regions of Canada, principles and practices of sustainable development.


Stephen Harper Talks about Global Governance at G8 Meeting

July 14, 2009

Time to ‘ Wake Up’ my fellow Canadians.

Are we going to govern ourselves as a sovereign people and country or are we going to hand everything over to unelected officials at the UN?

It is time to expose all traitors of Canada – they are many. The link below is a good place to start.

The Bilderberg Group

Canadian Space Agency Watches Wind Turbine Explode

July 30, 2008

Editor:
I don’t know why, but I find this rather amusing. I get a lot of visits from different govt. agencies but the thought of the Canadian Space Agency sitting around watching a wind turbine explode, cracks me up.

The CBC, both Toronto and Montreal were on my blog today, maybe they could get together with the Space Agency and make a short documentary on the subject.

IP Address         142.74.1.# (Canadian Space Agency)
ISP         Canadian Space Agency
Location
Continent     :     North America
Country     :     Canada  (Facts)
State/Region     :     Ontario
City     :     Ottawa
Lat/Long     :     45.4167, -75.7 (Map)
Distance     :     476 miles

Visit Entry Page http://windfarms.wor…-turbine-in-denmark/

CORPORATION HEAD QUITS AS SCANDAL IS REVEALED TO PUBLIC

April 7, 2008

Editor:
Ever wondered why you can’t get anyone in govt. to listen when confronted about the negative affects of wind farms?  T

hey don’t give a damn  about you, your family or your property value. They smell money.

This is the Enron Scam on steroids. Ex-politicians filling their pockets with your tax dollars.

What do you get in return? Higher electrical costs, higher taxes, and if you are unlucky enough to live near a wind farm, a life altering experience.

Sunday, April 06, 2008

‘Unrelated’ ICBC resignation unbelievable

.
CORPORATION HEAD QUITS AS SCANDAL IS REVEALED TO PUBLIC

Michael Smyth
The Province

Trying to figure out Paul Taylor’s “coincidental” resignation as boss of ICBC is sort of like kicking the tires on one of their chop-shop write-offs — or attending one of the insurance monopoly’s rigged auctions.

There’s a lot more going on here than meets the eye of the average sucker.

{Snip} …

But if you still think Taylor’s departure is “completely unrelated” to ICBC’s little chop shop of horrors out in Burnaby — well, I know an ICBC insider who can get you a heckuva deal on a rebuilt Yugo (as long as you’re not picky about things like working air bags).

Completely unrelated? Give me a freaking break. The public has been ripped off. ICBC insiders have benefitted from a shabby scheme usually reserved for grifters and sharpies.

Most disturbing of all is the possibility illegally rebuilt vehicles have been hustled to unsuspecting B.C. drivers without the proper safety checks.

There’s more than a monopoly’s corporate reputation on the line here. People’s lives were possibly put at risk so ICBC insiders could line their own pockets.

And now the CEO is strapping on his parachute and hitting the silks during the crisis? Very impressive.

They can call it “completely unrelated” if they want. I call it an abdication of duty. Taylor should be promising the public that he’ll get to the bottom of this extremely disturbing scandal and take his lumps if he’s found ultimately responsible.

Instead, he’s running away. And his corporate and political masters have nothing but praise.

Source The Province

Mr. Taylor, President and CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC), will join NaiKun Wind Group as President and Director. Steven Eckert, a former consultant to BC Hydro

Ex-AECL boss’ firm could make Millions

Tory insider’s involvement in project ‘doesn’t pass the smell test’:

Ottawa Citizen Saturday, December 22, 2007
Michael Burns, the B.C. businessman and backroom Conservative who recently resigned as chairman of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., is also chairman of a Vancouver wind power firm the federal government approved for up to $10 million in alternate energy funding while Mr. Burns was AECL chairman. The offshore wind power company, NaiKun Wind Energy Group, has two former assistants to Prime Minister Stephen Harper as senior officers and also has other well-connected Conservatives on its board of directors. NaiKun received approval for wind.
Mr. Taylor, President and CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC), will join NaiKun Wind Group as President and Director. Steven Eckert, a former consultant to BC Hydro
Ventus Energy Inc. – The Toronto-based company, whose flagship wind projects are in PEI. . Former Ontario premier David Peterson is a board member of privately held Ventus.

If you know of any other Canadian ex-politicians involved in the energy scam please let me know.

Suzuki's foundation should lose status

February 15, 2008

Editor:
Once you understand what Suzuki is up to, you might ask for his Order of Canada back. Ask David why China and India are exempt from Kyoto. Those two countries have close to half the worlds population. Ask David about CIDA, set up by his mentor Maurice Strong. From there Canadian tax dollars were used, under the guise of environment, to influence politics in Brazil and other countries. David is just doing what he has always done. This time he is doing it Canada. David if you want to be in politics then it’s time you threw your hat in the ring.

When the fraud of global warming is finally exposed, will you claim ignorance or will you move to China with Maurice Strong.

Before you donate to any environmental fund read the Cloak of Green by Elaine DeWar. You will never look at the environmental movement the same again.

Thanks again to Lorrie for doing his best to get the story out. You won’t get the story from the CBC.

Suzuki’s foundation should lose status

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN

fctAdTag(“bigbox”,MyGenericTagVar,1);

Is there anyone who doesn’t think, based on his own words, that David Suzuki wants voters to throw out Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Conservative Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach in their upcoming elections?

If so, why hasn’t the Canada Revenue Agency revoked the charitable status of the David Suzuki Foundation?

CRA’s website says charities are “prohibited” from participating in “partisan political activity,” meaning anything that “involves direct or indirect support of, or opposition to (my emphasis) any political party or candidate for public office.”

Recently, in a speech at McGill University, Suzuki basically suggested Harper and Stelmach should be jailed for indifference to climate change, although a Suzuki spokesman later said he wasn’t speaking literally.

According to the National Post, Suzuki said: “What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail, because what they’re doing is a criminal act.” Sounds literal to me.

Sarah Babbage of the McGill Daily reported: “(Suzuki) gave a scathing critique of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach, chastising them for neglecting the environment in favour of economic growth and development of the tar sands, (adding) It is an intergenerational crime that … they keep dithering as they are.’ ”

Vincii Tsui of the McGill Tribune reported on Suzuki, “singling out (Harper and Stelmach) for prioritizing the economy over the environment.”

The Post reported Suzuki said: “We can no longer tolerate what’s going on in Ottawa and Edmonton.”

I’m guessing he wasn’t talking about the Liberals.

Last year, the Calgary Sun reported on Suzuki attacking Harper before an audience of elementary school children as he accepted $835 they collected for his foundation.

“The only thing he cares about is getting re-elected with a majority government,” Suzuki said. “I don’t believe there is a green bone in Harper’s body — he has never, ever indicated he cares about the environment …” That’s non-partisan?

In June, in Toronto, Suzuki claimed the Harper Conservative government was harassing him by repeatedly auditing his foundation. According to the Globe and Mail, he said: “I am being hounded by the current government because I have a foundation that has my name and so they’re trying to take away my charitable (status),” adding he now had to preface remarks with: “Everything I say is my personal opinion, has nothing to do with my foundation.”

Really? Quick — name another member of the Suzuki Foundation aside from Suzuki.

Visit the foundation’s website, davidsuzuki.org. You’ll see a picture of Suzuki at the top beside “David Suzuki Foundation.” Both are to the left and slightly above the “DONATE Now!” icon.

Click on the first featured article, (Feb. 6): “Who will pay for our failure to act on global warming?” where Suzuki criticizes Harper and Stelmach.

How can anyone distinguish the views of David Suzuki from the David Suzuki Foundation?

In June, a government spokesman denied Suzuki’s allegations, saying politicians don’t launch CRA audits. Stephen Hazell, executive director of the Sierra Club, told the Post the CRA had dramatically increased audits on environmental groups in recent years but: “This is something I would not blame the Conservative government for …”

Charities can spend 10% of their budgets for non-partisan political activities to influence public opinion, policy and relevant laws, including organizing conferences, lectures, rallies, letter-writing campaigns etc.

But what Suzuki’s doing? C’mon. This isn’t about free speech — he can say whatever he likes.

But if partisan political activity is “prohibited,” why does his foundation have charitable status, meaning it doesn’t have to pay income taxes on its $6 million in annual revenues (2006) and can issue tax receipts to donors? If you agree, call the CRA’s charity directorate at 1-800-267-2384 and complain.

Source

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