- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
<a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=prnw.20070319.DCM015&show_article=1">This </a>would be pretty interesting (although I can't see Manbearpig Mr. Gore accepting the challenge):
Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
- Thread starter Cdn Blackshirt
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
eerickso said:
tomahawk6 said:
One of my personal beefs with the global warming bandwagon is that in attacking a problem that we don't fully understand we can end up with unexpected consequences, some of which can be the opposite of what we intended (e.g., DDT). And too many solutions are of an "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" nature, that simply displace and exacerbate the supposed problem. Of course any "study" can be dependent on assumed variables, but this gives some food for thought, nonetheless ...
http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editorial/editorial_item.asp?NewsID=188
<< EDIT: In the interest of full disclosure, note that the original is linked and quoted here, however I came across it through a link on www.Samizdata.net >>
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
A scientist recently posed an interesting question and that was "when did CO2 become a pollutant?" CO2 is a naturally occurring substance that is the key to life on this planet, without which we would all die. Further to that, the current atmospheric content of CO2 is approx. 385 part per million (ppm) and horticulturalists know that prime growing conditions for plants on earth is actually 1000ppm. So, a true green plan for the environment would support the increase in CO2 production.
Enough with the stupidity and lets actually tackle the pollutants that are killing people, such as ground level ozone and sulphur emissions, rather that spending billions to tackle what is, in reality, a harmless substance that has little, if anything, to do with climate change. (water vapour has more effect on climate change than CO2, maybe we should ban water)
Enough with the stupidity and lets actually tackle the pollutants that are killing people, such as ground level ozone and sulphur emissions, rather that spending billions to tackle what is, in reality, a harmless substance that has little, if anything, to do with climate change. (water vapour has more effect on climate change than CO2, maybe we should ban water)
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
RangerRay
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,881
- Points
- 1,260
Cdn Blackshirt said:For those who really enjoy science, the attached link is to a BBC documentary on Global Warming that is just outstanding.
Warning - It is 1 hour and 13 minutes long and so I'd advise all to do what I just did and make sure you have a good reserve of your favourite drink and snack before you watch it....but trust me, it's outstanding.
I'll look forward to comments....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle
Cheers, Matthew.
Great movie. Very educational.
Note that according to this film, contrary to what Gore says, the rise in atmospheric CO2 occured after the rise in temperature, not before. Hence, atmospheric CO2 is not causing warming...
EDIT: The link doesn't work. Try <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4340135300469846467&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle">this link</a> .
Here is CTV's Article and the Globe & Mail's Articles on the new Conservative Plan
Tories plan to stabilize emissions by 2012: CP
Updated Mon. Apr. 16 2007 8:35 PM ET Canadian Press
CTV Article Link
OTTAWA -- A draft climate plan being weighed by the Conservative government would stabilize Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by 2012, according to a document obtained by The Canadian Press.
The 13-page plan, marked secret, sets out spending plans for many new initiatives, including $230 million for development of clean energy technologies.
It would allow companies to purchase carbon credits under the Kyoto protocol's clean development mechanism, which is intended to encourage investment in poor countries.
It says regulations and programs introduced by Ottawa and the provinces will mean that emissions can be expected to start to decline as early as 2010 and no later than 2012.
After that, emissions will decline steadily, according to the document.
Eric Richer, a spokesman for Environment Minister John Baird, said the plan "sounded like action and we promised action.''
More on link
Draft plan could stabilize greenhouse emissions
CANADIAN PRESS
Globe & Mail Article Link
OTTAWA — A draft climate plan being weighed by the Conservative government would stabilize Canada's greenhouse emissions by 2012, according to a document obtained by The Canadian Press.
The 13-page plan, marked secret, says regulations and programs introduced by Ottawa and the provinces will mean that emissions can be expected to start to decline as early as 2010 and no later than 2012. After that emissions will decline steadily, according to the document.
A spokesman for Environment Minister John Baird said the plan “sounded like action and we promised action.”
The program would fall short of achieving the target of the Kyoto Protocol, a six per cent cut in emissions from 1990 levels by 2012, but it would be stronger than anything the Conservatives have suggested to date.
More on link
Tories plan to stabilize emissions by 2012: CP
Updated Mon. Apr. 16 2007 8:35 PM ET Canadian Press
CTV Article Link
OTTAWA -- A draft climate plan being weighed by the Conservative government would stabilize Canada's greenhouse gas emissions by 2012, according to a document obtained by The Canadian Press.
The 13-page plan, marked secret, sets out spending plans for many new initiatives, including $230 million for development of clean energy technologies.
It would allow companies to purchase carbon credits under the Kyoto protocol's clean development mechanism, which is intended to encourage investment in poor countries.
It says regulations and programs introduced by Ottawa and the provinces will mean that emissions can be expected to start to decline as early as 2010 and no later than 2012.
After that, emissions will decline steadily, according to the document.
Eric Richer, a spokesman for Environment Minister John Baird, said the plan "sounded like action and we promised action.''
More on link
Draft plan could stabilize greenhouse emissions
CANADIAN PRESS
Globe & Mail Article Link
OTTAWA — A draft climate plan being weighed by the Conservative government would stabilize Canada's greenhouse emissions by 2012, according to a document obtained by The Canadian Press.
The 13-page plan, marked secret, says regulations and programs introduced by Ottawa and the provinces will mean that emissions can be expected to start to decline as early as 2010 and no later than 2012. After that emissions will decline steadily, according to the document.
A spokesman for Environment Minister John Baird said the plan “sounded like action and we promised action.”
The program would fall short of achieving the target of the Kyoto Protocol, a six per cent cut in emissions from 1990 levels by 2012, but it would be stronger than anything the Conservatives have suggested to date.
More on link
midget-boyd91
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
So, what's going to be made of military vehicles which are hell on gas once upcoming requirements come into place? After requirements which.. require.. vehicles to be below a certain level of emissions are put in place, what will be done with gas guzzling military trucks?? Are the greens/NDP'ers going to demand that we retire all our current fleets for new hybrid green trucks?
BTW... Poor pun intended on the 'green' trucks
BTW... Poor pun intended on the 'green' trucks
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
As a non-believer of GHG's as the key contributor to climate change, I find this to be a sell-out to ignorant popular sentiment rather than a rationally-based policy decision.
Dear Stephen: "Booooooooooooo"
Matthew.
P.S. As this would severely impact Oil Sands development, this could be a hell of a fuse to ignite the Alberta separatism issue. There are a lot Albertans who are pissed now....this will NOT help.
Dear Stephen: "Booooooooooooo"
Matthew.
P.S. As this would severely impact Oil Sands development, this could be a hell of a fuse to ignite the Alberta separatism issue. There are a lot Albertans who are pissed now....this will NOT help.
I think we should collect all the wild eyed environmentalists and give them 6 weeks basic, and ship them off to Afghanistan....oh...say to the Pakistani border (to make it a diverse group we should include the NDP) and let them all figure out how to improve the environment there.
Hey, if they can do it there, they are welcome to come back and tell us how it should be done....
Hey, if they can do it there, they are welcome to come back and tell us how it should be done....
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
Here, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is an interesting article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070419.wclimate19/BNStory/National/home
My emphasis added.
Caveat lector: I know Don Drummond, nothing even remotely like being a friend or colleague but an acquaintance, none the less, and, about annually, I sit in on one of his briefings to TD Canada Trust clients.
I think the key point is that Drummond is, indeed, one of Canada’s most trusted and most consulted economists; he is apolitical. As the senior ADM in Finance in the ‘90s he was one of the main architects of the Chrétien/Martin attack on the deficit. His reputation is above reproach. But you can be sure that the Liberals and Greens and all their fellow travellers will be out, in force, to try to tarnish it.
I think it is important to understand that:
• The Kyoto Accord was, is, in fact an act of economic warfare designed by the European Union to trick the USA into joining Europe in some absolutely essential environmental issues;
• The Chrétien government joined the accord for purely domestic political reasons – demonstrating that it was ‘greener’ and ‘kinder and gentler’ than the (Clinton led) ugly Americans. The Canadians were confident that they could agree to anything, anything at all because they were certain that Russia would never ratify Kyoto. Woops!
• The Kyoto targets were, always, unachievable – Chrétien knew that. Dion knows that. Duceppe knows that. Harper knows that. Layton knows that. Even May knows that. Chrétien, Martin and Dion never had any intention of even trying to meet the Kyoto targets.
Kyoto is a fraud.
Attempting to implement Kyoto will do real serious harm to Canada. Implementing the new C-288 would be an act of policy vandalism exceeding in it irresponsibility even Trudeau’s disastrous 1970 Foreign Policy for Canadians.
That does not mean that we should not be taking aggressive action to clean up the environment – including reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Of course we should. We desperately need to clean up our air and water and to stop using carbon producing, non-renewable energy sources to produce carbon producing, non-renewable energy. But these necessary reforms have to be done without putting millions of Canadians on the dole, à la the dirty thirties.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070419.wclimate19/BNStory/National/home
My emphasis added.
Caveat lector: I know Don Drummond, nothing even remotely like being a friend or colleague but an acquaintance, none the less, and, about annually, I sit in on one of his briefings to TD Canada Trust clients.
I think the key point is that Drummond is, indeed, one of Canada’s most trusted and most consulted economists; he is apolitical. As the senior ADM in Finance in the ‘90s he was one of the main architects of the Chrétien/Martin attack on the deficit. His reputation is above reproach. But you can be sure that the Liberals and Greens and all their fellow travellers will be out, in force, to try to tarnish it.
I think it is important to understand that:
• The Kyoto Accord was, is, in fact an act of economic warfare designed by the European Union to trick the USA into joining Europe in some absolutely essential environmental issues;
• The Chrétien government joined the accord for purely domestic political reasons – demonstrating that it was ‘greener’ and ‘kinder and gentler’ than the (Clinton led) ugly Americans. The Canadians were confident that they could agree to anything, anything at all because they were certain that Russia would never ratify Kyoto. Woops!
• The Kyoto targets were, always, unachievable – Chrétien knew that. Dion knows that. Duceppe knows that. Harper knows that. Layton knows that. Even May knows that. Chrétien, Martin and Dion never had any intention of even trying to meet the Kyoto targets.
Kyoto is a fraud.
Attempting to implement Kyoto will do real serious harm to Canada. Implementing the new C-288 would be an act of policy vandalism exceeding in it irresponsibility even Trudeau’s disastrous 1970 Foreign Policy for Canadians.
That does not mean that we should not be taking aggressive action to clean up the environment – including reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Of course we should. We desperately need to clean up our air and water and to stop using carbon producing, non-renewable energy sources to produce carbon producing, non-renewable energy. But these necessary reforms have to be done without putting millions of Canadians on the dole, à la the dirty thirties.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Yes Mr.Drummond is a respected unimpeachable source of unbiased educated opinion.
Yes Kyoto was for all practical purposes unrealistic.
But between playing politics with the issue and Kyoto there is a lot of room for meaningfull environmental action.
Margaret Wente of the G&M has written some informed commentary on this issue. It's not as bad as the "sky is falling crowd" but we must take action and secondly adapt to the unstoppable environmental changes taking place.
Yes Kyoto was for all practical purposes unrealistic.
But between playing politics with the issue and Kyoto there is a lot of room for meaningfull environmental action.
Margaret Wente of the G&M has written some informed commentary on this issue. It's not as bad as the "sky is falling crowd" but we must take action and secondly adapt to the unstoppable environmental changes taking place.
- Reaction score
- 64
- Points
- 530
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=99b95325-cf52-45a9-908d-a9d9eb39fccc
This week's announcement by the Canadian government -- that it may join a U.S.-led coalition focused on voluntary emissions cuts -- could be part of a global shift away from Kyoto's binding targets.
In a somewhat surprising development, Canada, a long-time supporter of the Kyoto Protocol, announced that it may want to join the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), a six-nation coalition focusing on voluntary emission-reduction steps and technology transfers. Many environmentalists oppose AP6 out of a fear that it may undermine political support for the legally binding Kyoto treaty.
The partnership, launched in mid-2005, is an agreement among six countries -- Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the United States -- to develop and share greenhouse-gasreduction technology to combat climate change. According to the AP6 Web site, the six partner countries "represent about half of the world's economy, population and energy use, and they produce about 65% of the world's coal, 48% of the world's steel, 37% of world's aluminum, and 61% of the world's cement." The countries also account for half the world's greenhouse-gas emissions.
Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the Asia-Pacific Partnership is voluntary and technology-based, and lets each country set its own goals for greenhouse gas emission reductions, rather than legally binding them to a greenhouse gas reduction target. The group sees itself as "a voluntary, non-legally binding framework for international co-operation to facilitate the development, diffusion, deployment, and transfer of existing, emerging and longer term cost-effective, cleaner, more efficient technologies and practices."
Green activists fear that AP6 -- officially a complementary approach to Kyoto -- could be converted into an opposing bloc.
What does that mean in practice? In early 2006, the AP6 established task forces focused on eight major sources of emissions: fossil energy task force; a renewable energy and distributed generation task force; a power generation and transmission task force; a steel task force; an aluminum task force; a cement task force; a coal mining task force; and a buildings and appliances task force.
As Philip Clapp, President of the National Environmental Trust told the BBC: "What is different and what is disturbing about this initiative is the attempt to organize a bloc of developing countries, including China and India, around what's officially a complementary approach but which could be converted into an opposing bloc." Recent events support this reading.
Under previous Canadian governments, such as the Chretien government that ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2002, Canada's focus was squarely internationalist. As then prime minister Chretien explained after ratification, "Because we believe in international institutions, we believed that we could play a positive role. This is very important for future generations." But current Prime Minister Steven Harper is no friend of Kyoto, having once called it a "socialist scheme." Since taking office, Harper's anti-Kyoto rhetoric has softened, but the major focus of his efforts has been domestic, rather than international. Under a new Clean Air Act, Canada has moved to regulate greenhousegas- emitting industries, allowing emission trading only domestically. They have pledged to prevent Canadian taxpayer dollars from being used to purchase
Published: Thursday, April 19, 2007 Article tools
Printer friendly
E-mail
Font:
This week's announcement by the Canadian government -- that it may join a U.S.-led coalition focused on voluntary emissions cuts -- could be part of a global shift away from Kyoto's binding targets.
In a somewhat surprising development, Canada, a long-time supporter of the Kyoto Protocol, announced that it may want to join the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), a six-nation coalition focusing on voluntary emission-reduction steps and technology transfers. Many environmentalists oppose AP6 out of a fear that it may undermine political support for the legally binding Kyoto treaty.
The partnership, launched in mid-2005, is an agreement among six countries -- Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the United States -- to develop and share greenhouse-gasreduction technology to combat climate change. According to the AP6 Web site, the six partner countries "represent about half of the world's economy, population and energy use, and they produce about 65% of the world's coal, 48% of the world's steel, 37% of world's aluminum, and 61% of the world's cement." The countries also account for half the world's greenhouse-gas emissions.
Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the Asia-Pacific Partnership is voluntary and technology-based, and lets each country set its own goals for greenhouse gas emission reductions, rather than legally binding them to a greenhouse gas reduction target. The group sees itself as "a voluntary, non-legally binding framework for international co-operation to facilitate the development, diffusion, deployment, and transfer of existing, emerging and longer term cost-effective, cleaner, more efficient technologies and practices."
Green activists fear that AP6 -- officially a complementary approach to Kyoto -- could be converted into an opposing bloc.
What does that mean in practice? In early 2006, the AP6 established task forces focused on eight major sources of emissions: fossil energy task force; a renewable energy and distributed generation task force; a power generation and transmission task force; a steel task force; an aluminum task force; a cement task force; a coal mining task force; and a buildings and appliances task force.
As Philip Clapp, President of the National Environmental Trust told the BBC: "What is different and what is disturbing about this initiative is the attempt to organize a bloc of developing countries, including China and India, around what's officially a complementary approach but which could be converted into an opposing bloc." Recent events support this reading.
Under previous Canadian governments, such as the Chretien government that ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2002, Canada's focus was squarely internationalist. As then prime minister Chretien explained after ratification, "Because we believe in international institutions, we believed that we could play a positive role. This is very important for future generations." But current Prime Minister Steven Harper is no friend of Kyoto, having once called it a "socialist scheme." Since taking office, Harper's anti-Kyoto rhetoric has softened, but the major focus of his efforts has been domestic, rather than international. Under a new Clean Air Act, Canada has moved to regulate greenhousegas- emitting industries, allowing emission trading only domestically. They have pledged to prevent Canadian taxpayer dollars from being used to purchase
greenhouse-gas-emission permits from outside the country. Shortly after her appointment as minister of the environment in 2005, Rona Ambrose explained: "On Kyoto, I will say that our government will not be shipping hot-air credits overseas. Our focus is on a domestic solution."
It is too early to see the real significance of Canada's request to join the AP6. For the Harper government, it is simply a logical next step in the "Made In Canada" approach to climate policy. Between membership in the AP6 and their new Clean Air Act initiatives, Canada can still trumpet its strong commitment to greenhouse-gas-emission reductions, while taking a step away from the hard-target focus of Kyoto.
The key question that remains is whether Canada is a bellwether for other countries, as some Canadians like to see themselves, and is likely to lead more of the anti-Kyoto flock into the AP6 pasture. After all, if Canada, which prides itself on internationalism, "soft power," and a somewhat anti-American policy stance, can join a U.S.-sponsored rival to the Kyoto Protocol, who can't? - Kenneth Green is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
© National Post 2007
This week's announcement by the Canadian government -- that it may join a U.S.-led coalition focused on voluntary emissions cuts -- could be part of a global shift away from Kyoto's binding targets.
In a somewhat surprising development, Canada, a long-time supporter of the Kyoto Protocol, announced that it may want to join the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), a six-nation coalition focusing on voluntary emission-reduction steps and technology transfers. Many environmentalists oppose AP6 out of a fear that it may undermine political support for the legally binding Kyoto treaty.
The partnership, launched in mid-2005, is an agreement among six countries -- Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the United States -- to develop and share greenhouse-gasreduction technology to combat climate change. According to the AP6 Web site, the six partner countries "represent about half of the world's economy, population and energy use, and they produce about 65% of the world's coal, 48% of the world's steel, 37% of world's aluminum, and 61% of the world's cement." The countries also account for half the world's greenhouse-gas emissions.
Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the Asia-Pacific Partnership is voluntary and technology-based, and lets each country set its own goals for greenhouse gas emission reductions, rather than legally binding them to a greenhouse gas reduction target. The group sees itself as "a voluntary, non-legally binding framework for international co-operation to facilitate the development, diffusion, deployment, and transfer of existing, emerging and longer term cost-effective, cleaner, more efficient technologies and practices."
Green activists fear that AP6 -- officially a complementary approach to Kyoto -- could be converted into an opposing bloc.
What does that mean in practice? In early 2006, the AP6 established task forces focused on eight major sources of emissions: fossil energy task force; a renewable energy and distributed generation task force; a power generation and transmission task force; a steel task force; an aluminum task force; a cement task force; a coal mining task force; and a buildings and appliances task force.
As Philip Clapp, President of the National Environmental Trust told the BBC: "What is different and what is disturbing about this initiative is the attempt to organize a bloc of developing countries, including China and India, around what's officially a complementary approach but which could be converted into an opposing bloc." Recent events support this reading.
Under previous Canadian governments, such as the Chretien government that ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2002, Canada's focus was squarely internationalist. As then prime minister Chretien explained after ratification, "Because we believe in international institutions, we believed that we could play a positive role. This is very important for future generations." But current Prime Minister Steven Harper is no friend of Kyoto, having once called it a "socialist scheme." Since taking office, Harper's anti-Kyoto rhetoric has softened, but the major focus of his efforts has been domestic, rather than international. Under a new Clean Air Act, Canada has moved to regulate greenhousegas- emitting industries, allowing emission trading only domestically. They have pledged to prevent Canadian taxpayer dollars from being used to purchase
Published: Thursday, April 19, 2007 Article tools
Printer friendly
Font:
This week's announcement by the Canadian government -- that it may join a U.S.-led coalition focused on voluntary emissions cuts -- could be part of a global shift away from Kyoto's binding targets.
In a somewhat surprising development, Canada, a long-time supporter of the Kyoto Protocol, announced that it may want to join the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), a six-nation coalition focusing on voluntary emission-reduction steps and technology transfers. Many environmentalists oppose AP6 out of a fear that it may undermine political support for the legally binding Kyoto treaty.
The partnership, launched in mid-2005, is an agreement among six countries -- Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the United States -- to develop and share greenhouse-gasreduction technology to combat climate change. According to the AP6 Web site, the six partner countries "represent about half of the world's economy, population and energy use, and they produce about 65% of the world's coal, 48% of the world's steel, 37% of world's aluminum, and 61% of the world's cement." The countries also account for half the world's greenhouse-gas emissions.
Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the Asia-Pacific Partnership is voluntary and technology-based, and lets each country set its own goals for greenhouse gas emission reductions, rather than legally binding them to a greenhouse gas reduction target. The group sees itself as "a voluntary, non-legally binding framework for international co-operation to facilitate the development, diffusion, deployment, and transfer of existing, emerging and longer term cost-effective, cleaner, more efficient technologies and practices."
Green activists fear that AP6 -- officially a complementary approach to Kyoto -- could be converted into an opposing bloc.
What does that mean in practice? In early 2006, the AP6 established task forces focused on eight major sources of emissions: fossil energy task force; a renewable energy and distributed generation task force; a power generation and transmission task force; a steel task force; an aluminum task force; a cement task force; a coal mining task force; and a buildings and appliances task force.
As Philip Clapp, President of the National Environmental Trust told the BBC: "What is different and what is disturbing about this initiative is the attempt to organize a bloc of developing countries, including China and India, around what's officially a complementary approach but which could be converted into an opposing bloc." Recent events support this reading.
Under previous Canadian governments, such as the Chretien government that ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2002, Canada's focus was squarely internationalist. As then prime minister Chretien explained after ratification, "Because we believe in international institutions, we believed that we could play a positive role. This is very important for future generations." But current Prime Minister Steven Harper is no friend of Kyoto, having once called it a "socialist scheme." Since taking office, Harper's anti-Kyoto rhetoric has softened, but the major focus of his efforts has been domestic, rather than international. Under a new Clean Air Act, Canada has moved to regulate greenhousegas- emitting industries, allowing emission trading only domestically. They have pledged to prevent Canadian taxpayer dollars from being used to purchase
greenhouse-gas-emission permits from outside the country. Shortly after her appointment as minister of the environment in 2005, Rona Ambrose explained: "On Kyoto, I will say that our government will not be shipping hot-air credits overseas. Our focus is on a domestic solution."
It is too early to see the real significance of Canada's request to join the AP6. For the Harper government, it is simply a logical next step in the "Made In Canada" approach to climate policy. Between membership in the AP6 and their new Clean Air Act initiatives, Canada can still trumpet its strong commitment to greenhouse-gas-emission reductions, while taking a step away from the hard-target focus of Kyoto.
The key question that remains is whether Canada is a bellwether for other countries, as some Canadians like to see themselves, and is likely to lead more of the anti-Kyoto flock into the AP6 pasture. After all, if Canada, which prides itself on internationalism, "soft power," and a somewhat anti-American policy stance, can join a U.S.-sponsored rival to the Kyoto Protocol, who can't? - Kenneth Green is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
© National Post 2007
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
[rant]
Sometimes I suspect that the Conservative Party of Canada is trying to lose the next election.
Consider the fiasco they have made over the analysis of the cost of Kyoto.
The recent report measures – using validated economic tools and public assumptions – the likely costs of adhering to C-288, the Liberal Pablo Rodriguez’ bill which requires the government to meet our original Kyoto commitments – i.e. in 2012 we emit some percentage less greenhouse gasses than we did in 1990. That’s what C-288 requires the government to do: reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to the levels agreed – dishonestly and cynically – by the Liberals back in whenever. There report says: OK, here’s the target, here’s how much we emit now – much, much more than we did when Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin failed, completely and utterly failed to even try to meet their own targets – the cost of getting from here to there, by 2012 is X.
The anti-Conservatives, some of whom even care, a wee tiny bit, about the environment and a sub-set of that group who even knows about global warming, have seized the initiative and they have totally and completely misrepresented the report and its analysis. That they – Dion, Layton, May, Suzuki, and, and, and – are being dishonest is not surprising; that the media is so stupid – no other words – and so gullible and so co-opted that they cannot or will not provide Canadians with honest reports on what the liars are saying and doing is sickening.
The problem here is a media which is, almost without exception, stupid, lazy and dishonest.
No apologies to the journalists who participate here on Army.ca. I haven’t seen a single one of you say: “Hey, hold it, that’s not the subject.” The media – all major outlets I have seen - are in full stenographic mode; they are putting their bylines on the press releases of the anti-Conservatives. That’s because, by and large, a masters degree is journalism is little more than a certification that the recipient failed math. Journalism, in most universities, is the only programme which does not require some math – that’s why certain people flock to it. Most journalists cannot cope with math so they cannot analyze the simple arithmetic in the Environment Canada report. They are, also, lazy – it’s just too easy to copy the press releases. That’s why smart, hard working people are press agents and then others are journalists. The exception is the Conservative Party’s press agents who are either incompetent or unable to get their story out. If it is the former then Stephen Harper is an inept political leader; if it is the latter then the press is part of the problem, not part of the solution and Canadian journalists must join their UK counterparts in being self declared propagandists.
[/rant]
Sometimes I suspect that the Conservative Party of Canada is trying to lose the next election.
Consider the fiasco they have made over the analysis of the cost of Kyoto.
The recent report measures – using validated economic tools and public assumptions – the likely costs of adhering to C-288, the Liberal Pablo Rodriguez’ bill which requires the government to meet our original Kyoto commitments – i.e. in 2012 we emit some percentage less greenhouse gasses than we did in 1990. That’s what C-288 requires the government to do: reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to the levels agreed – dishonestly and cynically – by the Liberals back in whenever. There report says: OK, here’s the target, here’s how much we emit now – much, much more than we did when Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin failed, completely and utterly failed to even try to meet their own targets – the cost of getting from here to there, by 2012 is X.
The anti-Conservatives, some of whom even care, a wee tiny bit, about the environment and a sub-set of that group who even knows about global warming, have seized the initiative and they have totally and completely misrepresented the report and its analysis. That they – Dion, Layton, May, Suzuki, and, and, and – are being dishonest is not surprising; that the media is so stupid – no other words – and so gullible and so co-opted that they cannot or will not provide Canadians with honest reports on what the liars are saying and doing is sickening.
The problem here is a media which is, almost without exception, stupid, lazy and dishonest.
No apologies to the journalists who participate here on Army.ca. I haven’t seen a single one of you say: “Hey, hold it, that’s not the subject.” The media – all major outlets I have seen - are in full stenographic mode; they are putting their bylines on the press releases of the anti-Conservatives. That’s because, by and large, a masters degree is journalism is little more than a certification that the recipient failed math. Journalism, in most universities, is the only programme which does not require some math – that’s why certain people flock to it. Most journalists cannot cope with math so they cannot analyze the simple arithmetic in the Environment Canada report. They are, also, lazy – it’s just too easy to copy the press releases. That’s why smart, hard working people are press agents and then others are journalists. The exception is the Conservative Party’s press agents who are either incompetent or unable to get their story out. If it is the former then Stephen Harper is an inept political leader; if it is the latter then the press is part of the problem, not part of the solution and Canadian journalists must join their UK counterparts in being self declared propagandists.
[/rant]
- Reaction score
- 8,301
- Points
- 1,160
"....and Canadian journalists must join their UK counterparts in being self declared propagandists."
UK papers declare their "Colours" on their "Masthead".
It used to be that to sail under "false colours" was considered and act of piracy and a capital crime.
Could it be said of the Canadian Media that they sail under the false colours of non-belligerents, in which case, in time of war they could be declared pirates and treated accordingly? ;D
UK papers declare their "Colours" on their "Masthead".
It used to be that to sail under "false colours" was considered and act of piracy and a capital crime.
Could it be said of the Canadian Media that they sail under the false colours of non-belligerents, in which case, in time of war they could be declared pirates and treated accordingly? ;D
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
Kirkhill said:
I was referring to the recent report that the National Union of Journalists voted to boycot Israel and all Israeli products, etc.
How in hell can a 'journalist' claim to be unbiased while his trade union decides to boycott a newsworthy country. Only a tiny handful of members decided to resign from the NUJ. What a bunch of liars and losers!
Edit: here's a link - http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1176152792457
RangerRay
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,881
- Points
- 1,260
Can someone answer me this?
When the Liberals were in power, government reports were treated as gospel by the main media outlets. When the Tories are in power, government reports are treated with suspicion, and even outright derision, by the same media outlets. Why?
Or do I even have to ask?
When the Liberals were in power, government reports were treated as gospel by the main media outlets. When the Tories are in power, government reports are treated with suspicion, and even outright derision, by the same media outlets. Why?
Or do I even have to ask?
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
RangerRay said:
Well for a start Harper from day one of his administration in Ottawa has been in a battle with the national medias Ottawa based correspondents. Remember his clamp down on all cabinet members talking to the media. I think Hillier even got in trouble on this one.
He has chosen to go around the correspondents by many methods one being going directly to local media in the various regions. Of course another is the newly launched Conservative campaign/media HQ located in suburban Ottawa, being physically more difficult again for Ottawa media access.
RangerRay
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,881
- Points
- 1,260
Baden Guy said:
So in other words, the Parliamentary Press Gallery is having a hissy-fit, and is being less than professional in its coverage of the news because of this spat?
With the mostly unknown, and few odd-ball MPs in his caucus, can you blame the PM for gagging them until the government has been more established and until who he knows he can trust? I don't.
Similar threads
