More Green Propaganda: Bumped and Updated

Daniel Kitts, a producer of current affairs programs for TVO writes in a commentary today that he no longer believes that climate change skeptics deserve equal time on the air to make their case.

In his article he admits to having been swayed by the greenahadeen into accepting their point of view as truth, so much so that it overrides his duty to be fair and balanced.

He writes of his ‘personal conflict’ over the matter, but still has made up his mind to help promote green propaganda over any true debate.  Note that he slides this little gem into his reasoning:

"They (climate-change skeptics) must be pressed to make a more compelling argument as to why they are right and the majority of scientists are wrong."

Has he not read this**, a petition to the US government signed by over 17,000 scientists including geologists, geophysicists, oceanographers and meteorologists?  Or this, by Dr Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

** See the Update for why this link should be disregarded (though I leave it active, can’t hide from the awful thruth now can I?)

Which group is really the majority?  The believers or the skeptics?  Kitts is either ignorant of the case against climate change, or has decided to discount it.  He also makes no mention of how greens turn on any of their ranks that question the junk science, witness how Patrick Moore and Bjorn Lomborg were treated by the environmental zealots, just for raising questions about their agenda and misuse of statistics. 

This is a serious issue, not least because implementing many of the radical actions demanded by the greenahadeen will result in the continued poverty and deaths of those in the developing world.  Kitts has a duty to consider these innocents before he makes any decision to undermine and tilt the debate one way.

Update Jan 27 2007:  Daniel Kitts has posted a comment on this post, for which I thank him.  For readers that don’t read comments, below is Mr Kitts’ response to my post in its entirety, followed by an email I responded with:


I’m the guy who wrote the article.

I took a look at the petition you mentioned. Unfortunately for you, this petition has been thoroughly discredited.

I suggest you check out what says about the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, the organization responsible for the petition. Among other things, sourcewatch notes that the petition started as a bulk e-mail (you know how reliable online petitions are), the petition has not been peer reviewed (all credible scientific papers are), and that OISM has no way of verifying the credentials of any of the signatories.

Here’s a quote: "When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell’s field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names."

Scientific American also looked into the OISM petition. "Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages." Nice.

As for Richard Lindzen, great. I’d be more than happy to suggest we invite him to come on my show and answer some tough questions on climate science.

As I stated in my piece, I am not saying that we should accept everything that climate change believers say or stop talking to climate skeptics.

But I would be distorting reality if I pretended that the weight of evidence compiled by both sides is equal. It just isn’t.

I’d like to say there’s a raging debate among scientists as to humans are warming the planet. It would make my job easier. But it’s just not the case.

There are some important disagreements on to how quickly the planet’s climate is changing and how much action — and what kind of action — needs to be taken. Those issues are very much worth debating. But saying that a credible, widespread group of scientists think that climate change is a complete sham? Can’t say that. Because it’s not true.

I refer you to the following article in Science showing the weight of scientific opinion on climate change:

And my reply:

Hello Daniel,
Thanks for taking the time to write a thorough comment in response to my post, I certainly appreciate it.
I did look at the link to the petition I quoted, and indeed I cannot deny your observations.  I knew that the citation was in trouble as soon as I saw a Spice Girl on your list of the ‘worthies’ that had signed it.  Since no matter my thoughts on climate change I could in no way bring myself to defend a pop tart, I concede the point.
To make my position clear, I have no problem with individuals, countries and world organizations taking measures to reduce harmful emissions or to treat the planet more gently.  My real concern is that the climate change argument has been hijacked by agenda-driven zealots.  When I see deconstructions of Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ detailing the exaggerations he has included in his ‘documentary’ I see no difference between Gore and Michael Moore’s ‘Bowling for Columbine’ or "Fahrenheit 9/11′.  Both film makers have taken factual nuggets and made the ‘facts’ fit their personal theory or agenda.  Yet both produce movies watched by millions of people who take what they see at face value, declaring it to be ‘truth’.
The truly scary part of this is that ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is now taught as fact in American schools, combined with the teachers notes made available by Gore’s team.  There is no alternative viewpoint on the curriculum to balance the claims that Gore makes.  Since the most quotable exaggeration is Green Al’s ‘sea levels will rise by 20ft’ (the science says 1ft in the next 100 years), I think that this is significant.
I also wonder at the reasons for the intense sensitivity of greens when faced with criticism from insiders.  In previous posts on the environment I have mentioned both Bjorn Lomborg (‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’) and Patrick Moore (co-founder of Green Peace) as examples.  Greens tried and in some degree succeeded to have Lomborg censured by the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty for his book.  In turn the DCSD was censured for its findings against Lomborg.  Patrick Moore is an outcast among his former friends for daring to shine a light on their increasing reliance on alarmist headlines and shaky science.  Moore is a realist that has also upset greens by pointing out that the cheapest and cleanest method of energy production is nuclear – anathema to greens, but a tried and tested technology that deserves more consideration as a solution than it gets.
I worry mostly about the fall-out (poor choice of term perhaps) from the headlong rush into bad policy like Kyoto.  Without India and China as signatories Kyoto is meaningless as a global solution.  What Kyoto would achieve is the hobbling of the strongest economies in the world, which over the years will mean less investment in global infrastructure, and essential humanitarian aid to those who need help now.  The dark side of the green agenda is that the wrong moves in the attempt to arrest global warming will consign many to lives of poverty, or death, and Africa will once more take the brunt of the negative effects.
There are precedents:  First, after the 1962 publication of Silent Spring there followed a global outcry from embryonic environmentalist groups to ban all use of DDT.  Since malaria had been conquered in the developed world, little or no thought was given to the people of Africa for whom malaria was and is an everyday killer.  Had the science prevailed over the hyperbole, the outcome would, I hope, have been more reasoned and malaria in Africa could have been beaten by now.  Instead, millions are dead that could have been saved, but the greens would never admit to their role in this most avoidable of catastrophes.
Second, witness the hysteria over genetically-modified or ‘GM foods’ in Europe.  Greens were in no small part responsible for the demonizing of a practical method of improving harvest yields and resistance to disease.  Their misguided activism has once more directly influenced the ability of Africa to feed itself.  I don’t think any Europeans starved to death because of the public outcry over ‘frankenfoods’, but I know that Africans did. 
These are the reasons why I take the skeptics side – when the greens have no countering viewpoint, people die.  Now the populism and media-management skills that environmental groups have become so adept at are aimed at making global policy to prevent or contain ‘climate-change’.  Let’s allow the hard science to be heard and reasonable solutions come to the fore before the developed world’s governments makes decisions for votes that have real and devastating consequences for the voiceless.
In the end, I’m just another guy with a blog, putting my opinion on-line for any that care to read it.  I try to back-up my opinions with facts – and if those turn out to be as dodgy as those I criticize, I’ll own up to it.  You have a much larger potential audience as a producer – I would only ask that you don’t cut the dissenting voice from the debate.  If for no other reason than keeping the climate change debate honest, for making the greens prove the point with real facts and not armageddonist headlines, it would be worth that effort.
Once more, thank you for taking the time to respond, and I wish you success in your future programming.

Jack Layton Finds a Fight He Can Support

Jack Layton the NDP bobble-head-in-chief made a successful effort yesterday to prove to Canadians that he is, beyond a shadow of doubt, irrelevant.

As Stephen Harper cleans up yet another mess left over from the Liberals and determines a positive future for Canada and as Stephane Dion tried to wriggle out from under a self-made mess after suggesting it was OK to let criminals back into the Liberal part, Jack went on the offensive against… ATM charges.

Pardon me?  ATM charges?  Those avoidable $1.50 fees that you are charged for not using your own bank’s ATM’s?  This is an issue worth the attention of a leader of a national party?  I guess when that leader is wrong and meaningless on every other issue he just has to find something to get his face in the news.

The man that wants to leave the Afghanistan campaign unfinished, that wants to increase social programs infinitely and that thinks Kyoto is a good thing has found a fight he can support, against those mean and nasty banks.  It’s a safe fight for him as no-one wants to defend a bank, not even me. 

Consider the irony;  the NDP is worried about the pennies in your pocket when, if ever elected that same caring group would increase taxes sharply to fund their never-ending demands for social programs, in the process ‘gouging’ tax payers more harshly than any number ATM fees.

Jack’s not really worried about how many $1.50’s Canadians get charged, he doesn’t like banks making profits.  In fact, Jack is pretty sure that if any business is profitable that somewhere there is a victim of that business, and that drives him nuts.  Well, more nuts.  Jack and his NDP followers are anti-business and that’s what this about – that and finding something, anything, to try and dislodge the faces of Harper and Dion from the newspapers and TV screens of the nation.

If I’m wrong about his motives and if Jack is really worried about my $1.50’s then he can put my mind at ease quite simply, just disband his neo-commie party and go live on a commune in BC.  I prefer to pay a bank for a service I directly benefit from than hand it over to any government that Jack would be a part of. 

Dion’s Mask Slips

On Wednesday Stephane Dion suggested he would allow a disgraced Liberal organizer back into the party from Paul Martin’s imposed lifetime exile for his role in the Adscam debacle.

Dion suggested that Marc-Yvan Cote had learned his lesson and should be allowed back into the party.  The new Liberal leader is supposed to be free of personal taint from Adscam, but apparently is all too forgiving of those individuals that were very much involved.

Today, Dion has reversed his position.  No doubt surprised by the reaction of the press and the politicians in Quebec that are in no mood for quick forgiveness for one of the most outrageous scandals in recent Canadian history, Dion realized that he made a serious mistake.

In reality of course, Dion wants anyone that could help win him power back into the fold, no matter their previous records.  In this regard Dion is the definition of the true Liberal ideology – power at any cost.  Canada cannot afford another Liberal government, especially under this flip-flopping, morally-challenged weakling.

If the Liberals do force a general election by voting down the forthcoming budget then I hope that Canadians deliver a severe message to Dion and his cronies by giving Stephen Harper a majority government.  The Liberals deserve their own time in exile, with no chance for an early return.

Election Looming?

Stephane Dion, the new Liberal leader has said that his party is unlikely to support the federal budget when it is presented by Stephen Harper’s minority government during the upcoming parliamentary session.  Since the budget is a confidence vote, a defeat on the vote would trigger a general election.

If Dion holds to his threat, the only way that the budget can pass is if Mad Jack and the NDP support it, which seems unlikely since Jack is a socialist bobble-head and Harper’s budget will be conservative and include tax-cuts. 

Of course, Dion said the Liberals are ‘unlikely’ to support the budget, leaving typical Liberal wiggle-room to later change course if the polls don’t look good, so there is no absolute guarantee that the government will fall, but it probably will.

Which is all just politics as usual, but it does signal that much blogging fun is to be had sooner than later.

Al Gore Avoids Debate

Al Gore, the leader of the global greenahadeen zealots, canceled an interview with a Danish newspaper after finding that he was scheduled to meet with Bjorn Lomborg.

Lomborg, author of ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ and pariah amongst his former green colleagues has long criticized Gore for exaggeration and scare-mongering.  Once more, when faced with an opportunity to convince the public with their ‘science’, the greens run away.  Read the article for just a couple of examples that Lomborg cites Gore over:

  • Claiming that the sea-level will rise by 20ft, when the science suggest only 1ft.
  • Ignoring the 98% of Antarctica that has cooled, highlighting only the 2% that is warming.
  • Reversing the truth about temperature and malaria occurrence in Nairobi.

Until Gore the greens get honest, they will find that more people are less inclined to believe their incredulous claims that climate is ‘a battalion of intergalactic smoking missiles’.

In another related news item, more people are calling attention to the greenahadeen’s campaign to silence their critics.  I hope that this momentum to expose the zealots for the alarmist, agenda-driven trolls that they are continues. 

There is no reason why conservation should be improved and reductions in emissions should not be encouraged – but let’s do it for the right reasons and at an appropriate pace that does not promise to ruin economies and doom the world’s poor to another century of misery.   The greens were directly responsible for millions of unnecessary deaths in Africa when they demanded and got the ban on DDT use.  They must not be allowed to repeat their crimes under the banner of tree-hugging.

A Batallion of Intergalactic Smoking Missiles

Following a bad week for the Greenahadeen, news is out of a new report that claims to have all the answers to ‘prove’ the case for the zealots.

In response to a question about the report being a ‘smoking gun’, Canadian co-author Andrew Weaver responded that climate was “a batallion of intergalactic smoking missiles”.  Wow.  I’m not sure what an intergalactic smoking missile is, but it doesn’t sound friendly.  Fortunately much of North America has banned smoking in many public buildings, so I recommend taking shelter in one of these facilities should the fearsome batallion arrive.

And the report?  Well, the article claims that it was written by 600 scientists, reviewed by 600 ‘experts’ and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries.  Amazingly the report’s authors are claiming this to be a good thing.  I don’t know exactly when 600 of any group were able to agree on a topic, let alone a report surviving editing by bureacrats from only one country, nevermind an extra set of 153 countries civil servants, so this must be a real doozy of a report.

Oh, and the report’s science is all previously published too.  So, not much new science but lots of hubris and of course, the entirely new threat of intergalactic smoking missiles.  Expect George Lucas to make the movie sequel to An Inconvenient Truth, with lots of special effects and an annoying walking lizard.

France and Quebec

Ségolène Royal, a French Presidential candidate recently met with separatist politician André Boisclair in Paris.  This report notes that:

"Royal said Quebec and France have common values, including "sovereignty and Quebec’s freedom."

PM Harper has rebuked Royal’s interference in domestic politics, as he should.  But why should she decide to get involved in Quebec’s dysfunction? 

I have a theory… France will soon find itself in the familiar position of needing to surrender, but this time to itself when it finally realizes that there aren’t actually many French people left in the country.  When this occurs, Royal and the French Elites will need somewhere to run to, much as DeGaulle needed London in 1940.  Quebec seems nice enough, they speak a version of the language and it’s about three times the size of France.  If the teeny-problem of Quebec’s independence is already settled by the time they arrive, Louis Vuittons in hand – all the better.

Of course, it’s only a theory it’s just as likely that Royal is just another self-serving French politician who’d rather consider the issue of Quebec over the mess that is her own country.

Update:  Royal denies interfering, and then admires DeGaulle’s words from 1967.  Typical. 

Provincial Jealousy

The Globe and Mail reports that Alberta is ‘stealing’ nurses from other provinces – at the cost of a reduced ability to provide adequate health care in their own geographic areas.

I left Alberta last year to move to the Peoples Republic of Ontario, and while I haven’t made a habit of hanging around hospitals I am unaware of convoys of dark vans bearing Alberta plates snatching unsuspecting nurses in the dead of night and scooting off westwards.  So perhaps by ‘stealing’ the Globe really means the use of economic incentives. 

Nurses have skills that are in demand, and Alberta can pay market rates so it follows that a number of nurses will act with economic rationality and will locate to where the opportunity is best for them.  That other provinces mismanage their own health systems and education ‘quotas’ is hardly Alberta’s problem.

Consider also the hypocrisy in the claim of ‘stealing’ talent and ‘weakening’ rival provinces.  Saskatchewan is named in the article as being unhappy with Alberta, but what does Saskatchewan have to say to South Africa about the fact that 17% of doctors in their province are from that country?   

Canada is actively recruiting skilled trades and workers from all over the world, especially in areas where they know that a North American lifestyle is very desirable.  But that’s different, right?

Moonbats in Business

Some businesses have no idea of the power of the internet to highlight their dumb mistakes.  Imagine the current state of panic at this moonbat business after it issued a rude email reply to an enquiry from a serving US Sergeant. 

Girl on the Right has the full skinny on this, go read it and let’s see how long it takes for some faux apology to appear when (if) the website recovers.

This company makes The Apprentice contestants look like rocket scientists.

Update: Fox News reports that someone was fired over the email.  The website is still down.

Update #2 Jan 26 2007:  Was someone fired, or is this blogger on to something?

Dion’s Shadow(y) Cabinet

Today Stephane Dion, newly crowned leader of the federal Liberal Party announced his shadow cabinet.  So, let’s have a look at the new post holders.

The following is the result of a few hours of Google searching.  After looking at every one of these names I can categorize them as The Good, The Bad and The Bland.  Enjoy, and if any reader can offer up some good stuff on those in The Bland category, let me know – but please include a link to a source for your information.

                                                The Good
Stephen Owen – Democratic reform
The Anti-Borys?  I might like this guy.

Irwin CotlerHuman Rights
Tells it like it is, which Borys would do well to learn from. 

Carolyn Bennett – Seniors, disabled and the social economy
Had the good sense and decency to denounce Borys after his pro-Hezbollah rant.  She also has the best of all the politicians blogs that I’ve seen researching this post.

                                                The Bad
Ralph GoodaleHouse Leader
In 2005, Goodale was Finance Minister in Paul Martin’s government when news of an impending change to taxation laws was leaked to the press.  He refused to step aside while the investigation proceeded, even though it was a serious breach of security in his department on his watch.

Wayne EasterAgriculture

As Solicitor-General Easter refused to launch an enquiry into the deportation of Maher Arar in 2003.  His later testimony during an enquiry was at odds with Police and Intelligence testimony.

Omar Alghabra
Citizenship and Immigration

Fiercely attacked Bill C-7, the Public Safety Act that is the backbone of anti-terror law in Canada.

Belinda StronachCompetitiveness and the New Economy

Once a Tory but jumped ship and Tie Domi, has been mostly irrelevant since.  Recently went to brunette from blonde, presumably so we’ll take her more seriously.  Note to Belinda – it wasn’t your hair colour that made me thought you were dumber than a bag of hammers.

Borys Wrzesnewskyj
Crown corporations

Resigned after suggesting that Canada should negotiate with terrorists and that Israel was committing war crimes in Lebanon.

John McCallum

In 2002 McCallum, then Defence Minister admitted having no knowledge of the WWII Dieppe raid that cost many Canadian lives.  Later, trying to defend his ignorance of key historical events, he confused the Canadian Vimy Ridge campaign with the Vichy regime of Nazi occupied France.  Hopefully he knows the difference between decibels and decimals in his new job.

Ujjal Dosanjh
Foreign Affairs

Wanted to enable a media circus over the caskets of fallen Canadian troops, and has questionable backbone when prosecuting the war in Afghanistan.

Raymond Chan –
Foreign Affairs (Asia-Pacific)

Refused to issue a government apology to Chinese-Canadians for the ‘head-tax’ until other parties campaigned that they would indeed apologize.  Chan flip-flopped and later blamed the party for his mistake.

Bonnie Brown –

Anti-Iraq and Pro-Kyoto moonbat.  I predict it won’t be long before she is extolling the virtues of Cuba’s health system in the press.

Denis Coderrre –
National Defence

Named in the Adscam scandal.  Slandered an NHL player and appeared at a pro-Hezbollah rally in Montreal.  All class, all the time.

udy Sgro –
National Revenue

Quit her job as Immigration Minister over allegations that she helped a stripper get a special permit to immigrate.  This was later found to be Sgro’s staffers that did the dirty deed, so all she really did was hire fools and manage poorly – she should do well in the Liberal Party with credentials like that.

Scott Brison –

Once a Conservative who jumped into the Liberal bed.  Famously was linked to an email that suggested he was the source of a leak on taxation changes to Income Trusts. Business leaders may like his new job of he keeps the tips coming.

Hedy Fry –
Sport and Vancouver Olympics

Noted for her assertion that Crosses were burning on lawns in Prince George, BC (she was wrong, oddly enough).  Fry will be excellent in this new role, unless the IOC add cross ignition to the biathlon.

Joe Volpe –

The party’s male Belinda.  Dumber than a post and eager to prove it, his shining moments include trying to censor the press and accepting campaign contributions from kids

                                                The Bland

Scott Simms – Fisheries and Oceans

Was once a weatherman.  I guess this could be useful for fishermen.

Sue Barnes –
Public Safety

A lawyer and my local MP. I’ll be working to change that at the next election.

David McGuinty –

Brother of Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty.  That’s not (quite) enough to brand him in the ‘Bad’ category, but it was close.

Lucienne Robillard – Deputy House Leader

Karen Redman – Whip

Marcel Proulx – Deputy Whip

Celine Hervieux-Payette – Leader of the Opposition in the Senate

Claudette Tardiff – Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate

Jim Cowan – Senate Whip

Jean-Claude D’Amours – Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

Tina Keeper – Canadian Heritage

Mark Eyking – CIDA

Paul Zed – Cities and Communities

Daniel McTeague – Consumer Affairs and Consular Services

Marcel Proulx – Economic development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec

Ken Boshcoff – Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario

Mike Savage – Human Resources and Skills

Anita Neville – Indian Affairs

Mauril Belanger – Infrastructure

Bernard Patry – Intergovernmental affairs

Navdeep Bains – International Trade

Marlene Jennings – Justice

Raymonde Folco – La Francophonie & Official languages

Mario Silva – Labour

Colleen Beaumier – Multiculturalism

Mark Holland – Natural Resources

Larry Bagnell – Northern Affairs

Don Bell – Pacific Gateway

Pablo Rodriguez – Public Works

Charles Hubbard – Rural Affairs

Maurizio Bevilacqua – Science and Research

Ruby Dhalla – Social Development

Maria Minna – Status of Women

Raymond Simard – Treasury Board

Albina Guarnieri – Veterans Affairs

Sukh Dhaliwal – Western Economic Diversification

Ray Bonin – National Caucus Chair