Friday, July 18, 2008


Pretty scathing editorial in today's Gazette, which rightfully exposes the Conservatives tactics against Elections Canada:
Tories' scurrilous attacks on election boss are ludicrous

The Conservative Party of Canada, starting with its leader the prime minister, should find the decency to knock off their scurrilous assault on the integrity of Elections Canada and its commissioner, Marc Mayrand.

If the Conservatives did, indeed, play by the rules, they should make their case by sticking to the facts of the matter. Instead they are resorting to the classic scoundrel's defence: Impute motives to others, deny everything and make wild accusations.

Scoundrels, that fits nicely. Actually, the fact that the Conservatives are "resorting" to the low road, speaks to weak factual arguments.

The best part, politically, the gang of nasties doesn't realize that their continual nastiness whenever challenged only serves to reinforce negative perceptions, further turning off the demographics they desperately need to survive in the fall(actually amazing that the "geniuses" haven't figured out this fundamental yet). Their arrogance and inate mean-spiritedness will be the ultimate undoing.


Johnathon said...

Read this

Now, does that not PROVE to you that the green shift isn't needed as there are no problems.

knb said...

amazing that the "geniuses" haven't figured out this fundamental yet

I think they have figured it out, but I don't think they care. I think they are arrogant enough to believe that they can win without those demographics.

How, I don't know, but arrogance isn't often tied to logic.

Mark Francis said...

Lesson: Check your sources

The article Johnathon (who famously posts off-topic) cites a false claim that the American Physical Society has reversed its stance and no longer supports Global Warming as being human-induced.

Well, ends up that's not true. At the end of the article, there is a qualified retraction, which in itself is not accurate. Ends up that a newsletter of that organization had an OPINION published in it making a claim opposition the position held by the APS. The APS still supports, without change, that global warming is real, and is being caused by humans.

If you read a statement put out by the APS, it makes says

"The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

"An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed."

Greg said...

I just wanted to say that Han Solo was a scoundrel, too, so you're really just giving scoundrels a bad name by associating Han Solo with the scruff-looking nerf herders over at the Conservative party.

Anonymous said...

Attacks on the integrity of Elections Canada is an attack on our very system of governance. As the Gazette editorial notes, "But the law is the law." Not to these guys.

leftdog said...

In his book, 'The Authoritarians' -
Bob Altemeyer from the University of Manitoba explains the dynamics of what has happened to the conservative movement in the US and Canada and why they act the way that they do - case in point being their treatment of the Chief Electoral Officer ....

" ... the research shows they are very aggressive, but why are they so hostile? Yes, experiments show they are almost totally uninfluenced by reasoning and evidence, but why are they so dogmatic? Yes, studies show the Religious Right has more than its fair share of hypocrites, from top to bottom; but why are they two-faced, and how come one face never notices the other? Yes, their leaders can give the flimsiest of excuses and even outright lies about things they’ve done wrong, but why do the rank-and-file believe them? What happens when authoritarian followers find the authoritarian leaders they crave and start marching together?"

penlan said...

Johnathon has begun posting the same post all over the liberal blogosphere today. So get used to seeing it everywhere.

Anonymous said...

Yes Johnathon even sent one to CATI- ONLINE, and I do not think they were too thrilled. Way off subject.

Steve V said...

If it wasn't for people like johnathon, stupid might still be just a theory.

RuralSandi said...

Well, I guess that's another newspaper that will be written off by the CPC partisans....they're going to be really upset I bet.

Let's see now - will the Gazette be accused of Liberal bias perhaps? LOL

I think the Conservative party should concentrate on education funding - because their supporters can't read, comprehend and take in anything but sound bites directed from Harper - perfect example is Jonathon who trolls constantly, insults, is bigoted and not too bright.

Joe Calgary said...

"Carney also noted Canada benefits from the rising cost of oil and natural gas, and the economic benefits aren't limited to just energy-producing provinces such as Alberta.

Carney said industries that feed into the energy sector, including manufacturing industries in Ontario and other areas of Central Canada, gain residual economic benefits."

While you might think I pull numbers out of my ass, you might start doing a little research of your Steve.

There but for the grace of the west, goes Central Canada.

I'm a reasonable fellow though, so I'm compiling information for you, which you can verify for yourself.

Few more days and I'll provide you source material.

Anonymous said...

You would think by now the cons. would have realized that owning up to past indiscretions would have more traction with voters rather than acting like children and keeping them simmering on the front burner.

Sorry, I forgot that needs two brain cells to rub together to make a spark. unfortunatly there is none outside of Harper so he just goes blindly off the edge of a cliff.

Steve V said...

"While you might think I pull numbers out of my ass, you might start doing a little research of your Steve."


I'm sure you can find some slanted nonsense to support your nonsensical provincial delusions. I just don't care. Anyone who actually believes that 300 000 manufacturing jobs in Ontario are dependent on Alberta hasn't a clue about anything. That's not to say that Alberta's boom isn't Canada's boom, because there are clearly residual effects, just like when central Canada was booming and other regions where in a slump. I already acknowledge reality, you choose to overstate, based on some tribal pride or something. Whatever.

Steve V said...

"including manufacturing industries in Ontario and other areas of Central Canada, gain residual economic benefits."

Sorry, I just want to make on more point. This is what you come up with, days after the 300 000 assertion? "Residual economic benefits" from our whole economy sucking from the teet?? Good grief. Actually, I think the research might just do you a world of good.

Steve V said...

There are approximately 800 000 manufacturing jobs in Ontario, which means Joe thinks 40% of that is tied to Alberta, which means Joe needs to do LOTS of research.

knb said...

Oh, don't make him think! The horror!

Anonymous said...

Jonathon should have pointed out that is was only a subset.

However, it is still important. These are serious scientists saying "not so fast". And it also reflects recent research.

I'll say that again,



It's interesting that while AGW followers contend to really be "all about science" (the politics of it not being of any concern...cough, cough), serious research now being conducted in the AGW field and others, like:

the sun spot activity - yes there is other science out there that isn't just dedicated to global warming, but may impact that debate), there now appears to be a direct link between the lack of sunspots and dropping temperatures,

like NASA's new satellite that is showing a basic relationship of causation is actually reverse, and thus alone shows the theory wrong,

the studies showing very little actual (as opposed to the theorhetical) direct , causitive relationship between CO2 and temp - the studies are showing a massive increase in co2 in the past decade with no noticable increase in temp, while the theory states temp should be going through the roof right about now, again, those alone "prove" the theory false,

it goes on and on,

but folks desperately cling to the "science" (which is really in fact just a theory) of a decade ago, while chastizing, demeaning, attacking, any and all of those (including very real reputable scientists who dare not give a wiff about the politics, but do care about the scientific method).

The press, which incessantly chearleaded the "sky is falling" mantra of Gore for the past decade, will inevitably turn on this, and start reporting the actual facts. It's already starting.

I can see why folks here are uber sensitive about it though.

It's Dion's central plank. Dion the professor, asking Canadians to drastically change their economic model,

on an academic theory that is now proving wrong.

That'll leave a mark.

Steve V said...


There are "recent" papers released DAILY that support GW. It's just hilarious that you use "science", when for every 1 that is questioning, there are 50 who support. You want a debate on "science", I doubt that, you want a debate on what you pick and choose.

I read the latest findings, I think we don't have the complete picture, so I keep myself informed. That doesn't translate to arguing with people who have an agenda (sorry the Gore crack is always a dead giveaway- go Harper!). I mock you, because the stragglers are irrelevant. Period. Now go back to the mutual affirmation society, where you can all delude yourselves into thinking your on the cutting edge of nothingness. It's more about psychology, than it is about science.

Anonymous said...

Suggesting that the AGW theory is up for debate is like telling a true christian that Jesus is not our savior.

It's pure "belief" and precious little science.

I await the coastal areas to flood (as we head for another very cool year).


ottlib said...

anonymous 4:13:

The Christian Bible is a parable written over a period of centuries starting about 5 millenia ago. So, it is easy to question it.

AGW is a phenomenon that was identified by science about 2 decades ago and it has been researched by other scientists ever since. The conclusions of most of them. They are 90% certain AGW is caused by humans.

Still, it can be questioned but you better be able to back it up with the same quality of empirical evidence that supports the existance of AGW.

As for, the coolness of the summer I would say you that you had better educate yourself on the scientific concepts of cause and effect before commenting on the existance of AGW again.

Cause: AGW, currently a rise in the average temperature of our atmosphere of 2 degrees C since the beginning of the 20th Century. That is not supposition, that is a measureable fact.

Effect: Climate Change, such as a decade long drought in the breadbasket of Australia. Or, an Atlantic hurricane season that begins weeks before it is supposed to. Or the tornado belt in the American mid-west and high plains growing northward to now include Southern Manitoba. Or week long ice-storms in Ontario. Or the increased rate of desertification in Africa.

There are many examples of how the climate is changing and it has been proven conclusively that it is the caused of Global Warming.

However, keep on disbelieving the science anonymous. I bet you still believe the scientific studies the tobacco industry still publishes that claim to disprove smoking causes cancer.

Steve V said...

"It's pure "belief" and precious little science"

You make dumb look brilliant. Yawn.

knb said...

Gawd, could we just break this down to the misunderstanding between climate and weather?

One affects the other, but if you don't get this basic, you get nothing.

Anonymous said...




Here is the basics from new data coming from NASA AQUA satellite (launched in 2002) that measures water vapor in the atmosphere. This is the first data on this. Seems the water vapor is NOT increasing as the GW models would suggest. In fact, Water vapor is increasing in the lower atmosphere which will affect cloud cover and at a minimum means LESS WARMING from C02 than thought and could lead to COOLING. So actual data is showing a NEGATIVE FEEDBACK LOOP. Which means that higher CO2 level will decrease water vapor in the upper atmosphere which is exactly OPPOSITE what the GW predict.

That was the first point above:

get it?

a basic premise of AGW theory (a theory that has to be tested),

is now being tested, and the opposite is showing true.

Did you know about the aqua satellite, folks? Did you know about negative vs positive forcing and how that is critical to the whole theory?

Did you know that the IPCC is again going to drastically reduce/temper its predictions (as it did from IPCC I)?

Do you know why a group of preeminent physists would release such a paper?

Do you know what a scientific paradigm is, and historically, how many major paradigms have shifted (particularly regarding a "science" in its infancy - sorry to break it to you but compared to the myriad of other fields, "climate science" is the baby toddler of fields)?

Can you even fathom how rediculous it is to state that something so new, so complex, and so untested, can be "settled" without question and further study?

Have you any idea the findings coming out very recently regarding the very serious study of sun spots?

Probably not.

Your too busy reading authoritative pronouncements from politically motivated folks who tell you what you want to hear.

That bursting truth bubble is really going to hurt folks such as yourselves who are so politically invested in this now defunct science.

knb said...

Oh good grief. This is the same anon guy who showed up last year on your site.

He's still spewing the same garbage and lives in a world most of us do not inhabit.

How bizarre.

ottlib said...

anon 10:16:

If you are the same as anon 4:13, I will reiterate that you have no scientific credibility if you cannot tell the difference between such basic scientific concepts as cause and effect.

If you are not, then you still have no credibility because you still have not given us any empirical evidence to back up your claim.

You have asked alot of questions and answered them with alot of speculation that backs up your argument. I am certain that is just a coincidence.

When you begin to refute the facts that have been presented by thousands of scientists to back their assertions about AGW, with actual facts of your own, then we will be in business.

However, what you presented in your comment was next to useless.

ottlib said...

One other thing.

In every country in the Western world there is a consensus amongst the peoples of those countries that Global Warming is real, that humans are the cause of it and that we need to do something about it.

That really is quite extraordinary when you think about it. These same peoples could not even agree on the level of threat of the old Soviet Union despite the 25,000 or so nuclear weapons it had pointed at them.

So, if these diverse people can come to a consensus on something that is definitely more intangible than imminent nuclear destruction GW deniers like the two anons really have an up-hill struggle to change that consensus.

Anonymous said...

IPCC (2001: ch.7) devoted an entire chapter to feedbacks, but without assigning values to each feedback that was mentioned. Nor did the IPCC assign a “Level of Scientific Understanding” to each feedback, as it had to each forcing. In IPCC (2007), the principal climate-relevant feedbacks are quantified for the first time, but, again, no Level of Scientific Understanding” is assigned to them, even though they account for more than twice as much forcing as the greenhouse-gas and other anthropogenic-era forcings to which “Levels of Scientific Understanding” are assigned.

Now that the IPCC has published its estimates of the forcing effects of individual feedbacks for the first time, numerous papers challenging its chosen values have appeared in the peer-reviewed literature. Notable among these are Wentz et al. (2007), who suggest that the IPCC has failed to allow for two-thirds of the cooling effect of evaporation in its evaluation of the water vapor-feedback; and Spencer (2007),who points out that the cloud-albedo feedback, regarded by the IPCC as second in magnitude only to the water-vapor feedback, should in fact be negative rather than strongly positive.

It is, therefore, prudent and conservative to restore the values κ≈ 0.24 and f ≈ 2.08 that are derivable from IPCC (2001), adjusting the values a little to maintain consistency with Eqn. (27). Accordingly, our revised central estimate of the feedback multiplier f is –

f = (1 – bκ)–1≈(1 – 2.16 x 0.242)–1≈ 2.095 (29)

(in other words, the central tenet to global warming theory - not surprising since the entire forcing model was premised on a single paper....a single one - is in fact not only wrong, but opposite)

Anonymous said...

The Bode equation, furthermore, is of questionable utility because it was not designed to model feedbacks in non-linear objects such as the climate. The IPCC’s quantification of temperature feedbacks is, accordingly, inherently unreliable. It may even be that, as Lindzen (2001) and Spencer (2007) have argued, feedbacks are net-negative, though a more cautious assumption has been made in this paper.

It is of no little significance that the IPCC’s value for the coefficient in the CO2 forcing equation depends on only one paper in the literature; that its values for the feedbacks that it believes account for two-thirds of humankind’s effect on global temperatures are likewise taken from only one paper; and that its implicit value of the crucial parameter κ depends upon only two papers, one of which had been written by a lead author of the chapter in question, and neither of which provides any theoretical or empirical justification for a value as high as that which the IPCC adopted.

Steve V said...


Sorry, if I'm not impressed when you cite people who's research was funded by Exxon. It is amazing to me, that people are so gullible to buy into what amounts to paid propaganda from oil companies. I find this relevant.

Anyways, I've never believed anything is settled, completely open to new information. That said, you people just pick and choose what suits you, "sun spots" and other dubious and countered angles, all the while ignoring the MAJORITY opinion. Why don't you cite the 700 odd scientists from America that recently released a plea to move forward quickly on global warming- in your world, these are all fools, part of the left wing conspiracy. No, they are just scientists, with no political agenda, merely led by their findings. There are always dissenters, particularly when they are funded by people who view the concept as a threat to their profit margins. You think you are ahead of the curve, when you don't realize you are really just a straggler.

I have an open mind, people like you scour the globe looking for ANYTHING to support their pre-determined bias against. Knock yourself out, I'm sure you will find plenty to cling to in the future.

colten said...

David Evans was a consultant to the "Australian Greenhouse Office" from 1999 to 2005. He is a former global warming alarmist; however, he is also a scientist who goes where the evidence leads him. In this important article in The Australian, he blows the whistle on the fraud that many of the world's governments are in the midst of perpetrating:

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts.

(You really need to read the whole thing to get the full impact, but here are a few highlights):

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. ...

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. ...

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). ...

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect. ...

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion. ..

What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it.

colten said...

The above was in reference to the Aus. labor party. In Canada, by focusing almost exclusively on global warming as the only issue of importance to the Liberal Party of Canada,

Dion is taking what is perhaps the biggest risk the party has ever taken. Unwisely, he is following popular discourse and the media agenda. As we know, however, the media is fickle, and when the damn starts to burst on the above findings, the media will not hesitate to jump off the Global Warming bandwagon and point the finger at others still on it (I suspect Dion will never get off it, notwithstanding any new evidence to the contrary) as if the media were never on it themselves.

Dion and the Liberal party will be left holding the discredited bag.

And the political implications will make Adscam seem like a slight mishap.