Canadian Climate Plan: All Public Relations; No Policy

The Canadian government’s climate plan is pure politics - pure public relations. It’s all hot air, with no regulation or legislation to back it up. The government is not passing laws to limit greenhouse gas emissions. It is not setting science-based targets and it’s not financing renewable energy.

And now we learn that the governing Conservative Party has been contemplating a rollback in the inadequate emission regulations that they have advertised but never enforced. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Environment Minister Jim Prentice appear to be fiddling while their friends and political supporters in the tar sands capitals of Alberta set fire to Rome.

Canada has already earned international humiliation in Copenhagen as a country that is lobbying AGAINST a reasonable agreement. It is fighting to trash the Kyoto accord, regardless that no legally binding alternative is in place. It is one of only only two parties to the Protocol that is fighting against using a common base year (1990) that would make its stated emission limits transparent.

The government of Canada appears to resist doing the right thing, regardless that 75% of the people of Canada say they are embarrassed by their international reputation as backsliders. And on a day when UK Environment Secretary Hillary Benn was talking about climate change related ocean acidification as an “underwater time bomb,” Canadian Environment Minister Prentice was blaming a Copenhagen climate summit walkout by G77 countries for dragging down the talks.

For a demonstration of the inadequacy of Canada’s position, it’s hard to beat the stunt that the Yes Men pulled on Canada yesterday. The Yes Men put out a news release saying that Canada, which has been proposing a three-per-cent emission cut from 1990 levels by 2020, had come to its senses and was now going to work toward a 40 per cent cut - a goal that is in the range of what scientists say is necessary if we are to avoid dangerous warming of more than two degrees over pre-industrial levels. But Canadian reporters immediately recognized the news release as a hoax. They just couldn’t believe that Canada would do what the Northern European countries have already committed to do.

So, it’s a joke that Canada would do the right thing. And here we have one of the richest, most privileged countries on earth, continuing to argue that what it is doing is enough, that it is “working constructively.”

It is, once again, an international humiliation.


DOE sends a “litigation hold notice” regarding CRU to employees – asking to “preserve documents”

December 14, 2009

DOE Litigation Hold Notice

DOE-SR has received a “Litigation Hold Notice” from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) General Council and the DOE Office of Inspector General regarding the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. Accordingly, they are requesting that SRNS, SRR and other Site contractors locate and preserve all documents, records, data, correspondence, notes, and other materials, whether official or unofficial, original or duplicative, drafts or final versions, partial or complete that may relate to the global warming, including, but not limited to, the contract files, any related correspondence files, and any records, including emails or other correspondence, notes, documents, or other material related to this contract, regardless of its location or medium on which it is stored. In other words, please preserve any and all documents relevant to “global warming, the Climate Research Unit at he University of East Anglia In England, and/or climate change science.”

Read it all here:

Seriously, JR, we aren’t worried. The science is fine.

Do you have your own blog? You could post your spam there instead.

Thanks for that JR, this is the equivalent of the OJ simpson chase on the highway. We will now get to see what comes of this, kind of puts the Associated presses , nothing here article in perspective for the tripe that it is.

FYI science operates on the basis of evidence and predicitability of theories, not consensus, thats for religion. So far the global warming theory is coming up zeros as it has weak evidence and as we’ve seen from the past IPCC climate models it’s predictability is zero.

If you are looking for some kind of consensus on global warming the only thing you wilol find is that a majority of scientists beleive that co2 blocks radiation and an acceptance of Arhenniuses greenhouse effect. How this occurs outside of a lab and in nature and wether the positive feedbacks that will amplify warming to 6 degrees this century with a doubling of co2 is another question that is very much in scientific debate.

For anyone who examines this issue you quickly find that the hype about global warming exceeds the reality by about 10 fold. Still looking for an icefree arctic by 2013, the extinction of polar bears or the earth to heat up by the IPCC 6 degrees? You might be waiting a long time.

FYI science operates on the basis of evidence and predicitability of theories, not consensus”.

Earth to Cammackay: And peer-reviewed science by authentic researchers helps to generate consensus (e.g. the IPCC and AGW). You should read their reports some time, but it would sure spoil the tailgate party scene, courtesy of CO2 Inc. (Big oil and coal that is).

The IPCC reports assert two key premises.

1. That the greehouse effect operates on a principle of diminishing return. Ie if you put on a jacket you have increased your r factor, if you put on a second r factor you have increased your r factor but by less than the first. Put on your 350th jacket and the difference in your r factor is nil. This point is agreed to by the IPCC as well as by sceptics.
2. Bearing the first in mind the IPCC gets their 6 degree figure by calculating postitive feedbacks as the greenhouse effect alone only accounts for less than one degree. These positive feedbacks are where all the alarmism is generated from. You may have heard the famous tipping point arguement. Both of these are areas of serious scientific debate. The premise is really quite stupid. Do you beleive the earths climate reacts to co2 in the same way a nuclear bomb reacts to fission? If that we’re the case I’m sure the earths climate would have roasted away years ago as positive feedback loops are virutally non existent in nature as they are extremely unstable.

Earth to Micheal Maser, science never operates on consensus as then nothing would ever be discovered. A consensus or belief is for religion not science and is irrelevant. Why would I care what a majority of people think if they are wrong? What matters in science is evidence and predictability of theories. When you have neither of these two things normally you reinvent the theory to fit reality, unless you have a consensus that is then you keep the same theory you know is wrong.

Think for yourself, reclaim your brain from david suzuki.
The science is anything but settled.

Judging from their ratings the trolls are not welcome here and yet they insist on coming here and spouting their nonsense. What do they hope to achieve?

Perhaps there are just too many of their ilk and overcrowding has forced them to find other pastures where they are a bit more conspicuous. When everyone mouthes the same bs it is difficult to stand out from the mass.

Well Canada might play a destructive role but Australia has no reason to be proud of its contribution either. The opposition here torpedoed even such a modest scheme as the government had come up with (it could only do so by chucking out the previous opposition leader on a party room vote of 42 to 41).

The AngloSaxon world beyond the UK has shown itself to be pretty benighted on this issue. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that they are erstwhile frontier societies that cannot accept that there are limits to growth.

Here is the address for the Plimer - Monbiot debate of last night. Be entertained/outraged:

More like a turkey shoot. Do any of the skeptics that make the rounds here feel bold enough to defend Plimer?

Well I haven’t noticed. Generally you take every opportunity to snipe in a sort of backhanded way at the people who take climate science seriously.

my commenting style varies depending on my mood and whatever is going on in the post and other comments.

“Backhanded sniping” is a pretty good description of the tone set here in some, but not all of the feature posts.

That probably cultivates a little response sarcasm at times.

I’ll give some thought to the style complaint and possibly adjust a bit.

Back up what you are saying with *reliable* sources. My well-informed view is that you are simply repeating the same old baseless politicized assertions. Red herrings and straw men all.

Oh, a properly done Royal Commission on Global Warming would strongly supports the science. I doubt you really would want one.

If someone – like the the oil-soaked, teabagger-training Competitive Enterprise Institute – has filed a lawsuit, however frivolous, then there are obligations the government has to place itself on notice to preserve any potential evidence. That email is a bore.

So you have no fear of a Royal Commission where no one is barred from testifying and presenting evidence? That is, EVERYONE who is a stakeholder in this game has a say, right? You won’t prevent anyone, niether Ball, nor Friends of Science, Lindzen, no one excluded right? Then go sign the petition. Let’s bring it on. I have nothing to fear from the truth.

But you might when the Commission rules that AGW is not science. What then? What will all you people do then?

“when the Commission rules the AGW is not science” With what body of evidence? Climate Audit blog entries? Tim Ball youtube videos? The Royal Commission has this annoying and unfair prediliction toward credible science.

After several billions of dollars have been wasted going through such correspondence, Americans may learn that global warming was all cooked up by “scientists”, and was aided and abetted by the people who run this website, and other sites of similar ilk.

If Harper thought he could get away with it, I swear he’d cut federal income taxes just for Alberta, and raise it for everyone else. How is that really any different than having everyone else cut emissions more than Alberta?

I suppose Harper may want to pit region against region, and use the resulting fray as justification to do nothing, even with a new treaty in place from Copenhagen.

Maybe he’ll just prorogue Parliament until every resident of PEI is up to their kneecaps in glacier meltwater from Greenland. (For you denialists, that’s an exaggeration.) “Oops! Too late. It’s the Liberal’s fault for asking too many questions about torture…”

Hardley. Canada has a constitutional issue with the federal government intruding into areas that are the responsibility of the provinces. Energy and resources is one of them. Remember the National Energy Program disaster? Harper wants to avoid that.

So it is not a simple matter for the federal government to impose by decree what the provinces must do. That’s one of the reasons the Liberals did noting on Kyoto for 13 years.

The proposition is for a large emitting industry to receive breaks to be made up by others. If there are provincial jurisdictional issues – we are potentially looking at treaty obligations here, and that’s federal – then Harper will have to intrude on the provinces in an uneven manner.

The NEP was done with the agreement and participation of the AB government. It was constitutional as a result, but certainly not popular.

I’m not thrilled with being held responsible for an industry’s avoidance of its own pollution, whatever it may be.

It will then get a constitutional challenge from provinces like Alberta and the federal government will lose.

If CO2 is the devil you all claim it is, they why should anyone get any breaks? Pollution is pollution and must be stopped to save the planet.

There was/is no plan to have other parts of the country cut emissions more then Alberta. But Alberta will not be treated punitively when the rest of Canada continues on increasing their CO2 emisions.

Copenhagen in the winter was a great plan for a climate conference. It’s cold and Copenhagen runs on coal power. They also have had to set up all kinds of temporary uninsulated buildings heated by oil burners.

It’s all a recipe for creating as much CO2 as humanly possible so they can talk about creating less. A conference with the carbon footprint of 2300 Americans for a full year.

There are 5 times as many Americans as last years conference. No they aren’t negotiators. They’re partiers.

UN policy is burn and talk, burn and talk. …. and then blame Canada

Canadians should be PROUD of the position taken by our Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, Mr. Prentice.

Hope they can stay the course, and continue to save the hard-earned tax dollars of Canadians. Yes, I, Amabo, am one such Canuk.

As I’ve stated and implied before, in this forum there is no proof that SCARCE CO2 is the cause of any kind of global warming. We Canadians should all be thankful and proud that we have a government in Ottawa which does not want to waste tax dollars on silly schemes to reduce good, SCARCE and ecologically essential global CO2, AND to send more dollars to 3rd world potentates like Mugabe.

If monies of Canadian taxpayers and Canadian corporations must be spent to purchase silly, and totally meaningless, “carbon credits” why not purchase these credits from the people of Canada? Canada has vast taiga-like forests, and sphagnum moss muskeg stretching right across her North country. Let the gullible pro-Copenhagen crowd bring their cash to Canada. We can offset an awful lot of world-wide carbon debt. (… and, by the way, I do know that Kyoto, now Copenhagen, has all but created a “law” to prevent $$$$$ from flowing to already rich countries like Canada. BUT WHY? Isn’t the whole idea to reduce CO2. Doesn’t it all make you want to barf?)

you’re trolling got me to waste a lot of time in the AP review thread.

You are no different than any of the other clueless trolls here.

double post edit….

The US should lead by example

and what on Earth is Australia doing to put out over 20 metric tons per person? They lead the world. What is it - Coal burning parties for fun or what?

Interesting Fact

US CO2 emissions 19.5 metric tonnes per person
Canada 16.6

Lets see if the US can get down to Canadian levels while Obama is still in office. I have doubts.

The plan sets mandatory targets for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions intensity for major industries that produce greenhouse gases, such as:

* electricity produced by combustion
* oil and gas
* forest products
* smelting and refining
* iron and steel
* cement, lime, and chemicals production
* some mining sectors
The Conservative government’s commitment is to reduce national absolute greenhouse gas emissions by 20% from 2006 levels by 2020.

My old college buddy Jim Prentice has hitched his political wagon to dieing ponies. He has always wanted to be PM and we told him that if they established a sincerely green policy they would be in power for the foreseeable future. Rather, he has accepted the denial assignment given by his so called leader and he’ll be lucky if his ponies get his wagon home. How likely does it seem that the whole rest of the world is wrong and only Jim, Stephen, Inhofe and Saudi are right? Canada is a shame to the world for sending these guys to chart the planet’s future.

The World, filled as it with all the progressive types can make their deal. Canada can opt out to start and it won’t matter a bit.

Then, under some international pressure(being left away from the trade table etc.), they can sign on.

Canada is not an acceptable excuse.

The fact is Australia and the US lead Canada in CO2 emission per capita.

Let the world make it’s deal. Let the US and Australia drop their numbers to European levels. Canada will come along. We always do.

The world does not need Canada like the world does not need leadership. We are in a position to set the course for hundreds and maybe thousands of years and yet we are “ok” with just lagging along later? Like I said, a shame.

I hate this business of Harper and Prentice sitting around waiting to hear what the US would do. We could be far ahead of the US if we had leaders with the guts to lead.

So, please explain in detail what lifestyle changes we must have forced on us. How much will it cost? How much are you willing to pay?

Let’s see some guts on your side to show us what we all have to give up.

Haven’t you heard? It’s all going to be free and easy. We’ll just barely notice as the non fossil fuel economy takes over. It will take a week to 10 days and the lights may flicker a bit, but them everything will be cool.

In all seriousness, no one dares to talk about the loss of the good life.

Let’s start with giving up trumpeting Christian values. How much are you willing to take though it floods out millions in 3rd world delta areas? Though it causes turf wars throughout Africa and Asia? Though it leaves our planet a shit hole compared to the way it came to us? How about giving up being a smart Alec faith based denier of fact? Or how about admitting that you really don’t give a shit? Period. How much did people have to give up to end slavery? How much did people have to give up to keep slaves? Why is “what you have to give up” the final analysis? What if you have to give up being a selfish thoughtless bonehead? What if you have to give up imagining you are smart for no better reason than you wish you were?

Interesting, why just Christians? Rather bigotted to single out just Christians. BTW, I’m an atheist.

Interesting you did not answer my question, just tried to throw guilt my way. Won’t work.

My FIRST PRIORITY is my immediate family. I want to know what you expect us to give up to help those in other countries. Let me ask you, are you willing to give up the lifestyle of your own family with this guilt trip to help people you don’t even know? Interesting. Don’t presuppose we all think that way. Family FIRST!

You also have to PROVE the perils in those countries.

But answer the GD question. Specifically what do you expect us to give up? I want to know because we have peiple in Canada who are employed providing those things you wish us to give up, hence they will be out of work. How many people are you willing to throw out of work?

BTW, reality check. Doesn’t matter what we give up, problems will continue to exist everywhere. Let’s face it, all you really want is to make everyone in Canada poor, as poor as everyone you think you want to help.

They are all your immediate family. There is a difference between somebody who professes atheism and another who just doesn’t give a shit. I think the “my immediate family” line indicates the latter. Lot’s of people who just don’t give a shit have tried to hide behind “atheism.” What you give up by taking this posture is your reputation. Because you show yourself to be either ignorant or a liar. Happy Holidays.

cosmetic dentistrygroup