Dion's "Green Shift" officially dead
Michael Ignatieff has announced that the Liberal's "Green Shift" Carbon Tax scheme, Stephane Dion's (err, wasn't it Iffy's idea in the first place?) electoral albatros, has now been offically "deep sixed".
(or, electorally speaking, I guess you could say it's been "Deep Twenty-Sixed"... as in 26%, their final numbers from the 2008 election)
It's a real irony though, that the Liberals are announcing a greater and more firm commitment to the Kyoto protocol this week of all weeks. With "Climategate" in full swing, due to the monumental e-mail leak that occured from some of the purpotrators in the climate change fraud, and calls for investigations and resignations in the US, Britain, the EU Parliament and New Zealand.
I mean, even CNN is finally starting to pay attention... and it only took them five days.
Lots of video on Sort of Political.
An INSANELY through summary of some damaging items contained within the leaked e-mails here at Bishop Hill in the UK.
And one final link to , who's posted the most damaging stuff so far from within the e-mail stream... discussions directly related to the intention to delete data should a FOI request be submitted by Drs. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. Interestingly enough, when such a request WAS eventually submitted, what did they say? "Oops, looks like we don't have the data anymore." I'm thinking a lawsuit and jailtime would be approriate for those guys at the CRU...
(or, electorally speaking, I guess you could say it's been "Deep Twenty-Sixed"... as in 26%, their final numbers from the 2008 election)
It's a real irony though, that the Liberals are announcing a greater and more firm commitment to the Kyoto protocol this week of all weeks. With "Climategate" in full swing, due to the monumental e-mail leak that occured from some of the purpotrators in the climate change fraud, and calls for investigations and resignations in the US, Britain, the EU Parliament and New Zealand.
I mean, even CNN is finally starting to pay attention... and it only took them five days.
Lots of video on Sort of Political.
An INSANELY through summary of some damaging items contained within the leaked e-mails here at Bishop Hill in the UK.
And one final link to , who's posted the most damaging stuff so far from within the e-mail stream... discussions directly related to the intention to delete data should a FOI request be submitted by Drs. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. Interestingly enough, when such a request WAS eventually submitted, what did they say? "Oops, looks like we don't have the data anymore." I'm thinking a lawsuit and jailtime would be approriate for those guys at the CRU...
Labels: Carbon Tax, Dion, iffy, Liberals
posted by Christian Conservative @ 2:08 p.m.
4 Comments:
At Thu Nov 26, 02:37:00 p.m. EST,
Jen said…
I wouldn't say so!!! the same for the Coalition. both are alive just put in the cabinet until they are ready to be use and implement.
Just like the corruption.
At Thu Nov 26, 10:46:00 p.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
I remember a Liberal leader saying he was against wage-and-price controls before he instituted wage-and-price controls.
At Thu Nov 26, 11:38:00 p.m. EST,
James Curran said…
Doesn't albatross have two esses?
At Fri Nov 27, 05:41:00 a.m. EST,
Rob said…
While I don't know the particulars of the Carbon Tax, this whole email thing is just another dirty tactic that forces scientists to use dirty tactics in turn.
This is how (IMO) we came to this:
- Originally scientists had no reason to push any 'agenda', man-made climate change or not. They noticed that evidence was pointing towards climate change, and hypothesized how a greenhouse effect might do this (as observed on Venus for instance).
- Evidence mounted, and more scientists became convinced.
- More evidence mounted and more scientists became convinced.
- Like any scientific endeavour there were some holdouts because a) they were stubborn and could not handle such a paradigm shift, b) they didn't understand the analysis of the data, and therefore didn't believe it, c) they had a vested interest thanks to corporate funding, etc. or d) they had genuine concerns about the methodology. Note that these remained in the minority.
- The press (either because they are misguided or corporate backed) decided to give the holdouts "an equal voice", even though (particularly in science where it means a lot) the weight of the majority isn't significantly stressed.
- Political spokespersons, who are much better orators and are significantly more charismatic take up the cause from both sides.
- (aside) Something such as climate change is rather complex. Models are bound to be wrong to some extent. A certain region might experience cooling even though the total trend for the earth is warming. Change might happen quickly for a while and then slow down slightly or even reverse for a while, then speed up again. The result is that single datasets can be easily taken out of context and misconstrued.
- Scientists, noticing how easily they are being manipulated, get there backs up. Most stay honest, while some others employ questionable tactics to combat the tactics of the media/blogosphere.
- Emails from a particular scientist are published (actually, only the 'bad' ones), some taken out of context, others look bad without a good understanding as to how academia works, others (admittedly) damning.
While I admit they may have done some dishonest stuff, this is being blown way out of proportion, and it (IMO) certainly does not take away from the case for man-made climate change.
The way I see it, there is certainly a lot more money/reason for the skeptics to have an agenda than a large group of scientists. Yes, some have the pride of being wrong, but typically scientists have the ability to overcome that (that is what science is about, after all).
Finally, these were emails meant for certain eyes only. I'm sure I could find emails that I could take out of context to make people within the CPC or your EDA look bad.
This is a good article that puts things into perspective:
http://www.thestar.com/business/cleanbreak/article/729339--hamilton-why-media-tell-climate-story-poorly
Post a Comment
<< Home