63

Stephen Harper’s not-so-smooth re-elections

Want the truth? You’ll have to wait. Paul Wells on broken promises to come in the election lead-up


 
Fred Thornhill/Reuters

Fred Thornhill/Reuters

Listen to Paul Wells read his column, or subscribe to Maclean’s Voices on iTunes or Stitcher for on-the-go listening:

Some governments coast smoothly to re-election. Stephen Harper’s has never been one of those. Before the 2008 and 2011 elections, the Conservatives developed an alarming rattle in their machinery. Bits of ethical and managerial debris fell off as they taxied toward the runway.

In 2008 Harper abandoned the spirit of his fixed-election-date legislation and blithely disregarded global economic turmoil. “Our election platform is not full of grandiose, costly promises,” Harper wrote in an op-ed the Toronto Star published on the day of the 2008 election. The very day. “It’s a prudent approach. We can afford it. We’ll never go back into deficit.” He won the election. Weeks later he was running really big deficits.

In 2011 the opposition parties found the Conservatives in contempt of Parliament for refusing to reveal information about the costs of the F-35 program. Harper campaigned on wounded pride at the effrontery of his foes, won the election, admitted the costs of the F-35 were a horror show, scrapped the purchase, started over from zero, and will announce the new choice for a next-generation fighter purchase . . . well, maybe after the next election.

It’s getting to the point where half the fun of re-electing the Conservatives is watching them admit truths they steadfastly denied before the election. Admittedly, some voters may prefer other sources for their fun.

This year the pre-election crashing and banging includes a few paragraphs in the budget implementation bill that are designed to make things legal, in the past, that were illegal when they happened. The RCMP destroyed records from the long-gun registry after a citizen asked for the records under the Access to Information Act. The citizen had a right to the records. The information commissioner wrote to the government and warned it of its legal obligation not to destroy the records. The RCMP destroyed the records. That was against the law. Now the government wants to change the law. Not for the future, but for the past. And it’s tucked this bit of time travel into a budget bill.

One suspects—one is pretty sure—the Supreme Court, composed mostly of Harper appointees, will make short work of this nonsense, sometime after the next election.

There’s more. On a Friday afternoon (the quasi-official moment in the week reserved for things the government hopes you won’t notice), Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq revealed Canada’s new carbon emission targets for 2030. Having to update these targets every few years is an unfortunate byproduct of the Conservatives’ longevity in office. In 2009 at the Copenhagen climate summit, the Conservatives promised a 17 per cent reduction from 2005 levels by 2020. Now they’re promising a 30 per cent cut from 2005 levels by 2030.

And how’s it going? “In 2012, we concluded that the federal regulatory approach was unlikely to meet the 2020 Copenhagen target,” Julie Gelfand, the federal government’s own commissioner of the environment, wrote last autumn. “Two years later, the evidence is stronger that the target will be missed.” The Harper government did not contest her findings.

Canada will miss the target Harper set for 2020 by a mile. Now it is setting more ambitious targets for 2030. How ambitious? Simon Donner at the University of British Columbia says that cutting transport emissions by half, freezing growth in the oil sands, eliminating coal power and halting all new building construction would, together, still not be enough to meet the target.

In other words, you can’t get there from here. I’m not sure who the target voter for Harper’s new emissions targets could be. Environmentalists know his latest targets are worth no more than his last, and that he will not lift a finger to meet them. People who think the very notion of climate change is a socialist fraud might wish for a prime minister who would say out loud that he agrees with them. This Prime Minister, who vaunts his straight talk on other issues, has none to offer on this issue. Maybe there’s a niche market in voters who care passionately about the environment but will believe anything the government tells them. Won’t they be surprised after the election!


 

Stephen Harper’s not-so-smooth re-elections

  1. To avoid scrutiny and consequences in orchestrating an illegal action, a government sneaks into a budget bill an attempt to quietly make something legal–back-datedly legal–that was illegal at the time the action was committed.

    This, is Canada. In Canada.

    And having occurred in a first world, developed, democratic country like Canada, the mass outrage and response was—prepare to be underwhelmed—a paragraph in one column, and I think one other guy from the Post tweeted something about it.

    In case everyone was waiting to be told when to really be upset about something a government did, this is that time.

    • It has been getting some coverage here and there. The comments for every story I’ve seen have been the same – not outrage that a government would try something like this, but outrage from gun nuts that someone might possibly get their hands on LGR data.

      And when the odd commenter tries to make them see the bigger picture, they are either too self-interested or just too stupid to get it.

      No wonder voter turnout is so low; Canadians simply aren’t smart enough to find their way to the voting booth. I despair the fate of our country.

      • As proof, see JamesHalifax’s comment below.

        • KeithBram revealed:
          “And when the odd commenter tries to make them see the bigger picture, they are either too self-interested or just too stupid to get it.”

          Which is not a surprising comment coming from Keith; who believes anyone with a different opionion than that of his own, is somehow lacking in intellect. Keith does not understand how ANYONE could disagree with him because…well, because he’s KeithBram !!!…and you’re not.

          And again, Keith proves the accuracy of my comment above, with his comment below:

          “No wonder voter turnout is so low; Canadians simply aren’t smart enough to find their way to the voting booth. I despair the fate of our country.”

          Oh Keith….not everyone was blessed with your imperial, er, I mean superior morals or intellect. I’m afraid you’ll just have to share the country with the rest of us pions and simply be satisfied that you are better than the rest of us.

          Bu I am sure you already knew that.

        • Cheer up! The NDP are going to running Alberta and one of their MLA candidates has been revealed to be a homophobe among other interesting issues but don’t worry. Rachel Notley is no scary Danielle Smith (Wild Rose). She suspended that woman …for a year… Yes, the homophobic MLA will sit as a independent and work on educating women about violence. Those other parties they aren’t scary. They always do everything right. Oh and Rachel Notley sent a request for a donation of $5.00 to $2,500.00 to her inauguration. So really, she isn’t anything like the Harper Cons…..(insert sarcasm).

    • If they can get away with this, who knows what they’ll try next. I know it sounds crazy, but what if they, after having been caught cheating three elections in a row, removed most of the power from the Chief Electoral Officer in an Orwellian bill titled “The Fair Elections Act”? Oh wait…

  2. I would be more upset if the RCMP had provided gun registry to any tom dick or harry who asked for it. I’m glad it was destroyed…may it never again rear its ugly and useless head. If it ticks some people off…so what. Unless every person whos data was on the registry agrees to its dissemination, then NO ONE has the right to see it. When gun owners submitted their data, it was with the understanding that it would be used to prevent crime (useless premise in itself). One of the main concerns of gun owners, is that their personal inofrmation would end up in the wrong hands….and as we can see, they were right about that too. We’ve already seen cases where gun owners in the United states were targetted by anti-gun groups. Some in the American media, even provided addresses and names of gun owners in the newspapers. Not sure that would go over well here in Canada any more than it did in the USA.

    As for the “climate change” policy….pffttt….

    I’m one of those who wish Harper would just admit that man-made global warning is a fraud on a stellar scale. He was right those many years ago when he claimed it was just a money-grubbing scheme for politicians and beuarocrats to line their own pockets, and have a pool of money available to spread the wealth for their own ideological projects around the globe. The whole thing is a scam….and every place a carbon trading (costing) scheme has been put in place, fraud on a massive scale (in the BILLIONS in Germany alone) has occurred.

    Does no one remember who the greatest propoments (and creaters of the scheme) of carbon credits were? No…..here’s a reminder.

    it was the folks at the former organization known as ENRON. And unless you’ve been in a coma for the last 15 years (or a Liberal) you should know what they did.

    remember that.

    • If I may respectfully say so: you’re an idiot.

      Access to FOI should be sacrosanct in an open democracy. Backdating laws? You’re ok with that? Really???

      As to your belief that “man made global warming is a fraud on a stellar scale”, you are entitled to parrot the unbiased views of the Koch brothers. I’m guessing they’re buying you rounds because you do prattle on like a drunk.

      • Who are you getting your money from Komarade Daman, George Soros???

      • Daman,

        Access to information was meant to keep an eye on GOVERNMENT activities, NOT the activities of Canadians who happen to own firearms. And yes, I am perfectly OK with the RCMP destroying the records which should have been destroyed earlier than the bill you mention. The only reason the law was ‘backdated” was to account for the process being dragged out for years by the courts and the anti-gun/anti-Conservative nutbars.

        As for global warming……sorry, I don’t know the Koch brothers, but I do believe they are Americans, and not really involved in Canadian politics.

        By the way….tell me why we should believe in Global warming? Where is the evidence? And by evidence, I mean actual PROOF that the earth is getting warmer due to humankind.

        Clearly, you are pefectly fine with the concept of agreeing with people who have been wrong 100% of the time. After all, NOT A SINGLE PREDICTION, or computer model has been correct. You are aware of this correct?
        Daman, how many times does someone have to predict something incorrectly before you finally start to think that perhaps you have been fed a line of BS? How many predictions that do not pan out do you have to see before you begin to think that perhaps you need to reconsider?

        Obviously, you think a 100% failure rate is just a glitch. The climate has always changed, and the climate always WILL change. The levels of CO2 today, are just a fraction of what they were in in the past, and yet, now we have the usual suspects screaming hysterically that we are all doomed….UNLESS WE DO EXACTLY AS WE ARE TOLD WE MUST DO….to save the planet.

        Sorry, Daman…I’ve seen this play out before, and guess what? Every other one of these so called “scientists” have been proven frauds, or simply idiots. Do you remember, “The population bomb” ….”The end of oil”….or the predictions in the 1970’s that we were in a new ice age?

        Wake up Daman…….follow the money, or follow the dogma. There are a LOT of folks making a ton of cash by scaring folks like you into believing we are doomed, and there are many more who simply don’t want ANY development of resources because frankly, they just think there are too many people on the planet.

        choose one or the other, and you will still choose incorrectly.

        If you want to know what causes climate change…..look up at that big ball of burning hydrogen in the sky. That is your climate control device.

        Now excuse me, I have some Glennfiddich to attend to. Frankly, if the screed of yours is any indication, I would bet I think more clearly drunk, than do you sober.

        • When you say, “PROOF” you really mean ‘evidence’ because you’re not a pig-ignorant dimwit who’s unaware that science deals in evidence and probabilities, not “PROOF”, correct?

          But indeed it is certainly true that atmospheric Co2 levels where much higher millions of years in the past when dinosaurs roamed the earth and the sun’s output was significantly weaker.

          ” Do you remember, “The population bomb” ….”The end of oil”….or the predictions in the 1970’s that we were in a new ice age? ”
          Oddly, I don’t remember a scientific consensus embracing any of these positions. Perhaps you can provide a link to the literature?

          And just a minor criticism – you’re reference to ‘100% wrong’ could be interpreted to be directed at climate science and models (which have largely been correct) rather than kooks and deniers that I assume are your target.

          • Tresus wrote:
            “When you say, “PROOF” you really mean ‘evidence’ because you’re not a pig-ignorant dimwit who’s unaware that science deals in evidence and probabilities, not “PROOF”, correct?”

            Actually, I’m looking for evidence that PROVES (a proof) the climate models have been correct. You have not provided it, so I am assuming that just because YOU believe in what someone else is telling you, you arent’ really looking for an answer, as you are relying on someone else to provide it for you. No sweat….no everyone is cut out for thinking on their own, or asking the difficult questions. Whatever floats your boat.

            You go on….
            “But indeed it is certainly true that atmospheric Co2 levels where much higher millions of years in the past when dinosaurs roamed the earth and the sun’s output was significantly weaker.”

            And what kind of SUV’s were the dinosaurs driving? how did they heat their homes? Why was the CO2 level higher than today? (of course, the CO2 levels have varied; even long after the dinosaurs were gone…but I digress. Also, the sun’s activity is always changing as well; hence, my “climate control” device comment above. But at least you alluded to it; though you failed to recognize it. You get a “D” for almost understanding it, though your failure to recognize it doesn’t say much about your critical thinking abilities. Still….at least it’s not a fail.

            More of your genius is on display here:

            “Do you remember, “The population bomb” ….”The end of oil”….or the predictions in the 1970’s that we were in a new ice age? ”
            Oddly, I don’t remember a scientific consensus embracing any of these positions. Perhaps you can provide a link to the literature?”

            First…try google. It is not my job to do your thinking for you. At least pretend you are going to make an effort to understand the topic.
            Secondly…..you write of a scientific consensus. But there is no consensus on man-made climate change either. This is the point. You read somewhere that there is a “consensus” but this is simply not true. There are literally THOUSANDS of real scientists who aren’t buying into the narrative; and yet, you easily disregard them because they don’t have a seat on the same bandwagon you find so comfortable (and easy). Oh well…being popular has always been more important than being right to some folks. Welcome to Club Kardashian.

            Finally:

            “And just a minor criticism – you’re reference to ‘100% wrong’ could be interpreted to be directed at climate science and models (which have largely been correct) rather than kooks and deniers that I assume are your target.”

            Show me EVEN ONE climate model that provides real evidence that humans are causing climate change? And don’t simply send a link to the “hockey stick” of Mann, or a you tube of Al Gore. I’m sure you have them saved on your favourites, right alongside your 9/11 Truther sites, but I want you to point to something that is truly undeniable. You won’t be able to do it, but it would be interesting to see if you make the effort. Oh…and you can look at the link in my other comment if you wish…though again, it may beyond the scope of this comments page as again, it would involve some type of effort on your part; so I won’t hold my breath.

            As for Kooks and deniers…hmmm…..on the contrary. My comments are directed to those who DON’T ask the questions. My comment are directed to those who DON’T make the effort to seek their own answers, but rely on someone else to provide them. My comments are directed to those folks who simply believe anything they hear because they heard them from someone with a PHD, or who work at a university.

            Tresus, it is clear that you will not make ANY effort to ask the hard questions, or demand proof (or evidence, if you prefer). It is equally clear, that you have done NO RESEARCH, or asked any questions about the issue. You are not interested in asking ANY questions. You will not make any effort to see if what you actually believe is true or not, as doing so may find you discovering something that goes against the narrative you have formed in your own mind (compliments of those who think for you), as doing so would mean you have to start over again.

            And that takes too much effort doesn’t it?

          • ” PROVES”

            Uhhhhh, no. In the time that has elapsed since the comment you’re responding to science deals in evidence and probability, not “PROOF”.

            “Why was the CO2 level higher than today?”
            Because trillions of tonnes of it hadn’t yet be sequestered by the biological and geological processes that give us such things as oil, natural gas, limestone, peat, etc.
            Seriously, you don’t know this?

          • Tresus wrote:
            “PROVES”

            Uhhhhh, no. In the time that has elapsed since the comment you’re responding to science deals in evidence and probability, not “PROOF”.

            Seriously? You don’t require any PROOF (something that PROVES) that global warming is real? You just want to take someone’s word for it? You would make a terrible lawyer. Who needs PROOF….I’ll just take the prosecutors word for it.

            You go on:

            ““Why was the CO2 level higher than today?”
            Because trillions of tonnes of it hadn’t yet be sequestered by the biological and geological processes that give us such things as oil, natural gas, limestone, peat, etc.
            Seriously, you don’t know this?”

            You are assuming that the biomass of the past was greater than it is today. Let’s assume you are correct. What does that mean about the impact of increased CO2?
            You probably don’t realize it…but you just shot yourself in the foot. If CO2 is a “pollutant” as many would have you believe, then I say bring it on. If the harm this “pollutant” brings to the planet results in a planet teeming with life, then I guess we shouldn’t be as worried as the climate alarmists want us to be.

            In fact, recent studies have shown that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere has actually resulted in the “greening” of much of the planet that was previously arid and barren. Guess we shouldn’t have been worried after all eh?

            Thanks for walking into that. I wasn’t sure you would respond in the way you did (which I was hoping you would do)…..but I’m glad you did.

            You’ve just refuted your own argument.

            Now you look a fool. (but I’m sure you still won’t see why)

          • Poor fellow, a day later science still deals in probability and evidence, not “PROOF”, which has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘taking someone’s word for something’.

            Having demonstrated in your last comment that your understanding of the basics is so lacking that have no idea why atmospheric Co2 levels are lower than tens of millions of years in the past, you simply jump to your next dumb assumption(Venus must have a huge biomass!), and from there to a further dumb assumption(more Co2 for flora and fauna tens of millions of years ago = more Co2 good for entirely different flora and fauna evolved for different conditions tens of millions of years later!)

          • Tresus, there is no life on Venus. We are discussing the life on Earth, and the mistaken belief that humans are causing the rise in CO2.

            the very fact you have not been able to provide a shred of evidence (also a proof..which for some reason you cannot comprehend) that human are causing global warming is all the PROOF I need to justify my assertion that you are simply a lemming who spouts off what someone else tells him to think.

            As I wrote intitally, NOT A SINGLE PREDICTION fo the global warming crowd has come to pass, and yet you still insist that someone should take what the climate alarmists are saying seriously.

            As for your mistaken assertion about the different kinds of flora and fauna evolving from ages past…….you again shoot yourself in the foot, and again will probably not realize it.

            Plants still “breathe” carbon dioxide, (except fungi, which breath oxygen and expel CO2) and expel Oxygen. Animals still breath oxygen, and expel carbon dioxide.

            Your deflection may work on the intellectually weak, but most on here will see that you are a member of the “doublethink” crowd. You hold two conflicting beliefs, and since you cannot explain one from the other, you assume they must both be correct.

            Quite a feat. You must be an NDP’er.

            Keep trying though….it is most amusing watching you tie yourself up in contradiction and deflection.

            You have been unable to refute anything I have written, whereas I have picked your weak argments apart and shown their intellectual weakness.

            You’re welcome.

          • So human’s aren’t responsible for the increase in atmospheric Co2?
            Hahahaha!
            That claim is definitely missing from the scientific literature. I suggest you get to work adding it!
            I’m sorry but there’s no evidence required to ‘refute’ claims that are made without supporting evidence.

            “Plants still “breathe” carbon dioxide, (except fungi, which breath oxygen and expel CO2) and expel Oxygen. Animals still breath oxygen, and expel carbon dioxide. ”

            Brilliant observation, professor.

          • Tresus,

            I should have clarified. Human are not the SOLE contributer to the rise in CO2, as I’m sure much of it is perfectly natural. Aside from that however, please go over your posts and note that you have been unable to actually refute any of my arguments. You try to deflect (rather amatueurishly) to hide the weakness of your counter-argument, but you have failed miserably.

            Point to ONE (just ONE) prediction or computer model that conclusively proves (and here’s where you will try to deflect with your confused intepretation of evidence vs. Proof) that human beings are causing global warming. You won’t be able to do it; because they don’t exist. They don’t exist, because the models have all been wrong. 100% of them.

            Frankly Tresus…given the intellectual heft of your arguments, you may want to change your nickname to Rhesus.

            Go have a banana.

          • No, it’s only humans. It’s well documented in the literature and only the nuttiest deniers in the darkest corners of claim otherwise. Cite the literature if you want to claim otherwise.
            And no, checking my watch, science still doesn’t deal in PROOF. But maybe if you wish really hard tomorrow science will have PROOF that smoking causes cancer or that the surface of the earth is covered in tectonic plates floating on the asthenosphere.
            Your claim about climate scientists being ” wrong 100% of the time” is so laughable as to be hardly worth addressing.
            http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n9/full/nclimate2310.html

          • Really, Rhesus?

            That’s all you got? I’ve obviously wasted my time trying to get you to think for yourself. I’ve explained that people are being sold a bill of goods on the “global warming” scaremongering, and that many faux scientists are so invested in the global warming fraud that they are twisting themselves in knots trying to explain why the computer models predicting catastrophic climate change have been wrong 100% of the time.

            And what do you do? You provide a link to exactly what I was criticizing, and expecting me to consider that as proof of your argument. (yes, tresus…proof of your argument, not evidence)

            I have been trying to get you to think for YOURSELF…..and you fall back to the comfortable and predictable action of providing someone else’s views because you lack the capacity to have your own.

            Please note, the article you provided was exactly what I was writing about. The scientists in your article were defending the fact that the computer models are weak. Similar to the many other arguments where these folks try to explain why they have been wrong so consistently.

            When reports came out showing that the earth wasn’t warming in accordance with the computer models, what did these “scientists” do? Well…they tried to explain away their miscalcuations by creating more faulty science. Earth not getting warmer? Hmm….Well, that’s because the oceans are absorbing the extra heat, and boy…let me tell you, once that happens…we’re all DOOMED (again) unless we do something right now……AND HERE’s WHAT WE NEED TO DO ..according to the scientists.

            Of course, another group of scientists (real ones) actually took the time to measure the temperatures in the various layers of the ocean and found that the missing heat….was no where to be found.

            To counteract this new finding, the usual suspects (climate alarmist frauds you take to heart) tried to explain it away as an anomoly. Hmm..maybe the clouds have something to do with it……maybe the missing heat is somewhere else…maybe…maybe…maybe……

            Perhaps you should contact these folks Tresus, and tell them about the protocols for evidence. (Don’t worry about PROOF…they certainly share your views there).

            Another claim: “Glaciers are all melting due to global warming….the ice shields are disappearing, the oceans will rise…WE”RE ALL DOOMED>……

            Of course, the truth is that glaciers ALWAYS melt. That is what glaciers are SUPPOSED to do. they are the remnants of the last ice age, and until we go through the next ice age….that is just what they will continue to do.

            Oh…and the ice sheets in the Arctic and Antarctica are at record levels. Hmm….maybe all that heat is trapped in the ice?

            Wait a minute…that doesn’t make sense does it? Oh well, Tresus, I’m sure you would believe it if a real scientist told you that.

            It is easier that way.

            Go have another banana.

            By the way…..your idea that ONLY humans create CO2, is so ridiculous…that ONLY YOU could come up with it.

          • “Please note, the article you provided was exactly what I was writing about. ”

            It’s not an ‘article’, it’s a peer-reviewed published paper which analyses data and evidence, and provides it’s methodology for doing so – none of which you’re able to dispute.

            But I get it, you don’t want science, you want to have your ‘view’, free of such inconveniences as evidence and data.
            Not sure why you wasted the time adding a bunch of other stuff you made up and for which you provide no evidence or substantiation for, but which apparently comprises your ‘view’.
            Maybe it’s your ‘view’ that others will ignore evidence and facts and instead embrace jameshalifax’s view on faith?
            You might want to start with smaller lies of you wish to convert people to your ‘view’.
            It only takes seconds for even the most benighted to find out that laughers like, “ice sheets in the Arctic and Antarctica are at record levels” are complete fabrications.

          • Tresus wrote:
            “It’s not an ‘article’, it’s a peer-reviewed published paper which analyses data and evidence, and provides it’s methodology for doing so – none of which you’re able to dispute”

            Every other paper published claiming the world is going through catastrophic climate change due to human beings……was also peer-reviewed. But here’s the catch. Only those of a like mind, are allowed to review the papers before they are published. Actual scientists who believe in factual data, and who have found multiple errors and outright fabrications, are not alllowed to publish their work, or their rebuttals to anyone else’s work….if it goes against the narrative of the climate alarmists.

            Again….you are relying on a sole (and biased) source for your argument. Doesn’t make for a very strong argument.

            You go on…

            “But I get it, you don’t want science, you want to have your ‘view’, free of such inconveniences as evidence and data.”

            Actually, Tresus….I want MORE science. You only pick and choose what “science” you want to believe in, and you ignore the science that disproves what you already believe. But again…..having to think for yourself isn’t for everyone. And research takes time.

            More from you…

            “Not sure why you wasted the time adding a bunch of other stuff you made up and for which you provide no evidence or substantiation for, but which apparently comprises your ‘view“

            Tresus, again you prove my assertion that you are basically too lazy, and frankly, incurious to make the effort to actually understand what you are debating.

            “wasted the time adding a bunch of other stuff `

            Tresus, it is the OTHER STUFF…..that you need to investigate. You need to hear both sides of the story, and consider it carefully. You need to make your own observations, and come to your own conclusions based on what you discover. If these same “climate scientists`who claim the earth is going to be a burning cinder unless we fork out Billions and do exactly as we are told……told you, that a coin flipped in the air will always come up HEADS….you would believe them. They could have a dozen other scientists who also believe that a coin flipped will always come up HEADS, peer review their findings, and that would be good enough for you.

            More genius:

            Maybe it’s your ‘view’ that others will ignore evidence and facts and instead embrace jameshalifax’s view on faith?“

            No, Tresus, it is my view that one should not believe what you are being told; particularly when those doing the `telling`have an agenda, and have yet to provide any evidence that their dire predictions are correct. To date, they have been wrong 100% of the time. I don`t see why you can`t seem to fathom the implications of that. How many times does someone have to say something that doesn`t come to pass before you begin to question what you are being told.

            Finally:
            “It only takes seconds for even the most benighted to find out that laughers like, “ice sheets in the Arctic and Antarctica are at record levels” are complete fabrications`

            Try this:

            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html

            Now go have another banana

      • Yes, Daman the US is doing so much better reaching their emission targets. Why? Because they have way more coal-fired electrical plants to shut down than we do. But they aren’t going to stop mining that coal. Oh no, Obama, along with our own BC (you know the province with the carbon tax) are shipping record amounts of coal to China to burn. Meanwhile the people in Beijing can’t see across the street due to pollution but Obama’s carbon emission’s numbers look good because someone else is burning his dirty coal. Never mind that the US has its own tarsands and now Obama is going to start digging for oil in the Arctic. Germany is digging for coal in ancient villages. No one is doing a fantastic job at cutting emissions. They all keep pointing the finger at each other. As for the gun registry, Quebec kept their records for years after it was shut down and made a big deal about refusing to destroy them.

    • Uh, no. Emissions trading was invented long before it was applied to carbon, and was first used to successfully reduce acid rain.
      But I did find your ‘capitalist conspiracy’ to be a refreshing departure from the boring old ‘socialist conspiracy’ we’re used to.

      • Tresus,

        You fail to note the obvious difference in your analogy. Acid rain was real, and was founded on evidence based upon scientific analysis of the water. We could SEE what was happening, and we could measure it.

        Evidence of Global warming caused by human beings has NOT been observed, and is not backed up by factual evidence. Every time the global warming alarmists releases another “study” or “report” providing “evidence” of global warming, some silly fellow comes along and shows it to be bogus. Just think if Michael Mann and his “hockey stick” graph that has been castigated and discredited by every reputable scientist in the world who actually maintains a belief in the scientific method as shown below.

        Scientific method:
        Step one: Observe…..
        step two: Make hypothesis….
        Step three: Test the hypothesis…

        If the experiment does not prove the hypothesis, go back to the beginning and start again.

        Unfortunately, what we see in today’s world of “climate scientists” is as follows:

        Step One….Make hypothesis…..
        Step Two…Seek funding from vaious organizations with an agenda…
        Step Three…….manipulate data and scue the numbers to fit the hypothesis….
        Step Four….collect cheques from those mentioned in Step Two…..
        Step Five…..Go to the lame-brained in the media and call those who disprove your hypothesis as “climate change deniers”…
        Step Six….as your entire reputation (and funding) is based on your hypothesis being true, you fight like hell to discredit real scientists following the real scientific method as described above.

        And that is where we stand now. All of these snake oil salesmen scientists rely upon the gullibility of folks like you Tresus, to do their fighting for them. What they can’t prove scientifically, they will prove through popular opinion. Facts be damned.

        So what do these “scientists” need to do now to salvage whatever hopes they have of not being shown to be the frauds they are? Easy…

        they need to start a group (let’s call it the IPCC) and gain acceptance by belonging to the UN. Then they have to ramp up the fear-mongering, put a phoney “climate change” plan in place….wait 20 years and then when the climate doesn’t change they can say, “See….our plan worked, we saved the planet from climate change”…

        and idiots like you will believe that the plan (like Kyoto, or Copenhagen) are reponsible for saving the world for our grandkids.

        Mission accomplished. Of course, the “deniers” are throwing a bug in the works, as are the Governments of some countries who want nothing to do with it. You can expect the hysteria to continue ramping up as these frauds like Mann really start to panic.

        • “Just think if Michael Mann and his “hockey stick” graph that has been castigated and discredited by every reputable scientist in the world who actually maintains a belief in the scientific method as shown below. ”

          I think you meant to say, “the “hockey stick” graph… that demonstrated the global rise in 20th century temperatures, a conclusion which was upheld be an investigation by the National Academy of Sciences and has also been confirmed by numerous other independent studies since, is know to be discredited by readers of the finest best kook blogs. “

          • While my other comments with links disproving your assertion that Mann’s “hockey stick” is still seen as valid, I will just point out that a simple google search of Michael mann’s credibility in the science world will tell you what I have already told you.

            Tresus……if you think Michael Mann is a respected member of the scientific community, you must also think that Barack Obama actually deserved his Nobel prize.

            The science world is full of scientists discrediting Mann and his faulty /fruadulaent practices. Just because you don’t want to hear about it doesn’t make it invalid.

          • Right!
            Cause when you want to know whether science is credible or not, it’s best you ignore the National Academy of Science, science journals and experts in the field, and just go with whatever you can find on some blog.

          • Tresus,

            The people who have fully discredited Michael mann include some very well known, and respected scientists and organizations. I don’t know if you are aware or not, but Mann is currently suing Mark Steyn, and steyn has a long list of very accomplished folks who will get on the stand and testify that the “hockey stick” is at the least, very shoddy “science”, and there is also going to be evidence introducted that Mann knowingly committed fraud in the scewing of data to meet his narrative.

            And may I point out (again) that you prefer to take the word of someone else, or some organization as opposed to making your own observations. I know critical thinking is hard for some folks….but you should at least give it a shot. After all, if the “national academy of Science” was alive and well 500 years ago, they would insist that the consensus was for a flat earth. And you would have been right there beside them in your jestors’ suit agreeing with them.

          • Hmmm…well, thank you for the 10 year old paper. You are aware by now that this is OLD NEWS (and thoroughly discredited almsot immediately after it was published….but again, I digress).

            and again, you prefer to have someone else do your thinking for you.

            Instead of searching for links that “prove” (you will need to find a thesaurus to find out what that word means) what you already believe…..try to find one that shows you are mistaken. Just as a lark….try and google something that goes against the narrative you believe. That is how you LEARN things.

            Granted…it isn’t always pleasant to find out you have been wrong, but based upon your comments to date, it would appear it is a common occurrence for you; though I’m sure you don’t realize it.

            You want a copy of my research? Well…it is rather extensive, and the links provided already are still awaiting moderation, so just google “Mann’s Hockey stick discredited”

            You will get both pro and con arguments, but please note the credentials (I know that’s a big thing for you) of those in the dissenters (known as DENIERS) column and you will see that at least some scientists actually still believe in the scientific method as it was meant to be.

            Good luck in your (won’t do it will you) Search.

            Here’s your banana……..good boy.

          • I’m really getting how this works – it’s your ‘view’ that the paper has been ‘discredited’ and your ‘view’ it’s something that requires evidence. You simply think it and it’s so!

            “try and google something that goes against the narrative you believe.”

            Sorry. The narrative I believe in is called “science”, so I’ll stick with experts and their published work.
            But hey, if you want to watch videos of mining geologists telling you what you want to hear, or read kook blogs and that provides comfort to you, there’s nothing stopping you from doing that.

      • “Actual scientists who believe in factual data, and who have found multiple errors and outright fabrications, are not alllowed to publish their work, or their rebuttals to anyone else’s work”

        No doubt the world’s science journals are all part of the conspiracy. No need to provide evidence – it’s your view is all the evidence we need.
        And while I appreciate that you get your science from ‘The Daily Mail’, I’m sure it’s no reflection on your expertise that you don’t no the difference between sea ice and ice sheets. Hahahahaha!

        BTW, here’s a graph showing the amazing increase in Arctic Ice that The Daily Mail reported.
        http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/1999/09/Figure3.png

        • And again,

          Rhesus provides a graph with fraudulent data provided by the alarmist caste, whereas I sent him a link with actual satellite photo’s showing him just how much ice is in the areas.

          Well…guess it’s easier for Tresus to believe what he is told, than to believe his own lying eyes.

          here’s your banana.

          • “Fraudlent data”

            You provided no data to back up your ‘ice sheets’ claim then you provided a link to a tabloid newspaper article which used the same data you just called ‘fraudulent’.
            Hahahaha!

          • Tresus,

            You call it a tabloid rag….but they did not take the photo’s of the ice caps…they published actual satellite photo’s.

            And again….you don’t want to believe your own eyes….but prefer to rely on others’ who have a long history of bias and data fraud.

            Congrats….you are one of the few folks I know who are truly capable of doublethink.

          • Let me repeat:
            The data you called ‘fraudulent’ is exactly the same data used in the article you linked to. The increase they’re touting is right there in graph I posted. They tabloid author didn’t ‘eye-ball’ the photos, he took the data from the National Snow and Ice Data Centre in the link above.
            That you still can’t understand your catastrophic failure is perfect, really.

  3. So it’s official Komarade Wells it seems to me your taking over the campaign from Butts???

    • Thank goodness that the Heartland Institute continues to do such rigorous science in an age when Marxist Ecofeminazis have infiltrated the world’s universities, research institutes, meteorological societies and science academies. Unfortunately the Marxist Ecofeminazis have also taken control of the world’s science journals and news media such that Heartland is forced to self-publish and rely on ‘dailycaller.com’ to get the message out.
      Not only that, but they’ve really gotten back to the ancient Greek roots of science by employing a fully accredited Philosopher to conduct their climate science.

    • Tresus you beat me to the Send button! Regardless:

      Classic. Because who would you rather believe? All of the world’s scientists, or H. Sterling Burnett, with no training in science and employed by a rightwing propaganda institute?

      Just for giggles, who does Burnett source for the technical analysis of scientific data? Markus Schar, who also has no education in science (he studied History and German), but feels sufficiently competent to state “About the dogmas of energy policy – nuclear power, climate change – you could argue endlessly, but not on their premises because they are simply wrong.”

      And Benny Peiser who – again – has no training in science (studied History and Anthropology) and is a Director with the Global Warming Policy Foundation (whose funding is not disclosed) and co-edits a piece of trash called Energy and the Environment, supported by all the usual deniers.

      Not a scientist in the lot, but we’re supposed to believe their analysis over that of actual peer-reviewed professionals.

      Climate change deniers are engaged in an historic global circle-jerk.

      • Tresus Capax, and TJCook….

        Reading the commentary of the two of you reminds me of the movie “Dumb and Dumber”…

        I propose a remake: We’ll include KeithBram and call the sequel, “Dumb and Dumber, and Dumbest”

        it’s going to be a hit.

        • Priceless. John G referenced a bullsh*t source, who himself referenced other bullsh”t sources.

          You didn’t even bother to defend those sources, but moved on and demanded I address *another* source who, according to you, is like way better.

          This is a style of argument I call “ADDRESS MY FACTOID!” rooted in the mistaken belief that those of us in the rational world have a duty to explain it to the rubes.

          Funny thing is, being proven wrong doesn’t affect you rubes. For you, the rabbit hole goes ever deeper and there’s always another impressive-sounding factoid that totally proves it. This time for reals amirite?

          The world is complicated. No one person can fully understand it. Grow up, accept your limitations. You could read the entire Internet and not be qualified to debate actual scientists.

          Heck, apply some skepticism to your own denial. Really scrutinize your sources and see if your beliefs can stand the scrutiny.

          Or just keep trolling online, calling people stupid because they’re not the awesome self-taught Internet climate scientist that you think you are. Maybe a circle-jerk is just what you’re looking for in life.

  4. Parliament has the power to pardon people. So what is the problem with pre-emptive pardons. It was illegal by one law to NOT destroy the data, and illegal by another law to destroy the data.

    The bureaucrats were not acting with any malicious intent So what is particularly wrong with pre-emptively pardoning them.

    The intent of Parliament was clear. It wanted the gun registry data destroyed.

    • You’ve lost it WSISYW. You can’t go back and change the law this way. If you allow it, you’ll see, for example, a certain political party breaking elections laws and outspending their opponents, then when re-elected simply rewriting the law to make their overspending legal.

      Or even going back to rewrite laws so that something their opponents did legally that they may not have thought of retroactively becomes illegal.

      Though given the party most likely to try this, you’re probably okay with that.

      Forget, for a moment, the specific issue of the LGR that sets your mouth to foaming, and try to see the bigger issue for once.

    • It was illegal by one law to NOT destroy the data, and illegal by another law to destroy the data.

      Except, at the time the records were actually destroyed, that first law that you’re talking about hadn’t actually been passed by Parliament yet.

      Here’s the timeline as I now understand it.

      1) Access to Information request is made for some gun registry data.
      2) Information Commissioner warns RCMP that an ATIP request has been made for the data.
      3) RCMP destroys the data.
      4) Parliament passes a bill calling for gun registry data to be destroyed.
      5) People start complaining that RCMP have already destroyed the data, despite an open ATIP request for it.
      6) Tories include a clause in the omnibus budget bill that purports to retroactively make the legislation that was passed after the data was destroyed apply to a point in time before the data was destroyed.

      Essentially, the RCMP acted in a way consistent with the way the Tories intended to have Parliament authorize them to act, but didn’t actually bother to wait for Parliament to authorize them to act this way. And now, the Tories are try to cover up the RCMP’s overstepping of Parliament by essentially saying “The RCMP did something illegal, but since the government had already told them that we intended to make it legal, we’re not going to fault them for NOT WAITING UNTIL IT WAS ACTUALLY LEGAL.” They’re literally plrioritizing what the government intends to have Parliament do above what Parliament actually does.

      • Hopefully this timeline can be corrected in future omnibus legislation.

      • You have no proof that a bunch of RCMP didn’t just jump the gun (pardon the pun) and shred the records prior to approval which was then forthcoming. For that people want to see these officers punished? Or is it that you believe that is a conspiracy whereby Stephen Harper manned the shredder himself and (add evil laugh) stood over it and shredded the records knowing he was breaking the rules because the law hadn’t yet passed? Guess what? Those records were on a computer and chances are the hard drive was not fully destroyed by the time the law passed even if the records were deleted. People are upset because permission was given to axe the registry but they didn’t have permission to shred the registry and they did it, even though they did get the permission and now there is a belief that heads must roll. Where is the common sense in all of this?

    • Correction: Parliament did not want the LGR destroyed; Stephen Harper wanted it destroyed, and so his party voted for it. To pretend that the members of the caucus have any power in the proudly-named Harper Government is an obscenity.

      • Well, since Stephen Harper’s party holds the majority of seats in Parliament…

        The more important point is that in the incident in question, the RCMP actually destroyed the records BEFORE the vote to have them destroyed was even held in Parliament.

        • “Well, since Stephen Harper’s party holds the majority of seats in Parliament…”

          Yeah, heck, why even go through the motions of a democracy? The Conservative Party can just sit around and decide what they want, which will immediately and automatically become law.

          If Chretien had pulled something like this, a young Stephen Harper would have (correctly) lost his mind.

          • Oh come off it. If the registry was voted out by the majority of the government, its days were numbered. Only Quebec got to keep its records. The other records were on a computer data bank. Someone obviously acted precipitously in erasing the records but the law was going to pass to erase them without a doubt so even if they don’t pass this retroactive legislation and pardon the error, what will the punishment be for premature erasure? This is a bureaucratic snafu, nothing more. A majority government was in power and wanted the records gone, it was a fait accompli. This is like when a nurse gives a medication and gets a covering order after the fact.

  5. Long gun registry … If we are talking about an DAIP access to information request it would have undergone severe severing. Depending on how the database was set up you would have to remove all personal information (names, addresses, contact information, and anything that could identify where this “equipment” is held). The information commissioner would have to remove all information of a confidential nature and anything that would jeapordise a “security of person”. The requester would get a lot of plank pages if the job was done right. Canadians would not have been endangered like American’s were. Also the requester’s $5 only buys so much search time and it may have cost him a bundle to get at best blank pages with a number count of hunting rifles in the country. “Nothing to see here folks … move along”.
    Climate change – The specialists would like you to believe it is manmade. It’s worth considering, especially in light of the fact that, somewhere in the world, the seven-billionth person was just born. In my lifetime, the human population has more than tripled. (I know I’m guilty of contributing to the boom.) But is overpopulation really the problem it’s being made out to be? And if so, what can we do about it?David suzuki was once asked how many people the planet could sustain indefinitely. He quoted a good friend of his … the great ecologist E.O. Wilson … responded, “If you want to live like North Americans, 200 million.” North Americans, Europeans, Japanese, and Australians, who make up 20 per cent of the world’s population, are consuming more than 80 per cent of the world’s resources. We are the major predators and despoilers of the planet, and so we blame the problem on overpopulation.
    … anyone know how we can get to 200 million people … Giving women more rights over their own bodies, providing equal opportunity for them to participate in society, and making education and contraception widely available, providing foreign aid only to countries openness contraception call it Woman’s Health – oh ya, the UN/USA foreign policy already does that. Demographic shows the “old world” is in decline … but I hope they fail.

  6. Paul, you ask us if we want the truth. I think, by now, most Canadians know where we will NOT hear the truth, and that is from the two-sided mouths of anyone in the “harper government”.

    Fool me once, etc……………..

  7. Mr. Wells, you fascinate me. You’ve written a column pointing out a few notable lies Mr. Harper has been caught in, and subtly chiding voters for continuing to fall for them. This after publishing a book that praises Harper’s Machiavellian leadership, and leading up to moderating a controversial election debate. Are you sensing Harper’s time is up and turning on him? Are you trying to establish that you can be neutral as a moderator? Did you fail to receive a Christmas card from him this year? You are a complicated dude.

    • I wouldn’t call say book “praises Harper’s Machiavellian leadership.” It simply points out the strategies and tactics he uses, with a little bit of what makes him tick. Instead of raging, Harper’s opponents need to figure out how to beat him, and the first step to beating him is understanding him.

      • Which has been Wells’ point all along me thinks.

  8. pretty thin gruel Inkless, especially since the Liberals were the architects of the F35 commitment and a it’s multimillion dollar investment along with some very serious international commitments to our Allies and many regard the climate change hysteria as over the top and what has smooth got to do with Harper ….it probably has more to do with your preferred brand of peanut butter than Canadian politics…

    • Correction: The liberals had agreed to participate in the research/development (to ensure Canadian firms would be eligible for those development contracts) but they had never committed to buying the F35s. Remember the Harper lies at the beginning when he and his Ministers kept saying that there was a contract and that’s what tied their hands. That was not true as demonstrated by the PBO and others. It was another one of those conservative lies.

Sign in to comment.