Behind that Prentice Wikileak -

Behind that Prentice Wikileak


Much like “Jurist”, I had to laugh at the headlines conjured up in the wake of the most interesting Wikileaks revelation so far concerning Canada. The Globe, summarizing the leaked minute of a private meeting between former Environment Minister Jim Prentice and U.S. Ambassador David Jacobson, says “[Prentice] threatened to impose new rules on oil sands”. Okayyy, but it’s not really a threat if you make it only in the presence of a third party, is it? We’ve all met fake tough guys who are full of stories about how they really told so-and-so off, but who are really just imagining what they would have said if their spine weren’t made of marmalade. Similarly, the CBC has it “Prentice was ready to curb oilsands”, mysteriously failing to add “…but he didn’t really get around to it, and then one day he just cleaned out his desk and left.”

The actual text of the cable suggests that Prentice’s underlying cynicism did not go unnoticed by its presumptive author—the Ambassador himself. Be honest, now: don’t you cringe a little at this part?

Minister Prentice was clearly making every effort to establish a connection with Ambassador Jacobson, outlining his respect for the Administration and his interest in President Obama’s “back story”, persona, and goals. …Prentice appeared keen to forge a personal relationship with Ambassador Jacobson—to the mutual benefit of both countries.

Obviously the whole point of such face-to-face meetings is to “establish personal connections”, but if your sister came back from a blind date with a report like this you’d say “Gawd, what a schmuck.” Minister Try-Too-Hard got careful about his language, however, when he and the ambassador came to grips with the actual tar-sands issue. At every turn in Jacobson’s account of the conversation, Prentice’s concern is with image, not environmental reality. Just imagine this paragraph without the bits in bold type:

During a discussion of the Ambassador’s travels, Prentice asked for his views on the oil sands. Prentice shared that he was concerned about the media focus on the sands and the possible impact on Canada‘s international reputation. He recalled that he was first concerned about oil sands coverage during a trip to Norway where the public was debating whether or not Norway should be investing public funds (Statoil) in ‘dirty oil’. As Prentice relayed it, the public sentiment in Norway shocked him and has heightened his awareness of the negative consequences to Canada‘s historically ‘green’ standing on the world stage. Calling himself “conservationist-minded”, Prentice said he would step in and regulate the sands if Canada’s image in the world gets further tarnished by negative coverage. …Prentice did say that he felt that Government of Canada’s reaction to the dirty oil label was “too slow” and failed to grasp the magnitude of the situation.

As an honest Albertan, I’ll call your attention to two other things about this paragraph:

(1) In an exchange of views on the oil sands, Prentice apparently doesn’t actually say a word about the oil sands—only the international reaction to them.

(2) “Conservationist” is a conscious alternative to “environmentalist”, not a synonym for it. Conservationists are what we had before we had environmentalists. After years of interviewing Alberta politicians and businessmen and hearing them take this line, I understand “conservationism” to denote an emphasis on the value to human beings of wilderness and biodiversity, as opposed to a worldview that says the grizzly’s needs and priorities (and the lichen’s) are indistinguishable from our own. Since this distinction is rarely discussed, it’s an easy means of equivocation: saying you’re “conservationist-minded” can easily mean you wouldn’t personally want a derrick to spoil the view at your A-frame in Kananaskis.

The punch line of the Wikileak arrives when Prentice disavows any actual intention to act on planned tar sands expansion: “In response to the Ambassador’s inquiry about a possible moratorium on further expansion in the oil sands, Prentice didn’t think it was necessary at this time and felt growth to [3-4 million barrels a day] was sustainable.” And there’s a little dénouement when Prentice again summarizes his goals—as the Environment Minister of the Dominion, mind you—solely in terms of image: “At the end of the day, Prentice wants Canada to be billed as the most environmentally-conscious energy superpower.” One wonders at the need for “billed as” to be present in that sentence.

I’m being unkind to Prentice; I don’t know that I would behave any differently in his place, and I’m certainly, as a matter of core philosophy, on the “conservationist” side of the conservationist/environmentalist divide. Moreover, he’s right that government was somewhat slow to react to the publicity crisis, though I don’t see why that should be blamed on the federal government rather than Alberta, since Alberta’s so belligerent about its responsibility for and ownership of its oil.

But Prentice has long been regarded, in the downtown-Toronto conventional wisdom, as a lone Nice Moderate who struggled to fit in with a pack of faith-crazed ideologues. Maybe people should consider the possibility that he really was, after all, a foam-jowled Calgary wolf—one who just happened to be particularly expert at wearing sheep’s clothing. The rap on this federal government, the common theme of the attacks on it, is that it doesn’t respect evidence in decision-making. Those who still see Prentice as a potential alternative leader will, I think, be precisely those who overlook his obsessive concern with “labels” and “standing” and “reputation”. Does he sound, in the cable, like a data-driven Environment Minister? Does it sound like he was much concerned with what the oil sands are doing—or not doing—to the watershed, the wildlife, the people downstream, and the climate?

I ask because if Canadian oil sands policy is going to be determined exclusively by the squealings of people who have seen ugly photographs of them but don’t otherwise know anything about them…well, the sands and the people who make a living from them are going to lose that fight. If your position is “Shut ’em down”, then an emotional, esthetics-based debate is easy for you to win. There is a policy case, weak or strong, to be made on behalf of the tar sands; it would be a lot harder to argue that they make the world prettier or the landscape pleasanter or the animals happier.


Behind that Prentice Wikileak

  1. I had a similar reaction to the G&M article, and wrote to its author:

    Woulda, coulda, shoulda

    You're smarter than that. What did he do? nada.

    The author acknowledged that's essentially what the main text said, but was going to ask for the headline to be rewritten (someone else's doing, I presume – looks like he was unsuccessful).

    I then provided a link to my evaluation of Prentice here:

  2. Yes, that blatant sucking-up/buttering-up, is certainly embarrassing for a minister of the crown to be doing…and as this latest story shows, Prentice had no intention of actually doing his duty on this portfolio.

    Mostly we wait for the US to tell us what to do, and are otherwise only concerned about our 'image', not our substance, abroad.

    Meanwhile Suncor just got fined for dumping effluent in the Athabasca River. How many times has this been done….probably by everybody…. before someone got caught?

    Or is this all part of the expensive PR campaign to 'greenwash' the oil sands, instead of dealing with it properly?

  3. Oh what a relief. Thanks Colby….
    Here we were, about to believe at least one of Harper's Henchmen had some principles.

    • Yeah, and I did to a large extent. I'm tremendously disappointed. I read the Wikileak thing with my mind only half on it and while in a hurry. I did register something was wrong but didn't put my finger on it. That was it, all right.

      On the up side, it appears that the one good Conservative DIDN'T leave government after all, since he was never there to begin with. Well, I can still hope for Michael Chong.

  4. I survived a couple of hours at mall this morning without major incident! Just got home and feels good to survive crazy shopping time for another year.

    1) Liberals signed onto Kyoto Accord over a decade ago but did sweet fa when it came to implementation. Liberal supporters, and many others, did not mind or protest. Cons watched this and have continued the policy – lip service to environment while doing little to nothing when it comes to new policies.

    2) It drives me bonkers that Cons don't just say something like 'the world isn't getting warmer you dimwits, even global warming scientists acknowledge that fact, so we are not going to cripple economy to fight something that isn't occurring'. One of my major complaints about Harper/Cons is their inability to communicate conservative ideas. Cons sound just like Libs and are not helping to grow conservatism in Canada. Tweedledum, tweedledee.

    Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, Cosh.


    ""Stéphane, we didn't get it done," Ignatieff proclaimed. "We didn't get it done."

    "This is unfair," Dion complained. "Do you think it's easy to set priorities?" CBC, Framing Of Dion, Sept 2008

    • The biggest mistake the rightwing ever made was turning global warming into a partisan issue.

      • As opposed to the far more successful issue of "economic collapse for no good reason". Odd that no other parties find this problem to be terribly important.

        • If the rightwing hadn't been so stupid about it, they could have been onside to prevent your supposed 'economic collapse' while still cleaning things up.

          'Green tech' is the biggest money-maker to come along in a generation, and all the allegedly capitalist Cons are missing it completely. LOL

          • So how much of your money do you have invested in Green Tech, Emily?

            If I knew of a sure-thing money-maker that everyone else was ignoring, I'd be rubbing my hands with glee and plowing every spare nickel I had into it.

          • Green tech is a fraud. An emotional sale to shallow fools.

            It found one. Congratulations.

          • Interesting to note that Ned Ludd lives on.

          • I'm not talking about the small economic troubles we just went through. I'm referring to the massive worldwide economic meltdown that would occur if any "green tech" promoters actually had their way.

            Fortunately, the people who have shown through history that they are smart enough to be entrusted with trillions of dollars of production capacity and investment dollars don't buy into this. The only ones that are big promoters turn out to be peddling ineffective solutions paid for by the public purse (or the holders of public purses anxious to show how much they care at other people's expense).

            Steve hits it pretty good: if this green tech is such a big money maker, why does it keep spectacularly losing money?

          • Those silly green tech fools. Everyone knows oil is a renewable resource.

    • Could not resist :-D

      "Before becoming Canada's prime minister, Stephen Harper called Kyoto "a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations"."

      • I guess he was referring to China because that's who he seems to want to suck money out of.

      • "Could not resist :-D "

        Was just reading Wells and Cosh's tweets. If Laureen did leave Stephen a couple of years ago it is because Harper stopped being conservative. Harper certainly doesn't say things like that anymore which is unfortunate, really.

        • Real conservative men see the opportunity for making a profit in anything. So you could be right. But we're not allowed to discuss the Harper union – it is apparently some sort of national sacred cow.

          • No, not sacred, just none of our business.

          • Very definitely our business.

          • I do enjoy the irony of anonymous internet posters demanding our public officials reveal more about their personal lives.

          • Why? Ask a Trudeau if having the nation knowing your family based issues is in the interest of anyone but a gossip writer.

          • I thought it was obvious. If it was some unknown backbencher it wouldn't matter, and we could safely ignore it.

            However the mental state and judgement of a PM affects every Canadian, and the country as a whole, at home and abroad.

            The end of a marriage is as devastating and traumatic to people as a death, more so in some ways because the trauma is ongoing…the person is still around. There is no 'closure' from which you can move on.

            Running a country while in this state leads to poor decisions, bizarre statements and directions, and harm to the body politic. When you choose to enter 'public life', your life becomes 'public'.

            And if a group…like the media….is aware of something the public is not…it can lead to fellow-feeling and sympathy which is fine….but it also means reporting becomes suspect because there is no hard-ball questioning, no normal criticism, no going after harmful decisions and so on as would normally occur.

    • No "global warming scientist" thinks the world isn't getting warmer (but if the Conservatives think that, they should certainly admit it). We had one of these here "little ice ages" a few hundred years ago, you see, and the world has been getting warmer ever since.

      There is a lingering fringe debate about whether human activities are contributing to or accelerating that warming, though hardly any scientists now doubt it.

      Finally, there IS a legitimate debate about what, if anything, we ought to do about global warming even if we ARE responsible. That's the debate the Conservatives should have got out in front of years ago, but instead they gambled all their credibility on a strategy of climate change denial. And lost.

      • "No "global warming scientist" thinks the world isn't … "

        If by no, you mean many, then I agree that no global warming scientist thinks the world isn't getting warmer. For all you, and many others, know we could be about to start another ice age after having a few hundred years of warm. Mother nature seems to like cyclical warm and cold periods.

        Here are two examples for a start:

        Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

        A: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant ….. " BBC Interview with Phil Jones, director of CRU, Feb 2010

        "Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter. One of the world's top climate modellers said Thursday we could be about to enter one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.

        "People will say this is global warming disappearing," he told more than 1500 of the world's top climate scientists gathering in Geneva at the UN's World Climate Conference.

        "I am not one of the sceptics," insisted Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany. "However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it." New Scientist, Sept, 2009

        • Phil Jones is the scientist famous for suppressing data that indicated that one particular method for measuring global temperatures was at odds with the others over a short period – i.e. that in contradiction to other data sets which showed warming, this one particular data set showed only a negligible increase in temperature in a 15 year window. He perpetrated that very stupid sin of omission because he believes quite strongly in global warming – he's practically the poster boy.

          Even if that data (in contradiction to quite a bit of other data) is correct, denying global warming based on a 15 year window (out of hundreds or thousands, depending on how you approach it) is like saying Kirstie Alley hasn't gotten any fatter since the '80s based on a diet she started two weeks ago – in which she only gained an ounce or two.

          As for your second prophet of a new ice age, here is what Mojib Latif said in a follow-up interview:

          'If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be global warming. So I really believe in Global Warming. Okay. However, you know, we have to accept that there are these natural fluctuations, and therefore, the temperature may not show additional warming TEMPORARILY." [my emphasis]

        • Lies, lies, lies. No climate scientist now says the the world is not geting warmer because the world IS getting warmer. This decade was warmer than the last decade, which was warmer than the decade before it. All indicators show that it is warming:

          Your lie about Jones leaves out that what he calls statistically significant would be 95% certainty and that over a very short period it's maybe 93% or 94% so not quite STATISTICALLY significant. Stupid rightwingers fail to understand this statistics talk because they hate statistics, censuses and facts. More about what Jones really said here:

          • And then there is bergkamp's dishonest misquoting of Mojib Latif. What Latif really said was that said parts of the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE might not get warmer for several years, and winter there might even be a bit colder. He also said that we are still going to have unprecedented global warming unless we curb CO2 emissions. He said much more here:

            Stupid rightwingers like to wank on about cycles, but they don't seem to understand the difference between fluctuations and cycles. Look it up.

  5. I noticed and cringed at the obsession with image over substance in Prentice's reported conversation with the US ambassador, not to mention the toadying. Experts (e. g., Linda Duncan) have pointed out that if the feds enforced existing legislation and regulations, it would go a long way toward ameliorating the environmental effects of the oil/tar sands. And even Peter Lougheed has called for a moratorium on further development until a thorough assessment of the social and environmental effects of the current developments has been made. So Prentice's attitude and actions were clearly business as usual for the Harper government.

    Although the main thrust of this post is one I agree with, Colby is playing his usual game of hyperbole with his extreme definitions of the environmentalist/conservationist divide. There's a lot of territory between "all living things have equal rights" and "let's save it now so we can use it later". I consider myself an environmentalist, but still consider my own species' needs first. I do consider the needs of other species.

    • I'm sorry, did you just call Linda Duncan — who before she was Parliament wasted her time in a meaningless organization dubbed "Edmonton Social Planning Council" — an expert?

      Of course, you also used the most common non sequitur around in declaring "even Peter Lougheed [insert name of some liberal argument here]". Turning to a former Red Tory premier who became even redder in retirement isn't exactly the call to authority you think you're making here.

      • She may not be an expert, but she seems to know so much more than the Minister(s).

      • She's a lawyer….specializes in environmental law in fact.

        Worked for Environment Canada, and then NAFTA on the environment.

        Founded Edmonton's Environmental Law Centre

        • Which is all fine and good if you need the i's dotted and the t's crossed. When it comes to actually determining public policy, I wouldn't ask her opinion on which font to use, let alone the future of Canadian industry.

      • Linda Duncan was chief of enforcement for Environment Canada, and also founded the Environmental Law Centre. Her expertise on federal environmental law apparently far exceeds your expertise on biographical research.

        • Her "Environmental Law Centre", when you look into it, has about the same charter and accomplishes about the same real output as her Social Planning Centre.

      • Actually Lougheed said: "Slow development of oil sands: Lougheed"

        "allow only one surface-mining project at a time, but that the lower-cost underground bitumen-recovery projects could proceed at a higher pace."

        His was more concerned for the higher costs (labour, material) that was pressuring other industries. Peter is a good guy.

        • Lougheed has spoken about aspects fo the tar sand at various times, including in 2006:….

          In 2007, Lougheed: "…Repeated a concern he first expressed last fall that tar sands development is proceeding in a haphazard way which threatens the environment. “But there is so much momentum there that it isn't going to be easy to slow the process,” he noted."

          Also "…Mr. Lougheed told a Canadian Bar Association convention that a ferocious constitutional clash is all but inevitable, pitting the federal right to protect the environment against the provincial right to develop natural resources…"

          If you can trust your 2009 Financial Post article, Lougheed spoke about the economy while addressing an engineering conference. Did he also mention the environment? Who knows?

    • "Although the main thrust of this post is one I agree with, Colby is playing his usual game of hyperbole with his extreme definitions of the environmentalist/conservationist divide."

      Yup. Colby, this is a solid piece. You undermine yourself by slaying silly strawmen.

      Regardless, merry Christmas, looking forward to reading more in 2011.

  6. 'But Prentice has long been regarded, in the downtown-Toronto coventional wisdom, as a lone Nice Moderate…'

    Well that's what we've been told he is by the media…although no one said the last part of that sentence….and we have no other way of judging.

  7. So here is the timeline of this storey. Jacobson becomes Ambassador in October 2009; Prentice has a face-to-face on November 5, 2009 shortly after Norway threatens withdrawing oilsands investments. What was he supposed to say? Bet there were quite a few people 'sucking-up' to the new guy in town. He was selected by Obama to light a fire under government to get new copyright laws SAP.

    • Why is ANYbody sucking up to some foreign ambassador?

  8. 'Colby is playing his usual game of hyperbole with his extreme definitions of the environmentalist/conservationist divide'

    If he is he should be ashamed of himself. The issue for instance of increased access to the back country for ATVers, which is now known to be a factor [ perhaps major one] in the rapid decline in Grizzly bear numbers, is one that needs addressing. [ if it isn't already too late] The consrvationist approach here [ as CC defines it] is particularly unhelpful, even stupid and reckless – unless that is CC and like thinking Albertans just consider that the price of doing business…in which case they should have the guts to come right out and say so.

    • Oops…Merry Christmas CC.

      • How about the Black Bear population in the GTA and surrounding area, or Grizzly habitat in the Lower Mainland, and up the Sea to Sky highway?

        • Whatever we can do for you – just tell us where you want your post card pictures taken – maybe we can carry your luggage when you come out Banff for the occassional ski-trip.

          Hey, maybe we can dress up like pioneers for you

          • No,how bout you just get your lazy ass off the ATV.

  9. I bet none of you noticed Harper quietly had section 91 of the BNA Act changed to allow Parliament to make laws for the peace, order, and good perception of Canada.

  10. I know various rightwinger Albertans who hate "envrionmentalists" with a passion; so it would make sense for Prentice to call him a "conservationist" so he would appear greenish without being seen as a hippie.

    • Are you an Albertan Holly? I should hope so or it would seem you have issues with 'certain Albertans'. There's a world of people who probably hate environmentalists with a passion…. whatever that means. Can't say as I blame them sometimes if you are the shining example. I'm a conservationist myself. GREEN conservationist. But I don't hold that the moose or lichen have equal rights to mankind. You know why? Though it's unlikely that the moose or lichen will be responsible for the destruction of the earth (where mankind surely could be), the moose or the lichen will never be in a position to save it either. There are a plethora of natural disasters that can occur and some that will, inevitably. Only man will be able to do anything about it. Do you believe in the future Holly. I do.

      • What exactly is a green conservationist?

        • Someone who shoots deer on the theory we're helping them.

      • Hey, Ezra of the North, I was born in Alberta and have lived here all my life. What I meant to convey was that a number of Albertan rightwingers have an irrational hatred of environmentalists, so it would be more politic for an Alberta politician to call himself a conservationist.

        Your maunderings about moose and lichens are not interesting, except to show that you do not know much about environmentalism or environmentalists. Typical of a Reformatory trying to pose as a liberal-type person in order to sell a few more books.

  11. This is such an "I told you so" moment for me. Who needs principles when you have an image to uphold?

  12. It's too bad all that oil is heading south of the border…

    • Makes you wonder why so many "conservationists" would be willing to pump it south.
      I guess there's principles and then there's money.
      Of course, how much of a stink would be raised if Edmonton/ Fort Saskatchewan refining capacity were to be expanded further than planned.

      • Alberta spends something like twice per capita on social services than anyone else in the country.

        • Really? I wouldn't have thought it was necessary.

    • Well, that was Alberta's choice.

  13. Lots more to come from Wikileaks….less than 3000 docs have been released from 250,000.

    • OMG! like what? maybe talk of corruption in Liberia? or a paragraph explaining why Burma is not really democratic?

      • Well if you'd keep up with them, you'd know, wouldncha….

    • We've always had floods, tornadoes, mudslides, hurricanes, cyclones, blizzards etc.

      We've not always had a 24/7 news cycle tapped into every part of the world.

      200 years ago there was some catastrophic weather going on somewhere in the planet, pretty much 24/7. Except if it wasn't directly on top of you, you'd never know about it.

      What is telling is that none of the predictions of 10-15 years ago (the timely ones being circulated of Britain never seen White Winters again are amoung the countless) are coming true.


      Oh they'll make excuses after-the-fact but the reality is they can't predict out 10 years but are asking us to have faith in their computer models that predict out 100 years, as a basis to change our world economies. Insanity, is what that is.

      • la la la la la la la … ear-muffs.
        Insanity is what that is.

        • Munich Re – a reinsurance company that pays atention to disasters:

          "… The reinsurer has built up the world's most comprehensive natural catastrophe database, which shows a marked increase in the number of weather-related events. For instance, globally, loss-related floods have more than tripled since 1980, and windstorm natural catastrophes more than doubled, with particularly heavy losses from Atlantic hurricanes. This rise cannot be explained without global warming. Worldwide, 2010 has been the warmest year since records began over 130 years ago…"

  14. It's never good to be too ahead of the curve in politics.

    Nor, however, is it ever good to be behind the curve. Ever so slightly ahead is ideal.

    Time for the CPC to come out and acknowlege what every reputable scientific group not fully enmeshed in far leftist ideology has recognized (including many leading IPCC scientists):

    that there's nothing close to a definitive cause of climate change, let alone the degree if any, that can be ascribed to man, and that putting forth concrete policies on mere guesswork is pure folly.

    Pure folly.

    • LOL yer a funny man, chet.

    • Keep plucking that chicken dude.
      When nothing else works, a total unwillingness to face facts will always see you through. (Gen Melchett)

    • Time for chet to stop lying about what every reputable scientific groups says about global warming; that we humans have caused most of the recent warming:

      • Kody's been proselytizing for every crackpot GW denial artist since this debate began. What'sthe name of that senator who's links you used to peddle Kody/Biff/Chet?…i forget now?

  15. Can someone post the date this particular document was posted on wikileaks? tia

    • The meeting was Nov. 5, 2009. It's in the latest Wikileaks releases.

          • Why in the world would a paper from Norway publish a cable about Canada and the U.S.?

            Now I know why.:)

          • Because it's all part of the Wikileaks docs…Aftenposten is a class newspaper…one of the few left…the NYT and Guardian having fallen down on the job.

            Yay Norwegians!

  16. Politics. As for saying Prentice should use data, would the audience have been receptive to that approach? Seemed like a bit of boot licking to me. Say a few things and things carry one as usual.
    Check out maps of Canada at night and there is a narrow ribbon of people across the base of the country. The oil sands are an area to be developed. If one realizes that Calgary recently reached 1 Million people while in China there are 100 cities with more than a million people, this development gets put into perspective.
    BC stopped mining development and wiped out communities and families in mining. Now that Vancouver's population is more Chinese, let's see how long it is before China is allowed to have their mining "companies" (state/business) come in and mine.
    We have to think bigger or get run over by a freight train – crushed and gone.

  17. Imagine if our agenda driven media would dare to show a semblance of balance on this issue.

    Imagine if the media let it slip out (diverting from its carefully scripted pro AGW story line) that approximately 90% of the Earth's ice is located in Antarctica, and that the large ice sheet there has been expanding, and is now at record level highs.

    The folks here who scoff at my "failure to accept the facts", who rely on the agendad Globe and Mail for their life's information on such issues, probably are incapable of even believing this startling fact.

    That the Earth is actually GAINING ice. Here it is, if you choose to divert from the script:

    If a tree falls in a forest, but the Toronto Star doesn't tell you about it, I guess it didn't fall eh?

    And to think there are forests full of such trees falling.

    • LOL you missed your calling chet…you coulda done stand-up comedy for a living.

    • You rely on the denialist blog WUWT (also known as WTFUWT?) to mislead. In Antarctica, the land ice is melting while the sea ice is increasing despite the ocean getting warmer. But Antarctic sea ice, unlike Arctic sea ice, usually forms in the winter and melts in summer. It is less important. The fact that Antarctica's longlasting land ice is now melting is a bad sign, and it will affect sea level.

  18. And in come the smear merchants.

    So if Watts says the Sun rises in the east,

    I guess it doesn't rise in the East, because it came from Watts.

    To all interested readers out there, note how they stay carefully away from the facts and sources (including the US Snow and Ice federal agencies), while they attack the messenger for such heresy.

    • LOL you and your hippy-dippy weathercaster.

      Might as well get your science information from the janitor.

    • I gave you a link with all sorts of facts and sources and links for further information. Why don't you provide better links to back up your nonsense? Because they don't.

      • chet just likes winding people up.

        • No, I think chet is a self-deluded fool.

    • So, interested readers,

      you see,

      their response isn't to refute the facts cited by Watts, which indeed does show antarctic ice levels at record highs.

      Their response is the worst mankind has to offer this "debate". The lowest form of response. The response of those who are bankrupt of ideas, of those who must reach down to the gutteral level – a level long since left behind by the rest of us, from days of experimenting with such rudimentary forms of discourse at grade school or earlier.

      Ladies and gentlemen, we have before us the quintessential resonse from someone who has lost the debate:

      Base name calling.

      • That's because no facts are involved in any of your posts. Just a bunch of whack-doodle nonsense by unqualified people.

        Here are the facts from your often-quoted US snow and ice agency. LOL….

        Tell me, do you clutch your lapel when you rant like that?

  19. Review of Jaws as written by someone like chet:

    "A group of so-called government funded "experts" whip up alarmist fears of a killer shark off the coast of Amity, a sea side town. Their goal is to destroy the local tourist industry, send Amity back to the dark ages and thus achieve their underlying socialist agenda of wealth redistribution…"

  20. The worst mankind has to offer.

    So sad to see the "toleranat progessive left" laid bare for all to see.

    Bereft of ideas. Reorting to namecalling. Terrfied to engage in the most basic fact which the other side has to offer.

    The morally bankurpt:

    'tolerant progressive left'

    • Still into the eggnog I see. LOL

  21. the companies and be aware of the limitations and advantages of their SEO and Article writing.