Why is the TRUTH so Inconvenient?

The global warming debate has really been heating up lately with the two opposing sides becoming increasingly fractious and combative.

Credibility in the Warming side is steadily breaking down and yet the proponents cling to their belief that the overall science is still sound. Most politicians are afraid to confront the new reality and seek refuge in the propaganda without giving more than a passing thought to the remote possibility that we may not be hearing the truth. In some cases they are even declaring war on the ‘skeptics’.

Our Conservative Government seems to be seeking the mushy middle on this subject but still succeeds in getting reamed from both extremes of the AGW divide.

Frankly, I believe it is up to columnists like Lorrie Goldstein, Rex Murphy, Lawrence Solomon and Terence Corcoran to try to get the truth out there (with the assistance of bloggers and other social media, letters to the editor, etc.).  We need to communicate to the public that the science is at the very least somewhat questionable – that it is not settled -  and maybe we shouldn’t even be calling it ‘science’ but rather intensive lobbying by various self-interested groups.  But the Warmists are hurting their own cause with the coverups and screwups.

Let’s just hope that the public starts tuning into the controversy as well.

I’ve heard the Warmist argument that we can’t afford not to act and so forth. Well if the science is indeed unsettled then we are in for a needless assault on our economy which is just starting to recover. At the very least why not try to get more information and plan to take action when the economy is stronger? And what about the unforeseen side-effects of the mindless accelerated push for green energy?

Let’s pressure our politicians, scientists and the media for all the facts – not just the ones that conveniently support their arguments and personal agenda.

*   *   *   *

Update from the Department of Irony:

Now climate-change scientists say ozone hole stops global warming – M4GW

*   *   *   *

More fallout from in-your-face political know-it-alls and lobbyists:

Lawn companies seek charges against minister, activistsCTV (H/T Musings of the Techical Bard):

The activists worked with the Ontario government to ban pesticides using alleged false and misleading information to undermine the industry, Lowes said.

The documents filed on Tuesday allege the activists knowingly presented false and misleading information about the health and environmental risks associated with pesticide products, knowingly misled the public, lawn care industry and government officials, and impeded access to Health Canada approved pesticide products through fraudulent means.

The legal manoeuvre, if endorsed by the court, could result in federal charges being filed against Gerretsen and others by police or by a private individual, and there may be sufficient grounds for a criminal charge of fraud, Lowes said

Will Dalton use our tax dollars to try and buy his way out of this one too? It worked in Caledonia after all.

*   *   *   *

Update

How Many Climategates Are Needed? – CFP

Climategate: Is the British government conspiring not to prosecute?James Delingpole, Telegraph

Climategate: Al Gore and the politicization of scienceRoger L. Simon, Pajamas media

*   *   *   *

Tuesday Update

The UN’s enviro-activist in-chiefNational Post

Real deal on Canada’s environmental ranking: GoldsteinLorrie Goldstein

This entry was posted in Big Environment, Big Green, Canadian economy, Climategate, Copenhagen, CPC majority solution, Dalton McGuinty, David Suzuki, environmentalists, Follow the money, Global governance, Global Warming, Goldstein, Socialism, UN, Wind farms. Bookmark the permalink.

134 Responses to Why is the TRUTH so Inconvenient?

  1. Bec says:

    You have hit it out of the park with this post, Joanne. It describes the current emotional realities to a tee.

  2. skuleman says:

    it’s not just the assault on our economy, but the assault on the environment. The AGW movement has done a number of things to cause substantial damage to the environmental movement.

    First, and probably worst, its managed to redirect the vast majority of all of the spending on research and remediation from legitimate environmental issues like water, air and soil pollution, wildlife habitat losses and extinctions, desertification, deforestation etc. etc. to “global warming”. It has become virtually impossible to get research funding unless your application has some reference to global warming.

    Second, it has caused us to make fairly stupid economic decisions with respect to energy development (witness McGuinty’s lamebrain $7 billion deal with Samsung), as well as causing many to make personal decisions with respect to energy which probably have much worse environmental impacts than the energy they save, i.e. compact fluorescents, the prius, airtight buildings etc.

    Third, because of the skewing/faking/obfuscation/destruction of climate data for the last 20 years we’ve lost the legitimacy of the data store and therefore have lost the ability to do any real and honest research, because now there is absolutely no way of knowing if any climate data anywhere in the world has not been tampered with. What climategate has done is to effectively destroy the “chain of evidence” in the entire climate data store for at a generation. The data is tainted. There is no way to know what data might not be tainted so now there can never be any research based on that data where the research isn’t also tainted.

    Fourth, and I think ultimately worst of all, is that the zealotry of the AGW movement and the collusion of the MSM has effectively backed politicians (not just in Canada, but in all democratic countries) into a corner where it is impossible for them to act in the best interests of their constituents, if those best interests conflict with the AGW movements interests.

  3. Joanne says:

    Bec – Thanks so much.

    Skuleman – You totally nailed it. Why is it that we can see so clearly what is going on but others can’t?

    Another problem is the brainwashing of the kids in school. It’s rather frightening.

  4. Fay says:

    As far as I am concerned the majority have lost shred of credibility. Everyone posting comments on CBC, CTV and newswatch’s also have access to the the newsmedia from around the world reporting on this fraud. Still only the National Post and Toronto Sun are reporting this fact.
    How can anyone with access to the internet justify the complete black out of this information. Only the blind followers of NDP and Liberals would give any credibilty to the manipulated message of these media ‘s in Canada.

  5. The big problem is that the Warmists have too much invested in their point of view to concede anything — too much financially (government and research grants), too much politically (influence with decision makers), and too much socially (credibility and repute).

    The major reason why the Harper government is waffling on this issue is that the Warmists happen to make up the majority of the public service working for Environment Canada. They’ve been earnestly working on Kyoto since the Chretien years, and gained influence within the department when Dion was environment minister. They’ve expended far too much energy and resources on their “products” (reports, explorations of carbon reduction research, alternative energy sources) to be suddenly told by their superiors, “We’ve changed our minds, your stuff is now officially useless, go work on something else,” and be expected to take it with a smile on their face.

    Harper isn’t stupid. He knows perfectly well that unless a program or project is demonstrably useless, he’ll get in big trouble with the public service unions for trying to cut their jobs, which puts several Ottawa-area seats into jeopardy. And carbon-reduction technologies haven’t been demonstrated to be completely useless just yet; there’s always a chance they might create something useful. Bottom line: he can’t get rid of the Warmists in Environment Canada because (a) there’s too many of them and (b) they still might be able to produce something good.

    So instead, the government will probably hold spending on these projects to the rate of inflation, or freeze them, or refuse to renew if they have an expiry date. That way, he reduces the odds of the public service unions getting uppity with the explanation of fiscal restraint.

  6. NeilD says:

    Is there a Conservative hidden agenda at work here?
    If the PM is going along with the global warming bulls**t simply to avoid controversy then it’s time for him to stop.
    I want honesty from my leader and not pandering.
    This topic is a vote-changer for me. I won’t vote for any other party but I sure as hell will not vote for this one if Jim Prentice stays the course.
    Bring back the Reform Party.

  7. Samantha says:

    The wealth transfer aspect of the AGW movement also needs to be communicated. When people realize that how much money is on the table, they may be more inclined to think, qui bono? (who benefits)

  8. Calgary Junkie says:

    Looking at the politics of all this, every pollster I’ve seen interviewed in the media has said that Harper can’t make the environment a winning issue. The best he can do is neutralize it.

    So as much as I like to dream up entertaining ways for Harper to play hardball with the Libs, exposing their hypocricy (like cancelling Pablo Rodriguez’s ‘Kyoto Implementation Bill’). Any actions like that, just won’t gain us votes.

    We’ve seen the media-aided kerfuffle over the prorogue. The same sort of thing could easily happen on the Environment file. The enviro-twits, facebook ralliers, Torstar, obscure beauracrats, are all waiting to pounce.

    Harper is playing it about right–mirror the U.S. GHG reduction goal. Those who want him to move further to the right, have to also remember that ‘the perfect is always the enemy of the good’.

  9. wilson says:

    Perhaps now that the government has control of committees in the Senate, our good Senators will look into Climategate…

    Canada was singled out at Copenhagen as the bad boy,
    so obviously our government was pushing hard against the mass hysteria.

    Maybe the pressure needs to be put on Premiers Charest and McGuinty and Campbell,
    environment is a shared responsibility and the feds need a consensus, caqn not go it alone, as much as we would like them to.

  10. MaryT says:

    It appears that cap and trade is dead in the water in the USA.
    OT, but is it possible to link to todays Fox Medical segment. The cardiologist was talking about medicines one takes for high blood pressure and other things. And he stressed if one is taking x inhibitor, one should also take y inhibitor, as it decreased the risk of alzhiemers (sp) and dementia by about 87% (could be 67%) We need to get the info out there that there are preventions already in place before Mr Iggy comes out with this and takes credit for curing this and saving families of being shamed.

  11. skuleman says:

    Joanne,
    Thanks :-)

    I think the elephant in the room with respect to the electorate “not getting it” is that the electorate just isn’t that bright.
    Very politically incorrect, but the reality is the majority of Canadians are incapable of analyzing the data themselves, lack the time or inclination to do any in-depth research, and inclination to do any in-depth research, and therefore rely entirely on 30 second sound bites in the MSM.

    As for the kids in schools, blame the teachers’ unions. My sister-in-law is a teacher with 30 years experience. She is terrified to mention anything in support of the conservatives, or in contravention of anything the union espouses as politically correct, because she feels it would be the end of her career (not only would the union not protect her, but they would pressure the board to fire her). Likewise, a friend who is the lawyer for a board of education has said the same thing to me about his/her job security should any conservative tendency show. I have three teachers in the family and one close personal friend who’s a teacher, in three different school boards. The perception I have from them is the teachers union is like the brown shirts.

  12. Sammy says:

    O/T …but what a piece of softball fluff the interview with Iggy on QP this am..not one policy..not any news to announce,just outright pandering and grovelling by Craig,NO hardball questions,just another platform for Iggy to slam PMSH…and for Craig to push the ‘election needed agenda’ What a pantload that was!

  13. Bec says:

    Besides, as far as I recall signing Copenhagen isn’t really Earth shattering because the so-called targets were not binding.
    Targets and transfer of wealth are 2 entirely different aspects of this dilemma.

    Phantom and CJ have evaluated the rock/hard place extremely well.
    Besides that, when the enviro quacks are still yapping, as they are, that is most certainly a good thing.

  14. Joe says:

    It is too bad that all our ‘academics’ only have half of an education. Oh yeah they went to school and got multiple degrees but they still don’t know anything. Personally I would like all academics to have a Moses experience. Moses went to the best school in the middle east studying at Pharaoh U. He then rushes out thinking he’s going to save his people and simply winds up killing someone. As a direct result of that he spent 40 years eking a living out of some of the harshest environments on earth. Having been educated then severely humbled he was able to accomplish what he originally set out to do but he did it in a much different way and achieved a far more noble end.

    If you want to study ‘climate’ wonderful go to university. Get you degree then take the next 30 – 40 years living off the land in the arctic. After 40 years running a trapline come back to the general society and impart your wisdom. Bet it won’t be the same as the crap you were spewing when you were hobknobbing with your fellow ‘intellectuals’.

  15. skuleman says:

    I think PM Harper has to at minimum tread water with the warmists for now, for the very reasons I mentioned above.

    The simple reality is we have a minority government now, and the worst case if they trigger an election is a Liberal minority with the NDP calling the shots. We saw what that did to the country the last time it happened, and if it happens again my best advice is get your RRSP and other investments out as fast as you can :-).

    There’s a lot of conservatives on BT who are crying the blues because the government is doing what is necessary to stay in office, and to make gradual improvements to the political situation (i.e. get control of the senate). For all those crying for an election, I warn them to think of the worst case outcome, not just hope for the best case.

    Imagine a government with the profligate waste of the Trudeau years, the graft and corruption of the Chretien years, and the union-hugging idiocy of the Rae years, all rolled up into a coalition. That is why Harper has to tread on eggshells!

  16. wilson says:

    It’s just a matter of time:

    ”…Researchers at Yale and George Mason universities reported this week that their polling suggests 57 per cent of Americans believe global warming is happening, down from 71 per cent who did so in 2008.

    The percentage of believers who think human activities are mostly responsible has dropped to 47 from 57 per cent.

    Scientists are partly to blame: The percentage of Americans who think most scientists are convinced of global warming has dropped to 34 from 47; the percentage who thinks there’s a lot of disagreement among scientists on the issue has risen to 40 from 33 in 2008….”

    http://www.timescolonist.com/technology/folly+forgetting+global+warming/2505536/story.html

  17. Eric says:

    I think the Lawrence Solomon article in the Financial Post that you linked to (Keeping Canadian Students in the dark on climate) illustrates how entrenched the AGW hypothesis is in society and why it’s so difficult for politicians, especially in a minority government, to buck the “conventional wisdom”.
    Solomon talks about the lack of debate at the university level – I think that’s partly because high school students are already presented with the “facts” of AGW, backed by the full authority of the state. Check out the grade 10 Ontario science curriculum on pg 76-77 here: http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/science910_2008.pdf
    and you’ll see what I mean.

  18. fh says:

    did anyone catch the round table at Davos with the Prime Minister of Canada as a participant?
    I watched one bite missed the whole meeting unfortunately
    the Prime Minister Stephen Harper was adamant that he would not take steps to hurt the economy
    I wish I could quote him but I haven’t been able to locate the video it is out there
    he stated putting an unrealistic number on carbon reduction would not be able to be met would hurt the economy and do nothing for the environment
    he is an honest broker

    he was challenged by other members of European unit to the tune of
    Is what we ç the European Union) are doing wrong?
    it was a heated debate

    fh

  19. Liz J says:

    Another great big poke at our illustrious premier by Lorrie Goldstein in Toronto Sun today:
    “Premier Dalton McBraveheart”.
    I wonder if enough people are realizing just how bad things are going to be for pensioners, especially those on fixed incomes in this mess of a province? We’re being regulated and taxed out of any kind of enjoyable existence, at the very least for many their standard of living will take a huge drop.

  20. Liz J says:

    Might have added it’ll be a huge blow to our QUALITY of life as well. I see little evidence “McBraveheart” has done a great deal of homework on the cost of greening.

  21. Richco says:

    Skuleman, your posts are exactly right. Well said!

    “As for the kids in schools blame the teacher unions.”

    Oh boy, if you’re in Ontario you’ll want to know that the Ontario Secondary School Federation(OSSTF) is offering to pay $1,000 for “proposals, stand-alone, progressive, class-room ready lesson/unit plans of 4 to 5 lessons in length on social issues such as (but not limited to)
    globalization, world peace, poverty, ENVIRONMENTAL issues, universal childcare etc.”

    So there you have it. I’ll lump the Ontario government in with the teacher unions on the development of this new curriculum because believe it or not the government gives the teacher unions money for PD.

    Talk about our kids being sitting ducks for social engineering. It’s coming from those trusted with educating our kids supported by the McGuinty government.

    The very sad thing is that the Conservatives can’t challenge this because thanks to the old FB funding issue Hudak doesn’t dare make a move on education until he’s elected Premier..and only if he starts responding to some of this stuff and become more assertive.

  22. MaryT says:

    Remember that saying, those that can do, those that can’t teach.

  23. NB Tory Gal says:

    Sammy that is why I just cannot watch CTV’s Question Period any more…nothing new to learn there but much to adding to the blood pressure.

    OT – but we have some members of the blogging tories who are outright slamming the PM…celestial something is for sure… since there is no entrance criteria to join blogging tories…I guess there is no rules in place to have one leave….. I might have to look for a new home if it gets worse…or is this yet again…just another phase.

    • Joanne says:

      NB Tory Gal – I think Cjunk is just voicing extreme frustration. But he should be focussing his time and effort on educating the public and then political policy will flow from there.

  24. Lee says:

    Well, folks, do you remember a Minister of the Environment that had it right?
    I do.
    Her name was Rona Ambrose. Check out what her policies were, and how her focus was on actual pollution. Think of the good that could have been accomplished if she had been allowed to continue.
    She was slagged unmercifully because she had “big hair” or something.
    She obviously did not have the backing of her gutless colleagues.
    Now we have come full circle and look for exactly what Ambrose had proposed years ago.
    I still support the Prime Minister, but it was a close thing when he threw Ambrose under the bus.
    I hope that Mr. Harper thinks about that sometimes, and realizes that he made a huge mistake there.

  25. maz2 says:

    The natural end result of the Red-Green AGW Fraud:

    Insanity, madness, compounded with the burning of untold billions of tax dollars.

    “*Minnesota wind turbines won’t work in cold weather”
    …-

    “Blowback from wind farms threatens air-traffic control

    Engineers develop software to cut through turbine blackouts

    Wind turbines may be seen by Ontario’s government as the power source for the future, but a group of Canadian engineers could hold the key to ensuring the clean energy system doesn’t end up causing an aviation disaster.

    Wind farms are sprouting up around the world, but aviation specialists are raising concerns that the giant turbines are creating blackout zones for air-traffic control radars. The spinning blades of the turbines are being detected by the radars, presenting false images or generating so much clutter on radar screens that controllers are losing track of airplanes as they fly near the wind farm sites.

    To deal with the problem, NATS, the organization that provides air- traffic control services to planes flying in Britain, and over the eastern part of the North Atlantic, has turned to engineers at Raytheon Canada in Waterloo, Ont., to come up with a fix.

    “When you put hundreds or thousands of (these turbines) together, you can imagine what that does to the radar picture,” said Tony Ponsford, a senior engineer at Raytheon Canada.

    The solution the company’s engineers think will work involves increasing the processing power of the air-traffic control radars and coming up with software that will allow the systems to cut through the interference caused by the turbines. The changes would allow the air-traffic control radars to discriminate between the turbines and the aircraft, explained Brian Smith, Raytheon Canada’s general manager.”

    “The wind turbines can also interfere with weather radars. The rotating blades can show up on a radar as incoming weather, such as an area of precipitation.

    To deal with that problem, the National Weather Service in the U.S. has been contacting energy companies involved in wind power to make them aware of the problem and recommend that such farms not be located near weather radar sites.”
    http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Blowback+from+wind+farms+threatens+traffic+control/2505198/story.html

    *Windmills stop turning:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/30/minnesota-wind-turbines-wont-work-in-cold-weather/?print=1

  26. NB Tory Gal says:

    “Author: Joanne
    Comment:
    NB Tory Gal – I think Cjunk is just voicing extreme frustration. But he should
    be focussing his time and effort on educating the public and then political
    policy will flow from there.”

    Thanks Joanne…you would know how it has all gone on while I have been away…. so I will sit and wait for improvement :-) – or maybe just not read some for a while…

    • Joanne says:

      so I will sit and wait for improvement

      Well one thing for sure, it puts the lie to the rumour that all Blogging Tories get their talking points from Stephen Taylor or the PMO. Heh.

  27. Pissedoff says:

    NB Tory Gal – I think Cjunk is just voicing extreme frustration. But he should be focussing his time and effort on educating the public and then political policy will flow from there.

    You are joking? Or are you are supporting a liberal PM in blue that supports banning freedom of speech.

    Believe me he is not just voicing his extreme frustration.

    Lee: you are correct if she had been allowed we would not be having that poisinous crap being put into our water table. Harper followed his liberal pal McGuinty in banning incandescent light bulbs. Now the water table is going to be poisoned and out grandkids are going to die. Thanks Harper & McGuinty.

  28. Rob C says:

    I do disagree with some of the things the Harper government have done. I think some people are making a fuss over their personal agendas (be it lack of communication, gun control,AGW, prorogation,whatever) not happening as fast as they expect instead of looking at the overall picture.
    I am disappointed with the way some of the posters at Cjunk can’t see this.
    Look at Mr. Harper and his government as the lesser of the evils if that makes it easier.
    Fighting amongst ourselves only aids the lieberals, dippers, and the bloc in their quest to gain power.

    • Joanne says:

      Look at Mr. Harper and his government as the lesser of the evils if that makes it easier.
      Fighting amongst ourselves only aids the lieberals, dippers, and the bloc in their quest to gain power.

      Rob – very true. And I still don’t see a viable alternative at this point in time.

  29. maz2 says:

    “With Senate in his grip, PM drives crime agenda”

    Glob-Pail headline rewrite:

    PM Harper takes drive against crime with his anti-crime agenda.

    PM Harper, now take the drive against the Red-Green AGW Fraud crime agenda.

    • Joanne says:

      PM Harper, now take the drive against the Red-Green AGW Fraud crime agenda.

      I would love to see that but I fear that the population needs to be educated first.

  30. NB Tory Gal says:

    Pissedoff… I hate the blog in it’s present form…celestial junk’s that is…I support my prime minister all the way…. go vent somewhere else….

  31. Bec says:

    Maybe the armchair quarterbacks that dismiss the challenges of this beyond partisan minority parliament setting, could hook the Prime Minister up with a magic lamp or ‘Bewitching’ nose to achieve their every desire, PRONTO!

    When Conservatives are bi+ching, it makes you wonder what possibly could the Opposition have to complain about? They should be downright giddy.

    ‘Minority’ is not just a word, it is a reality. Chill or help change it!

    • Joanne says:

      Yeah CJunk’s going a bit over the top IMHO. It’s one thing to have a frank non-partisan discussion but he seems to be losing it altogether. We need to be patient, logical and keep chipping away at the hold the Liberals have on MSM.

  32. NB Tory Gal says:

    You have a gripe? Why not do it behind closed doors…use the email or a letter or face to face…please do not publicize it… that’s my advice. Why feed the enemy…

  33. wilson says:

    So how about venting on Charest and McGuinty,
    they are the Premiers (65% of the population) leading this mass hysteria,
    and without them onboard, even a majority will not help on a file with fed/prov responsibilities.

    Curious our national media isn’t pumping out polls on GW, eh.
    That tells yah Canadians are cooling off on ‘doing what ever it takes’ to reduce ghg’s.

    Rona Ambrose was not throw under the bus,
    she was rescued from irrepairable damage.
    Our Rona is a star, and remains so.

  34. Bec says:

    Joanne @2:28pm I agree.
    It’s the ‘Conbot’ reference that has me riled but I’m not sure why he needs to take it even further by ridiculing anyone that debates his position. It just seems so out of character. Perhaps I misread him all along.

  35. maz2 says:

    The “education” has been done by the Canadian/American MSM.

    The pace of the debauchment/corruption of the citizens has been slowed by internet bloggers and a handful of bravehearted reporters in the MSM.

    Now, since the fraud of Copenhagen/AGW was exposed by Climategate the screw is turning.

    Put the heat(sic) on Environment Minister Prentice.

    Remember, we are voters and taxpayers and contributors.

    Even though you may not have the wherewithal to contribute $$$$, you have a voice on the blogs.

    Speak out.
    …-

    “Global warming science implodes overseas: American media silent

    The revelations have been nothing short of jaw dropping. Dozens – yes dozens – of claims made in the IPCC 2007 report on climate change that was supposed to represent the “consensus” of 2500 of the world’s climate scientists have been shown to be bogus, or faulty, or not properly vetted, or simply pulled out of thin air.

    We know this because newspapers in Great Britain are doing their job; vetting the 2007 report item by item, coming up with shocking news about global warming claims that formed the basis of argument by climate change advocates who were pressuring the US and western industrialized democracies to transfer trillions of dollars in wealth to the third world and cede sovereignty to the UN.

    Glaciergate, tempgate, icegate, and now, disappearing Amazon forests not the result of warming, but of logging. And the report the IPCC based their bogus “science” on was written by a food safety advocate according to this Christopher Booker piece in the Telegraph :

    Dr North next uncovered “Amazongate”. The IPCC made a prominent claim in its 2007 report, again citing the WWF as its authority, that climate change could endanger “up to 40 per cent” of the Amazon rainforest – as iconic to warmists as those Himalayan glaciers and polar bears. This WWF report, it turned out, was co-authored by Andy Rowell, an anti-smoking and food safety campaigner who has worked for WWF and Greenpeace, and contributed pieces to Britain’s two most committed environmentalist newspapers. Rowell and his co-author claimed their findings were based on an article in Nature. But the focus of that piece, it emerges, was not global warming at all but the effects of logging.

    (Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com”

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2441390/posts

  36. rose says:

    I agree with Harper getting on the “Lower our emission” bandwagon, to be honest hasn’t he deviated away from Climate Change and into the realm of pollution reduction? Nearly 51 percent of Canadians believe that Climate Changes is real, he’s just appealed to those people in a very soft manner. I’m environfriendly con, thus I applaud any move we make as a nation to clean up the mess we made.

  37. wilson says:

    Iffy hasn’t stuck his neck out yet, still iffy on climate change, so I guess the place to look is the 2009 Liberal policy convention..this is a Quebec initiative:

    1. Support unconditionally Canada’s commitment under the Kyoto Protocol by enacting comprehensive legislation
    designed to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Canada,
    i. establishing a carbon tax, a cap and trade system, or a combination of both, including hard limits on the
    emission of greenhouse gasses for large final emitters;
    ii. providing financial support for energy efficiency and conservation measures, generating clean energy, and
    public education on the effects of global warming.

    2. Initiate constructive negotiations relating to the post-Kyoto period intended to build an international climate
    regime that includes:
    i. deeper mandatory GHG emission reductions for industrialized countries;
    ii. expanding the group of countries committed to binding emission reductions;
    iii. protection for tropical forests;
    iv. prioritizing climate-friendly technologies.

    3. Combat climate change by committing Canada to a 25-40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (relative to
    1990 levels) by 2020, and an 80% reduction by 2050.

    4. Favour the production of biofuels from forest product and agricultural residues.

    http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/2009-policy-resolutions-en.pdf

  38. frmgrl says:

    Look I’m not happy with everything the Harper government has done re-the auto bailout for instance,the Mahar $10mil settlement etc. I see the alternatives and I shudder. Look how they have steered us through this horrible recession. Things are starting to improve slowly but surely. The other guys would probably have us with a higher deficit and unemployment rate.
    We have to remember they govern for ALL Canadians not just us conservatives. I happen to think they are doing a reasonable job under the circumstances, being in a minority, the unco-operative opposition, hostile media etc.

  39. Bec says:

    maz2 @2:45 pm

    Can you imagine a headline “We were Wrong, AGW a ‘Snowjob” or
    “Breaking news, we your trusted television network are admitting here tonight that we LIED to you about AGW…more at 11″

    They are not in the business to admit their failure in truth telling. That would destroy their image of themselves as having credibility. And they seriously believe THEIR position is true + I also believe personally, there is billions of investment dollars at stake here. I believe these are survival decisions too.

  40. Calgary Junkie says:

    Rona was far from being “thrown under the bus” by Harper. The Opps savaged her mercilessly. Harper recognized that very few women (maybe Deb Grey) could fight verbal fire with verbal fire. Enter John Baird to slap down enviro-goofs like McGuinty.

    So he moved Rona to Minister of Western Economic Diversification, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Privy Council.
    Her experience as a public servant in the Klein gov’t made the inter-governmental portfolio a better fit for her.

    And later, she was promoted to “Labor Minister”. Harper has handled her very well, IMHO.

    And I remember in the House, when the Opps were screaming for her resignation, Harper stood up and said, Okay, I’ll make that a matter of confidence in the government.
    That shut them up. Harper stands up for his MPs.

    You want “thrown under the bus” ??? Look at how Iggy treated Dion.

  41. bluetech says:

    fh @ 11:55…I saw that too.
    And it gave CTV more fodder.Instead of recognising the Prime Minister as an individual, they they turned it around as an unsuccessful speech.
    PMSH stood his ground, while the other speakers stuck with the AGW-climate change fearmongering. In fact I have been looking all thru BT sites wondering if anyone picked up on that session. While so called conservatives slag PMSH for giving in with carbon cap and trade, the media mash him for not worshiping at the altar of AGW. It seems the main reason CTV won’t cover the Hadley e-mail event, exposing the fraud, is that it allows them to continue to bash the Prime Minister on that issue.
    Sadly, most Canadians are falling for the media slant.

    BTW… I noticed PMSH was trying to use a teleprompter in Davos. It was painful to watch. He has always given great speeches. I hope he doesn’t resort to Obama’s way.

  42. Liz J says:

    The opps beating their gums about proroguing is not of interest in Quebec, the Libranos aren’t going to gain anything on that front. The Dipps are gaining there for whatever reason, appears they like what’s been sifting through Jack’s ‘stache on any given day. As always, Quebec support can be fickle, they play politics and politicians like fiddles.

  43. Richco says:

    NB Tory Gal – “why feed the enemy?” Agree with you totally. They(the Liberals) would have a field day reading Blogging Tories at each others throats as proof that there’s trouble brewing in the grass roots of the CPC. I really like your mantra of supporting the PM all the way. That’s what I thought Blogging Tories would be all about. After all there’s lots to like about our PM. Sure, he’s not perfect but he’s better than most.

    Just remember where the progressives would be now if not for the merger.

  44. maz2 says:

    Socialists called to “war”.

    This is why Liberal Iffy and his Liberal/socialists are mute/silent re AGW FRaud.

    The time has come for Environment Minister Prentice to declare his choice: defend Canada’s interest or resign.

    …-

    “To my compatriots in the UK: Beware of Ed Miliband’s war on skeptics

    When I read this declaration of “war” against global warming skeptics, I struggled with what to say:

    Climate secretary Ed Miliband broke his silence on the ongoing row about man-made climate change by declaring war on the “siren voices” who denied global warming was real or man-made.

    My initial reaction was that Ed Miliband crossed some sort of line, but instead of just railing against him, I paused to think about it.

    Governments declare “war” all the time, it seems. They’ll declare a “war against crime” or a “war against poverty”.

    Why does this seem different? Is it merely because I’d be the target of Ed Miliband’s war if I lived in the UK?

    So I thought more about it, and I began to understand what made me see this as different, on an intuitive level..

    First, take a “war against crime” (or any specific crime, like a “war against drunk driving”). A crime is defined by law (debated and passed by democratically elected legislatures), and enforced by the courts, at arms length from the government. To fight the “war”, the government might allocate additional resources to law enforcement, but that is a change in intensity. And when a criminal is arrested, he is processed through the justice system with all the rights and protections given to any citizen accused of a crime, and with the onus on the government to prove its case. The “war on crime” does not alter that.

    If I voiced doubts about the global warming alarmism, am I doing anything illegal? Of course not. As a citizen of the UK, I would have a right to voice those doubts, as loudly as I care to. There is no law against it, so how can the British government justify this “war”? This isn’t like a “war on crime”, since there is no crime being committed.

    So criminal justice is a formal, well-defined, process, and it’s obvious how a “war on crime” is different from a “war on global warming skeptics”. What about something less well defined, like a “war on poverty” (or “war on illiteracy” and the like)? How can I feel less offended by the notion of such a “war”?

    Poverty is something that is objectively undeniable. It is a not a potential future outcome, but a present reality. And despite it’s objective reality, we can (and do) debate how to draw the the line to define poverty, what its underlying causes are, and how to best address the issue.

    Indeed, we seem to tolerate more debate on a real issue like poverty than we do on global warming, which is predicted by computer models. And by “we”, I mean people like Ed Miliband.

    This “war on skeptics” is not like a “war on crime” or a “war on poverty”, and now I understand why. It’s not because I’m the bad guy in it.” (more)

    http://stevejanke.com/archives/297676.php

  45. Martin says:

    This is the second post I have seen about wind turbines not working in extreme cold (the Minnesota reference Maz2). Cold weather is not unknown here in eastern Ont., I wonder if McGuinty is aware of this little problem. In Britain in Dec. when they absolutely needed power the turbines were not producing due to lack of wind.
    For McGuinty to put Ont.’s energy requirements into wind and solar baskets, is not planning but wistful thinking.

  46. Richco says:

    Please see MacLean’s poll up on who you would like to see light the Olympic flame. If you can believe it they list David Suzuki as a possibility. No frigging way! I picked Terry Fox’s mum.

  47. Liz J says:

    Another concern has surfaced re turbines from the Ottawa Citizen today: “Blowback from wind farms threatens air traffic control”,link at Bourque.

    In this Northern climate, setting up wind and solar power is a recipe for failure at great expense.

  48. Joanne says:

    Skuleman at 11:19 am – Very scary about the unions!

  49. Sandy says:

    I read N.B. Tory Gal’s comments re BT membership. When I took Crux of the Matter off the aggregator, I asked Stephen Taylor in an e-mail why he allowed certain points of view. He explained that he didn’t have time to check what other people wrote and wouldn’t get involved in any kind of censorship. I assume, however, that if he got enough complaints, he might have to do something.

    So, since the BT aggregator is not moderated in any way, I would recommend that if anyone is displeased, they send an e-mail to ST, preferably with a link to the offending post.

  50. Sandy says:

    Stephen Taylor’s e-mail address is: email@stephentaylor.ca

  51. Gabby in QC says:

    Kudos to Skuleman at 10:33 am.

    I see three different trends developing among conservatives.
    First, the side clamouring for the PM and the Conservatives to “tell the truth” about climate change, given recent revelations like ClimateGate, GlacierGate, PachauriGate, and all manner of other -gates.

    The other trend is the don’t worry, be happy, everything’s going according to the PM’s chessmaster moves, don’t listen to any criticism, keep your eyes on the prize kind of trend.

    And then, there’s the worriers, the ones who see the sharks circling in the waters of fabricated discontent coming in for the kill. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, I am a worrier.

    As a conservative, I have a few priorities, but my priority Number One is to make sure the Conservative Party remains as the governing party, preferably with a majority. That to me is paramount. Some who read this may invoke the danger or fallacy of a “my party right or wrong” mentality. Let them. Having seen the past duplicity of the Liberal Party in government, I would like to see the Conservative Party in government as long as possible.

    I thus do not think it helpful to demand the PM and the Environment Minister “tell the truth.” I’m sorry, but the PM has been telling the truth all along, to wit:
    • Kyoto was unrealistic, with no chance of success. Merely transferring money to developing nations would do absolutely nothing about lowering GHGs.
    • Any attempts to lower GHGs need the participation of all countries, doing their bit in their own back yards, without crippling their own economy.
    • That means prohibitive measures will not be imposed on the Alberta oil sands, which contribute to the wealth creation this blessed country enjoys.
    • Like John Donne said in his sonnet “no man is an island.” Canada is not an island either. We share a continent with our neighbours, so it only makes sense that we should work in concert with them to be good custodians of our territory, using our land wisely.
    • Copenhagen sets no binding targets, so each country is free to do what it can to lower its own emissions.

    IMO, the PM is as concerned about the environment and the effects of unbridled exploitation of our natural resources as well as the emission of harmful GHGs as any good caretaker would be.

    He may have been labelled a “denier” but I do not think he has ever been one. So, I believe it is unreasonable to expect him to “out” himself and say that climate change is and has been all BS, as some would like him to do.

    And as far as some negative comments and criticism directed at the PM on other blogs, well anyone can call himself “a conservative” in an anonymous place such as a comments forum. E.g. a regular caller to a local talk show always prefaces his anti-Harper rant with “I voted for him but …” How do I know he’s not lying? And similarly, how do I know that some negative comments are not actually coming from anti-Harper people posing as “conservatives”?

    Mind you, that’s not to say people are not entitled to question Conservative Party policies.

    But I would caution them to consider the alternative if the Conservatives lose the next election.

  52. Liz J says:

    We have a lot to be worried and concerned about if we live in McGuinty’s Ontario. Question is what can we do about it after the fact? He’s steamrolling along, doing whatever the Hell he wishes and we will be dealing with the consequences for decades.

    • Joanne says:

      We have a lot to be worried and concerned about if we live in McGuinty’s Ontario. Question is what can we do about it after the fact?

      Rallies?

      Actually for now I think the best thing to do is to contact your closest Liberal MPP and express your concerns. If enough people do that, the message might make its way up to the top.

  53. NB Tory Gal says:

    Sandy, Joanne, Gabby…thanks for your comments…good suggestions…good opinions…
    Onward and Upward…

  54. NB Tory Gal says:

    thank you too richco….

    Joanne, Gabby and Sandy make us think…it’s the way they can pull it all in and present it methinks.

    There are others that catch one’s eye too…well done all.

    awesome!

  55. MaryT says:

    OT, just read Chucker, and guess what the leader of the opposition wants now, senate reform and term limits. Oh, and the PM should not appoint them, a committee should do that. When will MR Iggy quit stealing or trying to change ideas that have been around for years.
    Yes, let a committee appoint senators, and let that committee be the voters. And Mr Iggy can’t even come up with an original name for his plan-he calls it the 12 step program.

  56. Lorraine says:

    Heh – the more the rabid socialist talking heads like Travers, Taber, Craig Oliver, Jack Layton, McGuinty’s brother, Ignatieff, May and the rest of the holier than thou loud mouths foam at the mouth saying that the Harper Conservatives have done NOTHING to curb “climate change” the more the Conservatives will emerge as the only rational sane players in this whole scam.

  57. Bec says:

    Gabby @ 5:00pm
    “I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, I am a worrier.”

    Well, if your observations, research,wisdom and courage to eloquently speak and debate makes you a worrier, do you suppose you could bottle it and pass some around? Beautifully stated Gabby, as usual.

  58. Shrug says:

    Good comments here today. Kudos to all of you.

    I’ve been thinking about the media thing. Considering that most of them have comments sections, I’m wondering how many use those forums to voice their opinions? I try to do at least one comment a day and then spend a little time ‘thumbing’ through the rest. I dunno if it does any good but it kinda gives me a positive way to vent my frustration.

    And I also agree, it is absolutely counter productive to be ‘stinking up’ our house.

  59. Lorraine says:

    There are 8 under 30 young people in my immediate family. All educated and employed in some pretty interesting careers. NONE of them have television hook ups. NONE of them subscribe to a daily newspaper. hey NEVER watch TV. They get their news from the Internet (if they want to) and their own industry publications targeted to their own professions. Sometimes they pick up the free Metro papers.

    They watch U-Tube for social comment for the most part judging by ones I get forwarded and use Facebook for any current events that are of inbterest to them.

    The old fashioned last century old fossils likeFife, Tabers, Travers, etc. not only can’t and don’t reach them they don’t and can’t influence them.

    So- U-Tubers amongst us – let’s rally the troops. We don’t have to spend time refuting the Toronto Liberal lies and mistruths and bias. We just have to replace the lies with the good news stories that are all around us due to Harper’s exceptional management of our country.

  60. Gabby in QC says:

    Thank you for the compliments, fellow conservatives.

    Since I am such a worrier, I think I’ll stay away from watching Goldhawk on CPAC tonight. He’s going to be talking about prorogation. I think I’ll watch the Grammies instead. I hope Lady Gaga sings “Bad Romance.” The video, available on YouTube, is really weird, but the song is good.
    “Rah rah, ooo-la-la-ah …” I think it goes ;-)
    I know, I’m waaay O/T … honestly, I’m drinking nothing more potent than water.

  61. NeilD says:

    Gabby,
    you missed a fourth trend.
    The side that merely wants the PM to ask for an open debate over the science of global warming.

    Is that too much to ask for?
    Everyone is complaining about the media and how they have paid so little attention to the recent developments with respect to the UN’s IPCC and the recent leaking of computer files that made the global warming fanatics look so bad.
    Want to know how to change their tune?
    Have the Prime Minister of Canada stand up and ask for a full debate!
    That would be a jolt heard around the world.
    I don’t want him to declare global warming to be a scam. I just want him to be honest and get the science (for or against) out in the open.

    As for the reaction to CJunk and his most recent posting, talk about wanting to throw the ‘heretics’ into the fire (or under the bus).
    Why are we so afraid that we should want to suppress honest opinions and debate?
    I’m a Conservative, just like CJunk (I’m sure), but this global warming scam means an awful lot to me too and if I get angry and speak my mind then I would expect nothing less than to have my fellow Blogging Tories counter my argument with reason or at least to understand my frustration. Not threaten to expel me from this forum.
    If we look at Blogging Tories as a family then what kind of a family are we if we threaten to kick out anyone who has a contrary view?
    Debate is healthy.

  62. NB Tory Gal says:

    What does fascist mean?
    The aggregator is run by a private individual. He called it the blogging tories. Those who are Tory thought it might be a good place to have their blogs looked at…like minded …
    This aggregator is not a part of the conservative party of Canada.

    I prefer to hang out with Tory bloggers. I do not want to be part of an aggregator that has more members against being a Tory – that is why I brought it up.

    What is your interest in this anyhow? You seem a “tad upset” Sarah W.

    What is the CHRC?

  63. Bec says:

    Excellent point, Lorraine and a timely reminder as well, pep talk.
    When we can ‘Google’(‘swear word’)our OWN names and find ourselves all over the Internet, it is apparent that we have the power and THEY are so last century!

    I’m also encouraging to my friends here, my own 12 step program, turn off the CBC and CTV for a week. It’s truly a blissful experience guys! Enjoy freedom because we have TRUTHFUL fact finders amongst us.

  64. NB Tory Gal says:

    Well Neil..Joanne was receptive and gave celestial junk much benefit of the doubt…
    I have been away from the blogging tories for a while and noticed changes since I was a regular member. My reaction to negative posts about our prime minister and the government, from more than one blogger, would be because of the miriad of those outside who are doing this… frustrating to see it on friendly ground…

    Are you a blogging tory Neil?

  65. Shrug says:

    Lorraine, that’s a great idea about rallying the troops. (‘An Army of Davids’ theme) What you are suggesting reminds me of what the people at Pajamas Media did (I think they even have some Canadian correspondents.) and it seems to be working well. Huffington Post is similar but orientated more to the left, I think.

    But I also think we can do the ‘refuting’ thing, too because a lot of the mainstream media content gets discussed on the internet. So even if people don’t watch TVs or read newspapers, they are still being exposed to those messages. I think we ignore that at our peril.

  66. Bec says:

    NeilD @ 6:38pm

    I definitely don’t want you to go anywhere. You have my vote and I wholeheartedly appreciate your position, comments and rationale.
    However,I also believe that the PM has sent many signals to the base and Canadians. Additionally this is very much strategic, imo.
    If we could get our hands on that darn round table ( I watched it but can’t find it) I sense you would see his commitment to the facts and truth.

  67. Lorraine says:

    I get really upset when I hear the pundits dismiss Conservative policy as just “pandering to their base”.

    What IS the “Conservative base”????

    In my opinion it is severely normal moderate men, women and children with a strong focus on families.

    The radical right is not “the base”. The radical left is not the base. Narrow focussed but noisy special interest groups are not “the base”.

    Yet the media says “pandering to the Conservative base” as if it is a dismissive perjutive and some kind of abnormal slice of Canadian society.

    Can anybody else define the “Conservative base”?

    • Joanne says:

      I’m taking one for the team here watching Goldhawk.

      The way to get on air is to pretend you’re a Liberal or NDP and then let it rip about 30 seconds into your allotted time. Heh.

      • Joanne says:

        Someone from the armed forces just called in to Goldhawk supporting PMSH and calling bullsh*t on the whole afghan detainee issue. Man that was awesome!!!

  68. NeilD says:

    Thanks Bec,
    I don’t plan to go anywhere but I do like to vent once in a while.
    That’s why I was pleased to find Blogging Tories two or three years ago.

  69. Bec says:

    “Pandering to their base” is what Liberals and NDP do when they defend terrorists and their organizations before the female victims CANADIAN SOLDIERS and civilians…..they do it, yes they do.

    “Pandering to their base” by Canadian MSM referencing Conservatives is an,
    “Oh Gawd, why are they on this planet, they are so tiresome, please oh please give us back our Socialism and dysfunctional government so that we can go back to sleep and take longer vacations”

  70. MaryT says:

    Thinking of the alternative should we not get a majority how about this scary thought.
    One of the arguments for the coalition is that 67% of cdns voted against PMSH. Well, of the 67% more voted against the liberals than the Bloc/ndp combined.
    So, what if Layton demands to be PM or Gilles, as their support for a coalition. They did get more seats than the liberals. Layton and Gilles are having secret meetings, so what are they plotting.

  71. maz2 says:

    Message to Environment Minister Prentice:

    Have you seen/read this*?

    This is more evidence of the UN-IPCC-AGW Fraud. The link is below.

    RSVP with your comments.

    “*It is now official: The IPCC is citing self-acknowledged guesswork from non-scientific sources.”
    …-

    “*The story of the Geography Major’s Dissertation

    A big story in climate science right now is the fact that the IPCC relied on a mountain magazine and a graduate student’s dissertation as their citations for a specific claim in their Fourth Assessment Report. However there are few details, so I decided to do some digging. I found out a bit about the dissertation.

    I believe this is the dissertation. It is written by this man, Dario-Andri Schwörer, also here. He was a student at the Geographical Institute of the Universities of Berne and Zurich, which is where he wrote his dissertation in or before 1997. He is now an avid outdoors-men, and a self-described ‘well known expert on the impact of climate change in the Alps’. Right now he is engaged in the TOPtoTOP program to promote climate protection.

    The dissertation itself is titled:

    An Inquiry into Possible Effects of Climatic Change on the Mountain Guide Trade in the Bernina Region

    Subtitled:

    Geography Major Dissertation

    by

    SCHWÖRER DARIO-ANDRI

    carried out at the Geographical Institute of the Universities of Berne and Zurich

    The dissertation itself is not entirely about climate change. In fact, he mentions the number one reason that mountain guides give for decreased climbs is not climate change, but:

    “They attribute this decrease in the first place to the recession and the high exchange rate of the Swiss franc in relation to the German mark. In the second place they mention changes of the natural environment.”

    That wasn’t mentioned in the AR4. The ambiguity continues:” (more)
    http://climatequotes.com/2010/01/31/the-story-of-the-geography-major-dissertation/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/

  72. jad says:

    New poll up at CTV

    What’s your preference for Senate reform?

    Elections by province (47 %)

    Abolishment (34 %)

    Leave as is (12 %)

    Panels to vet appointees (7 %)

    Looks like Ignatieff is on another winner here !

  73. Sandy says:

    N.B. Tory Gal has a point guys. I don’t want to be negative but I left the BT aggregator last summer for a reason. Those of us whose posts go “up” are all judged together. And, remember, I use my own name — in full. So, it’s out there all over the Internet, being judged against other BT’s.

    And, it happens very quickly. I put up Just Politics on December 23rd, just a little over a month ago and it’s already all over the place — including your comments. LOL

    My point is that we are judged by the company we keep. And, although we may feel like family here at BLY, BT’s are NOT family. I know very little about 85% of the posters. I’ve been around for four years, since the 2006 federal election. Many are new since last summer.

    I know Joanne and Stephen Taylor in person. I know Tory Lady, Dr. Roy, Frmgrl, Mark-Alan, Matt, Victor and Darcy Meyers via e-mail and postings. That’s it.

    So, what is the alternative? A Blogging Tories Facebook page? Or, modify N.B. Tory Gal’s current page? Something to think about.

    The reality is that a blogger needs either an aggregator or regular readers, otherwise they get very little traffic and it is too much work not to be read.

    This is in no way criticizing the BT aggregator and those on it, since I’m on it myself. ST puts a lot of time into it. But, we should be able to talk about the issues without worrying about who may think we are arguing among ourselves.

  74. Lorraine says:

    Paul from Cele3stial Junk is certainly entitled to his opinions. But he has gone so far to call any Conservatives mindless ConBots, etc.
    Oh well – his site is being gleefully linked to by LibLogs and Progressive Bloggers now that a “Harperite” has lost faith blah blah.

    Just like Gerry Nichols – you only get attention or quoted or even paid as a guest on Toronto based talk shows if you pretend to be a Conservative and then bash conservatives, especially if you call Stephen Harper names.

    So this Paul guy is probably really thrilled with his new found audience and traffic. He is really over the top. Is he a young person or a university theorist type?

  75. Sandy says:

    I just took a look at Celestial Junk and it really is very negative. It’s not just a different point of view or a debate on ideas or issues. It’s complete anti-Harper government everything. I can see why the progressive and Liblogs like to link to him. Well, if he wants traffic, I suppose he’s getting it.

  76. wilson says:

    Paul at CJunk is passionate about exposing the GW fraud, passion and impatience go hand in hand.
    and one thing yah gotta say, lots and lots of patience is required watching PMSH steer this ship back on the right course.

    I get pretty livid over Alberta being demonized and abused by the East (some of you may have noticed, haha) and have had to take a self imposed ‘shut up’.
    But good on all of us for being passionate about ‘something’.

    Running down the govt position, free speech and all, but running down our PM should be a self imposed limit, imo. all it accomplishes is inviting the Harper-haters to pile on.

  77. wilson says:

    Someone on this board, so many posts not sure now who,
    said to post outide of BTs and BLY.

    I so agree, fan out and post elsewhere too.
    You will get the Liberal century’s that guard what they consider ‘their’ blog, accuse you of being on the payroll, CPC talking points, Conbots, and worse.
    Just perservere with the facts.
    Posters here are so very well informed, take your knowledge and plant it.

    Don’t bother with kady at CBC or Taber at CTV (a boycott is what they deserve), but Macleans readers are much more informed, be it LibLuvin media info.

    Here is Macleans blog site
    http://www2.macleans.ca/category/blog-central/

  78. Bec says:

    I sense it is time to batten down the hatches and not rationalize or analyse what is going on with Cjunk.

    I truly wish a country of this size, diversity and intellectual talent could be Libertarian but guess what, it is NOT imminent.

    The other thing I would like to put out there is what is the ratio of Conservative voters that volunteer for the military and to protect our country VS Socialist?

    This will be an interesting research project for some genius to pursue…..we have several that post here………..

  79. Joe says:

    I believe the big reason the Conservatives are acting the way they are re AGW has more to do with keeping jobs in Canada than actually doing anything about Climate Change. When almost our entire economy is dependent on being able to sell goods south of the 49th it makes a lot of sense to agree with your trading partner even if you think he is a blathering idiot. It comes down to a matter of principle. Which principle is most important, Truth about AGW or allowing Canadians to continue to feed their families.

  80. Gabby in QC says:

    NeilD at 6:38 pm: “Gabby,
    you missed a fourth trend.
    The side that merely wants the PM to ask for an open debate over the science of global warming. …
    If we look at Blogging Tories as a family then what kind of a family are we if we threaten to kick out anyone who has a contrary view?
    Debate is healthy.”

    NeilD, I may not share your POV about what the PM should or should not say re: climate change, but nowhere did I suggest you should not express you POV.

    Another commenter here expressed some frustration at the negativity being directed at PM Harper, be it here or elsewhere. Well, that person is simply expressing a POV, and venting, as you yourself admitted you were doing, and as we all do.

    As far as my suggesting in my previous post that some people commenting over at Celestial Junk may be posing as conservatives, I was not calling the blog owner’s conservatism into question, nor yours, for that matter.

    But it is a fact some commenters post under several different names. Some of them purposefully post either very controversial comments in order to bait others, or else they pretend to be conservatives only to attack Harper in order to create dissension.

    Now, getting back to how direct PM Harper should be about climate change. I still maintain the following:
    In opposition, Mr. Harper was opposed to Kyoto not because he saw climate change as a hoax, but rather because the targets were punitive & unrealistic for Canada, and the then-Liberal government had no implementation plan with all provinces on board.

    Check this December 10, 2002 exchange between then-Opposition Leader Harper and PM Chretien here to see what I mean:
    http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=37&Ses=2&DocId=633669#SOB-379286

    So, in actual fact, Mr. Harper has been and continues to speak honestly on this issue. He has been branded on the left as a “denier” and accused on the right of wimping out. I believe neither is true.

    What has PM Harper achieved on this file?
    • First, Canada has not disbursed any money that I’m aware of to developing countries as a penalty for not having met our Kyoto targets.
    • Secondly, there’s been talk of a carbon tax (rejected in the last election) and now possibly a cap & trade system, if the US sets one up. That’s a big IF. Again, no penalties to Canada that I’m aware of.
    • Under Kyoto, only the 32 signatories were supposedly responsible for “saving the planet” – to use the euphemistic phrase environmentalists delight in using.
    But ever since PM Harper has been attending these international meetings, developing nations have been told that they too have a role in “saving the planet” whereas before they were let off scot-free.
    I credit Harper with that. No mean accomplishment.

    Where I do fault PM Harper, and I’ve faulted him on this before, is on the communications angle.
    The Conservatives have never fully explained their own version of the Clean Air Act. They have allowed Suzuki, the Pembina Institure, the Sierra Club, Elizabeth May, even Al Gore, to call government proposals “a fraud.”

    That bill must have had some provisions, modest though they may be, that appeal to a number of Canadians. But few details were ever publicized.

    And what about the conservation aspect of the environment? Has there been much mention of the expansion of the Nahanni National Park? Maybe thare are others I’m not aware of.

    Instead of having the Conservative backroom produce silly attack ads, I believe the PM should insist the backroom concentrate on producing ads selling its accomplishments on the environment, and explaining what else it proposes to do.

    Regardless of whether climate change is anthropogenic or not is irrelevant, as far as I’m concerned, so I don’t see the need for the PM to pronounce on that issue. But as PM of this vast land he is responsible for the good stewardship of its territory, which means looking out for the environment. As he said during one QP, (paraphrasing, not an exact quote):
    ‘I was elected to take care of Canada’s environment, not that of the Maldives.’

    So don’t give up on him.

  81. maz2 says:

    It’s settled: Choo-Choo’s IPCC is dead.

    The left-socialists have thrown Choo-Choo overboard.
    …-

    “Pachauri fails to get UK support over ‘unsubstantiated’ climate report claims

    Chair of IPCC facing allegations that claims made in key reports did not have required standard of scientific review

    Rajendra Pachauri, who has faced criticism as chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change following allegations of inaccurate statements in panel reports, suffered a fresh blow last night when he failed to get the backing of the British government.

    A senior government official reiterated Pachauri’s position but stopped short of expressing confidence in him. “The position is that he is the chair and he has indicated that mistakes were made,” the climate change official said. “There is no vacancy at this stage, so there is no issue at this stage.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/rajendra-pachauri-ipcc-claims

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi

  82. maz2 says:

    Spell whO?

    Liberal Iffy’s Harvard buddy/idol has crumbled to dust.

    The UN/IPCC has crumbled to dust.

    Pachauri/IPCC is digging deeper into his own PET Cemetery.

    The left-liberals/socialists are in retreat.

    More, and, faster.

    “A historical hallmark of “isms” and charismatic movements is to dig deeper when they falter—to insist that the “thing” itself, whether it be Peronism, or socialism, etc., had not been tried but that the leader had been undone by forces that hemmed him in.”

    “The speed with which some of his devotees have turned on him—and their unwillingness to own up to what their infatuation had wrought—is nothing short of astounding.”

    This was foreseen here*.

    “*This is his sole legacy: a massive post-traumatic stress disorder.”
    …-

    “The Obama Spell Is Broken

    The curtain has come down on what can best be described as a brief un-American moment in our history. That moment began in the fall of 2008, with the great financial panic, and gave rise to the Barack Obama phenomenon.

    The nation’s faith in institutions and time-honored ways had cracked. In a little-known senator from Illinois millions of Americans came to see a savior who would deliver the nation out of its troubles. Gone was the empiricism in political life that had marked the American temper in politics. A charismatic leader had risen in a manner akin to the way politics plays out in distressed and Third World societies.

    There is nothing surprising about where Mr. Obama finds himself today. He had been made by charisma, and political magic, and has been felled by it. If his rise had been spectacular, so, too, has been his fall. The speed with which some of his devotees have turned on him—and their unwillingness to own up to what their infatuation had wrought—is nothing short of astounding. But this is the bargain Mr. Obama had made with political fortune.”

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029110104772360.html

    “*Barack Obama – Narcissist or Merely Narcissistic?”

    “The “small people”, the “rank and file”, the “loyal soldiers” of the narcissist – his flock, his nation, his employees – they pay the price. The disillusionment and disenchantment are agonizing. The process of reconstruction, of rising from the ashes, of overcoming the trauma of having been deceived, exploited and manipulated – is drawn-out. It is difficult to trust again, to have faith, to love, to be led, to collaborate. Feelings of shame and guilt engulf the erstwhile followers of the narcissist. This is his sole legacy: a massive post-traumatic stress disorder.”
    http://www.globalpolitician.com/25109-barack-obama-elections

  83. Samantha says:

    Bec @ 11:00: That is so true. The difference between conservatives and the left is that the left deals in the world of ideology and abstract concepts (thus the Lib’s line up of nutty professors as leaders); conservatives are smarter than that, they deal in reality, practicalities and are more pragmatic. We work with what we have. We need to consider the conservative/libertarian ideal state, but only as a guide – are we closer to that today than yesterday? – and not expect that our elected leaders can deliver it on demand.

  84. Liz J says:

    Have to agree with Gabby’s suggestion for the Conservative backroom. They should produce ads that inform the public of their accomplishments not only on the environment but on other issues as well because we cannot get the straight goods put out by the media. It would be money well spent. If the Liberals wish to attack those facts put out they’d have the opportunity to tell the people why and what they’d propose differently then the people can decide.

  85. NeilD says:

    Hi Gabby, I wasn’t referring to anything you said about poseurs posting but simply pointing out that there was a fourth trend that I wanted to mention. That of getting the question of the validity of Global Warming out there. The rest of it was just general harping.

  86. maz2 says:

    Lorrie Goldstein:

    “Sigh.
    It’s nothing new, that was Canada’s position before Copenhagen but I do wish the Tories would have the courage to denounce the Kyoto accord and any possible successor agreement for the huge scam it is, as I’m sure you do as well.

    Cheers,
    LG”

    …-

    “Environmental groups losing interest in lobbying Prentice

    Frustration is mounting that the government has locked itself into an environmental policy bunker on climate change.”

    http://www.thehilltimes.ca/page/view/prentice-02-01-2010

  87. NeilD says:

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, and again, and again.

    With all of the money the Conservatives have at their disposal they should develop a half hour television program for broadcast on a national network on Sunday mornings to get their Conservative agenda across completely bias free.

    They could even invite healthy debate from opposition members so long as the discussion was based on reason and truth. Not the near total fabrication and hysteria we get now.

    The Liberals already have Question Period on CTV so why can’t the Conservatives have their own slice of TV time to get on their own soapbox? Even if they have to pay for it themselves.

    How much do you think Sham Wow pays for half an hour of national television on a Sunday morning? I’m willing to bet they pay very little.

    Selling advertising to support the show would undoubtedly be a bad idea so the Conservative Party could offer the time to community groups for general announcements.

  88. Liz J says:

    So, some more timely polling coming up with 4 out of 10 think proroguing parliament is undemocratic. Is anyone else livid over this nonsense? If it’s undemocratic did it just become so when used by PM Harper? If it’s undemocratic why has it been allowed since Confederation and why wasn’t there massive protesting in the streets when Trudeau did it 8 times or when Chretien did it several times, the last time to avoid sitting in the HOC with Martin.

    It’s time we get the message out, spell out a few facts, get at least the length of this prorogation correct.

    It could be helpful for our PM to take a page from US presidents and regularly address the Nation, put out the facts about what his government is doing and why. It would take the spin out of reporting to some degree. At least they can’t change or tinker with the message straight from the PM….er, did I just write that?

    • Joanne says:

      So, some more timely polling coming up with 4 out of 10 think proroguing parliament is undemocratic

      Liz, I tried finding a link to the original Leger poll and haven’t had any luck yet.

      But that means the majority of respondents don’t think it’s undemocratic? I fail to see their point.

  89. Fay says:

    Well said Gabby!!! You a have a rational voice that i respect.

  90. Richco says:

    I’m guilty for trying hard to push the negative out of the discussion here, but you have to admit that it happens here too. Maybe not to the extent of Cjunk but some of the name-calling and tabloid postings that are critical of the opposition aren’t much better than that biases media we claim to hate…but tune into each night.

    I join those who aren’t bothered by it because I choose not to expose myself to it because I know it for what it’s worth……absolutely nothing.

    If you missed Monte Solberg’s column today he says, and I agree that our PM has done LOTS for the environment since he’s been in power. Perhaps an Environmental Achievement list is in order to shut the naysayers up? Truth is hard to fight. Truth is a defense.

    For all of those who post to blogs there are thousands who don’t. Some may tune in to see what the Tory Bloggers have to say, others might be on oppo. research looking for the next scandal(I sure hope we don’t hand it to them),while others may be looking for story ideas, or to gauge the support of the grassroots for the PM and his gov’t. There are those of course who’ll be lurking for reasons of disruption and less than stellar intentions.

    Sandy and NB Tory Gal raise a great point re: trust. Unless you know for a fact or have met who you’re in discussion with assume nothing.

    My top six blogs that I check before I even go to the newswires are: SDA, Taylor’s, Janke’s, Chucker, BLT and JP – in that order. Each one has something unique that the other five don’t have. I’ve shared my feelings here before that when the BLY crowd focus on the support and positives of the PM, his caucus and their country, it’s more passionate here than the other 5 and it’s inspiring to those who may be visiting here looking to see how the grassroots like Harper. They may be thinking of voting for him even. When the discussion revolves around Mr. Ignatieff and everything the guy does AND the media it almost feels like down deep folks here really think he’s a threat to Harper..otherwise why dwell on the dude?

    Bottom-line for me is that it’s all politics and Gabby I’m not a worrier because when I needed him Stephen Harper supported the organization that I founded and directed for years in Ontario.
    Now I’m returning the favor, because what you see with him is exactly what you get. He’s not afraid to make tough decisions and he thinks everything through from each possible angle. I trust him as the country’s leader now and after the next election.

    Today I’m looking ahead to the Olympics and hoping like hell that things go well because we’re being showcased to the world and if the Liberals want to dink around and play politics when the whole world is celebrating how sport brings us all together then they and CTV will be doing it without me, because I’m tuning out of CTV even for my Olympic coverage.

  91. Liz J says:

    Joanne, I fail to see their point on that poll as well, surprised they even published it when it doesn’t fit in with their agenda for the present polling frenzy. According to those numbers, they’re closer to flogging a dead horse. It kind of gives some explanation for the reason the media had to inflate the numbers of protesters on the 23rd.

    Still would like the PM, as busy as he may be, to address the nation and set a few matters straight. There’s far too much misinformation and outright lies going about.

  92. MaryT says:

    Another interesting article in the Hill Times -via Bourque- re Chretein shutting down the Somali Inquiry-

    And who knew that top liberals/ndp met in Goodale’s office in Regina to discuss changes re Prorogation.
    What else have they been working on.

    It will be interesting to see how the lib senators vote on the re-introduced bills once they are back in session. If they vote against any of them, then all the hullabaloo re Shutting down Parliament – will prove they had no intention of passing them with or without prorogation. So, will they have to vote in favor to save face.
    As mentioned, if 4 out of 10 are against something, that means 6 out of 10 are in favor of the same thing.

    I wonder what Jack and Gilles have been discussing, after all, between the two of them they have more seats than the liberals. Maybe they plan to form a coalition against Mr Iggy. Maybe we should get that possibility out there, to make people think.
    If the opposition can claim 67% voted against the PM, why can’t we say more of that 67% was for the ndp/bloc than the liberals.

  93. jad says:

    Right on, Joanne. Six out of ten Canadians don’t think it’s undemocratic, but that wouldn’t make a good headline.

    On the subject of more liberal evasions (aka lies), “Opposition parties complaining about Conservative “sabotage” of an independent rights agency were consulted on all the government’s appointees last year but failed to raise objections, ministerial documents show.”

    {Paul)Dewar in an interview acknowledged NDP Leader Jack Layton’s office was contacted on each appointment, but complained that the government’s process of mailing out letters seeking comment within seven days of receipt is designed to stifle opposition scrutiny.” Well after all this is the party that has never understood the phrase “in a timely manner”.

    On the other hand “{Ralph}Goodale maintains his party can find no record of being notified of the other appointees, notwithstanding the dated government copies. One of those board spots went to Brad Farquhar – who ran for the Tories against Goodale in his Saskatchewan riding in 2006.

    “Obviously if that name had come to my attention, alarm bells would have gone off,” said Goodale”. I guess you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink, especially if he’s a Liberal horse.

  94. MaryT says:

    Dave R will be hitting a lot of topics this a.m., from climategate, vaccine and autism, and that group that is charged with smuggling kids out of Haiti.

  95. Joanne says:

    Thanks Mary T.

    New post up, BTW.

  96. Richco says:

    If I had a kid who brought a test home in which he/she scored a 4 out of 10 that, to me indicates a failed test. So too does this poll. It’s being spun by the usual suspects because the headline “6 out of 10 Canadians could give a rat’s ass about the proroguing of Parliament” would make both the MSM and Liberals even more like the losers they are.

    Do I think the PM’s going to lose sleep over it?
    Nope.

  97. fh says:

    It was a Liberal Government in Ottawa that helped secure the 2010 Olympics for Vancouver and Canada
    What are they thinking?

    fh

  98. Richco says:

    Liz – at the end of your post at 11:00am you wrote that it would be great for the PM to address the nation to set a few matters straight.

    If I were him, I’d get more bang for my buck if I waited to do that during and election campaign.

    I would also wonder whether he’s more the type to do that when it involves matters of national importance or urgency. I’m pretty sure even he would recognize that for him to draw any more attention to the prorogue of Parliament would be chalking up a victory for the oppositions because it would be Harper admitting that the national really cares about it, when I don’t believe they do.

  99. Liz J says:

    If Ralphie Goodale wants to do something constructive he could work with the Conservatives on crime issues since Regina, in his province, is the crime capital of Canada, but no, he’d rather play his petty little games over something like proroguing or appointing senators which his party made full use of throughout our history.

  100. jt says:

    My email to messieurs Harper, Prentice and Flagherty regarding the sign onto COP-15:

    Mr Harper;

    You sir, are my MP. I have already contacted Mr Prentice prior to Cop-15 with my views on the fraud that AGW is. I will not support any government or political party who signs onto the fraud that the planet is warming by purely human input. As a geologist, I can assure you that this planet has been warmer and CO2 levels higher with little adverse effect on human or plant activity. Ask the Romans about it, or ask the Vikings about it.

    If anything, your government should be concerned that we are now entering a protracted cooling period, in which case we might wish to spew out a bit more GHG to mitigate that trend. The human race does not fare well under cooling conditions, ask those who lived through the Little Ice Age 1350-1850.

    The human race has prospered in “warm” times. Read your history. If the planet is indeed warming, it won’t be a bad thing. Increased CO2 is also good for plants, they thrive on higher CO2 levels, ask any greenhouse operator about that fact. More healthy plants = more food for more people. Your government appears to be against that idea and against more people. Funny, how do you propose to pay all those pension legacy costs if you don’t have more people paying more taxes to fund your pensions?

    Now that Mr Prentice, your environment Minister has signed us to COP-15, without any mandate to do so I might add, I don’t recall your government asking Canadians about that, I will not support your government or you sir as my MP. My money is going to those who will defend my interests over those who wish to “depopulate” this planet or cause economic hardship that will bring that process about.

    Don’t waste my money burying CO2, or subsidizing corporate initiatives that do nothing to “save the planet” because it’s more about saving their bottom line, or re-distribute wealth, or perpetuate environmental policies that are anti-human development. I won’t support those intitiatives.

    I am donating my money to the Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation and locally to the Wildrose Alliance who speak more of my kind of language on the hoax that “man-made” climate change is.

    Sincerely,

    xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

    Mr Prentice and the Harper government have declared “war” on the Canadian people with this sign on. They have joined forces with the 62 Percenters by selling Canadians out to COP-15, One World Government and the “depopulation” of this planet. I am “returning fire”. I am not “chatal property” of the federal government of Canada or anyone else aspiring to that position.

    Expounding on keeping the “global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius” is absolutely politically, astounding! These rubes really must think thet we are stupid!

  101. Pingback: Harper gov’t position on global warming « Just Politics

  102. Richco says:

    Bottom-line is that we have a choice of whether or not we’re going to believe for the Opposition’s BS, whether delivered by them or spun out by their media cheerleaders.

    Would Ralph Goodale be one of those Liberals sticking it out with Iffy until June? Pension insurance time?

  103. Shrug says:

    Wilson said: “I so agree, fan out and post elsewhere too.
    You will get the Liberal century’s that guard what they consider ‘their’ blog, accuse you of being on the payroll, CPC talking points, Conbots, and worse.
    Just perservere with the facts.
    Posters here are so very well informed, take your knowledge and plant it.”

    Yep I really believe it does make a difference. Fight back against the propaganda machine because otherwise people will never hear another point of view.

    For instance, yesterday I made a comment at the TStar. At first I got several thumbs down. After a while it was 50/50 but by the end of the day it was 60/30 agreed.

    I have a suspicion that the Left has been intentionally targeting the comments sections of late. They’ve probably figured out it is just like free advertising (as well as push polling). Well, we can do it, too.

    Oh and Wilson. I have seen your comments various place and you’re a great rep for the Conservative side. Bravo!!!

  104. Gabby in QC says:

    NeilD and Liz J, I totally agree that the PM should communicate more often and directly with Canadians. It need not be as often as Obama does it, but even a monthly Sunday morning update regarding government business & plans would go a long way towards countering some of the anti-Harper propaganda out there.

    In addition, NeilD’s suggestion of a Conservative Party “infomercial” is great.

    Richco at 10:15 am: “… and Gabby I’m not a worrier because when I needed him Stephen Harper supported the organization that I founded and directed for years in Ontario.”

    I don’t quite understand the connection between my being a worrier and Mr. Harper helping you out.

    In case I didn’t make myself clear in previous comments … I’m a worrier because of the growing anti-Harper propaganda campaign, and that in an eventual election undecided voters will be swayed by that kind of unrelenting propaganda.
    If you recall, when prorogation was first announced, I expressed my fears at that time (Dec. 30).

    No use telling me not to worry, either. Like the proverbial horse, I can be led to water but … ;-)

  105. Richco says:

    fanning out doesn’t make a hill of difference if you’re fighting conservatives on their own blog.

    The problem with the same individuals posting in many different places, using the same names(real or otherwise) and moving the same message it really does look contrived and set-up. What ends up happening is that if you know where the “usuals” gather together and start there why bother looking at any more blogs?

    You need to get creative and tweak the message slightly every time I think.

  106. maz2 says:

    Joanne: February 1, 2010 at 10:14 am

    I had sent an e-mail link to him.

    That was his reply.

    He takes the time to reply personally; that’s impressive.

  107. Richco says:

    Gabby – “I don’t quite understand the connection between my being a worrier and Mr. Harper helping you out”

    I didn’t draw a connection Gabby. My point was that in my experience with him I don’t think he’s changed much. That he still has a confidence and thoughtfulness in himself that is standing him very well as a leader.

    Those same qualities coupled with his many accomplishments are what’s going to see him through all of the anti-Harper stuff, which we deduced here many times is very much a fantasy, drummed up by the Mr. Iffy Waffle Coalition and their puppy-dog press.

    Let me ask you something. Are you worried because you’re starting to believe the message of the anti-Harperites yourself? Might you be swayed?

    I’m not trying to convince you not to worry. Go ahead, but you’re one person also here trying to sway no? My choice is to put my trust in Harper. Yes, he may have made mistakes but he’s the guy I want leading this country and for every doubter in the crowd I’ll be working to that end.

    The very thought of what the Liberals and their Coalition will do to this country should sober up anyone very quickly.

  108. jt says:

    H/T SDA via Cjunk: you guys posting here haven’t convinced this guy of Harper’s sincerity on things “Conservative”, at all.

    http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2010/02/bbc-global-warming-and-canadas.html

    I sent an email to Prentice yesterday. I actually got a reply:

    Thank you for writing the Member of Parliament for Calgary Centre-North, the Honourable Jim Prentice. I wish to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail and as the subject matter pertains to the Minister’s Portfolio, I have forwarded your message to Environment Canada.

    Please note for future correspondence to the Minister of Environment – you can contact the address directly by email at Minister@ec.gc.ca

    Kind regards,

    Sarah Faye Campbell
    Parliamentary Assistant

    Office of the Hon. Jim Prentice, P.C., Q.C., M.P.
    House of Commons
    Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
    Tel: (613) 992-4275
    Fax: (613) 947-9475

    My first comment is: I wrote Prentice about signing the COP-15 deal, without any by your leave of the ones who will pay for it all, not Environment Canada – they aren’t the Conservative member in any way shape or form. They have nothing to say about my email to Mr Prentice.

    I’m expecting an audit by the CRA, probably in June. I’ll bet money on it.

  109. jt says:

    By the way Joanne, your link to Goldstein seems to be faulty, error 404.

  110. Gabby in QC says:

    Richco at 9:05 am
    “Let me ask you something. Are you worried because you’re starting to believe the message of the anti-Harperites yourself? Might you be swayed? …
    Yes, he may have made mistakes but he’s the guy I want leading this country and for every doubter in the crowd I’ll be working to that end.”

    It appears you have mistakenly equated my being “a worrier” with “a doubter.”

    Look, we’ve had this discussion before. You and I have different POVs about what one should do about the anti-Harper members of the media.

    You choose to ignore it, as evidenced by your frequent admonitions to other commenters here to shut it off.

    I prefer to be aware of what the anti-Harper crowd is saying, so that if I have the opportunity to comment at that kind of column, I can counter those arguments, with supporting documentation whenever possible. But I can only do that if I am aware of what a journalist has said or written.

    So, no, I’m not “a doubter.” If anything, I’m a realist, a conservative realist. I see the barrage of opposition PM Harper has to contend with, and I prefer to confront it rather than pretend everything’s all right.

    And if I think there may be some changes required, particularly in the Conservative Party’s communications department, I voice those concerns. Does that make me “a doubter”? Does that mean I’ve been “swayed”?

    The fact that I worry about the constant controversies the Conservative Party is faced with does not mean that my loyalty to the Conservative Party has been shaken or that I’ve been “swayed”, as you suggest.

    • Joanne says:

      So, no, I’m not “a doubter.” If anything, I’m a realist, a conservative realist.

      That’s for sure Gabby. You’re a very wise realist.

  111. Pingback: Harper gov't position on global warming « Crux of the Matter

  112. Pingback: Harper gov't position on global warming « Crux of the Matter

Comments are closed.