Both Chantel Hebert and Susan Riley ponder the possibilities of a Maxime Bernier leadership bid after his awesome opinion letter in La Presse. But Riley lost me at “oil patch foot-draggers”, so we will shift our focus to Hebert’s more objective column.
Chantel’s theory is that Bernier is indeed setting the stage for a future leadership bid, and that Conservative party members would prefer Bernier to Jean Charest as the Quebec candidate. Well I can tell you that based on the readership of this blog, Charest doesn’t stand a chance in h-e-double hockeysticks.
Furthermore, Hebert suggests that the Progressive Conservative MPs may be out of touch with the larger grassroot movement, and therefore Jim Prentice may be vulnerable against a potential leader who appeals more to the base. That certainly is a possibility. Prentice is a gifted politician but I’m not sure how much the base can identify with him:
...On Wednesday, Environment Minister Jim Prentice scrambled to distance himself from Bernier’s double-edged praise of his climate-change approach.
And the zero-growth policy the ex-minister advocated in his Calgary speech is unlikely to find its way into Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s upcoming budget.But then auditioning for a return to the cabinet table is not what this is really about.
Bernier’s long game has always been to go after the top job.
These days, he is making the most of his unsolicited freedom from cabinet solidarity to stake out ideological ground that could stand him in good stead with the rank-and-file Conservatives who will select the next party leader…
Previously I haven’t wanted to indulge in these kinds of discussions because I’ve felt it was more the opposition and media trying to stir the pot and insert some divisions into the party. However I can tell you that the patience of the grassroots loyalty has been sorely tested in recent months and there are a few issues that will be deal-breakers if our concerns aren’t acknowledged. Less government interference, more fiscal restraint and a commonsense environmental approach are all dear to the hearts of my most of my readers and by extension a large segment of the party supporters.
And what are the alternatives if the CPC veers much further to the left?
I suppose we would have to sit home during the next election. Pity.
* * * *
“It’s not debatable.”
Down with UN AGW Fraud.
…-
“Breaking News: IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri to face independent inquiry
Environment and Climate ministers meeting in closed session in Bali last night insisted that an independent review should be carried out following the publicising of mistakes in its last report, and a row surrounding Dr Pachauri’s robust response to his critics. If his management is found to be at fault his position could become untenable.
Participants in the unprecedented meeting – held at the annual assembly of the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Governing Council in Bali – were sworn to secrecy over the decision and it is only expected to be announced after its detaled scope and composition have been worked out by UNEP and the World Meteorological Organisation, the two UN agencies that oversee the IPCC’s work.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Maz2 – That’s big news!
It would take a lot to get me to not vote in the next election but global warming is the one issue that would see me do just that.
I understand the huge recessionary expenditures ‘forced’ on the government and I can even support them because Niagara Falls benefited greatly in very visible ways and I can even tolerate their heavy-handed approach to drug use but global warming is a deal breaker for me.
BTW, considering the number of gold medals the women’s hockey team received last night we can safely say that Canadian athletes currently have way more gold medals than any other nation at the Olympic Games.
Hebert definitely has a sixth sense about politicians and the situations. Thanks…I don’t have time for Riley.
I still respect PMSH, I just hope he is paying attention. I feel the same frustration that many here are going thru: when will Prentice and PM respond openly and honestly to the grassroots supporters, and the info on the AGW scam?
OT but WOW!! and WOO HOO for the Canadaian GOLDEN Ladies!!!A great hockey game!!And for the great Canadian fans who cheered for the USA when they got their silver medals!
Susan Riley is a bigoted Liberal hack , who has no credibility for impartial reporting. She openly referred to all small-c conservatives , on live TVO Studio-2 , as “Knuckle Draggers”.
Gerry Nichols has some praise for MMMMMaxime as well:
http://gerrynicholls.blogspot.com/2010/02/in-praise-of-maxime.html
Jean Charest isn’t even remotely on my radar for future leader. Now HE would make me want to not bother heading to the voting booth. As far as I’m concerned, he’s a federal Liberal.
Having a yuk yuk at the ignorant comments after Hebert’s column. Those fools don’t have a clue!
I understand the concern a lot of people here have about global warning and the government’s approach to it, but to talk about it as a “deal-breaker” is a little over the top.
Consider what the alternative would be. Instead of at worst a rather milque-toast attitude to the whole thing from the CPC, you would have full-blown global warming theorists in charge led, nominally at least by Ignatieff with his trusty cohorts Layton and May.
By all means, vent as much as you like, and write to your MP etc., but a deal-breaker ? Let’s get real here.
Harper and Prentice should remember that conservatives are quite capable of starting a new national party if they have no party that represents their views. They should look at the polls for Alberta and see just how fast a new party can gain support when conservative voters give up on a party that they are convinced no longer reflects their views. The only reason that the Alberta Conservatives won the last election was the MSM kept saying that vote splitting was going to give the Liberals the election. A lot of Albertans would like a do over so they could vote Wildrose.
Who, but the Toronto media is hyping this buffoon named “Charest” as the next Conservative leader.
Is that the very same “Charest” that was the failed leader of the Progressive Conservative Party?
Is that the very same “Charest” that is the leader of the “LIBERAL Party of Quebec?
Is that the very same “Charest” who wants the Federal Government to nuke the economy of Alberta and environs, all so his provinces electricity can be in greater demand.
We all know how the Toronto liberals and media get all their ideas from the American leftist. With that in mind, remember how Ann Coulter referred to John McCain as the New York Times favorite Republican. She said this because the Lib-left twits from said “rag” were promoting the weakest candidate. It’s for this very same reason that the Toronto media is promoting this stooge Charest. It’s because he would be easy to beat. The same thing could also be said about John Tory leading the PC’s of Ontario.
I agree with Blame Crash. It’s only Toronto progressives who assume Charest will be the next man to lead. So out of touch with what is really going on. Now put down those half-double decaffeinated half-cafs and see if you can stand stepping outside of your cocoon for half a minute and pay attention….!
Jean Charest has absolutely no chance of ever being leader, Prentice has diminished his own chances by a large amount, Bernier is still a light weight hope to be and most importantly PM Harper is not planning on leaving his post anytime soon.
So is this the leftist media trying to stir the pot?
Of course they are, they don’t report news, they fabricate it to try to influence public opinion.
The PM has been one hundred percent correct for the most part ignoring these Liberal shills.
I probably cut Harper more slack than the average poster on here. There’s lots of reasons for that, which I won’t get in to.
As far as I’m concerned, he is handling the climate file just fine. The Copenhagen “commitment” that Prentice signed will turn out to be practically worthless.
Obama doesn’t even use the phrase “climate change” any more, preferring “clean energy”. But no matter. The Republicans, with lots of help from the Tea Party, are going to club Democrats mercilessly with anti-”cap and trade” rhetoric. That is, if the Dem candidates are still breathing, after being clubbed with the “health care” stick.
Meanwhile, all that Prentice is going to deliver in the next year, is a continent-wide automobile emissions standard. Big deal.
This is pretty weak green kool-aid. And Maxime is doing a good job in watering it down.
The way I see the eco-universe unfolding is this: Maxime is unhooking the batteries of the electric cars that those
annoying eco-twerps drive. And when we eventually run those guys out of town, they will be pushing those cars down the highway.
Bruce is 100 percent right, this is the media trying to stir the pot. And it looks like it worked. We are no longer talking about the points Bernier made but now about who should lead next.
PM Harper is not going anywhere anytime soon.
Charest is a Quebec nationalist, only the doorknobs in the eastern msm would even think he would be on the CPC leadership ballot. NOT gonna happen.
Brad Wall. yes.
Bernier would have to do more than wave the denier flag to win to. By the time there is a race, the gw issue will be subdued by Obama.
Prime Minister Harper’s job is safe for as long as he wants it. And he won’t quit until the CPC is deeply entrenched.
And that scares the dickens out of the LibDippers and their media.
Brian: I agree completely. Riley and the Citizen are in full denial mode, about the possibility that AGW is an elaborate hoax. A recent editorial praised McGuinty’s lavish investment in wind power. The paper has returned to the soft liberal mush that Conrad Black described before he purchased it.
Charest! Good grief!
He is in the same category as the not-to-be-trusted-Belinda as far as many conservatives I know in The West are concerned.
Prentice is better than a Liberal, but what does that say? Harper is safe for some time.
Bernier scored some points.
For those who complain that independent thought is not allowed, here is a fine example of someone who also is wary about the temperature data pushed at us for years. Fresh ears and eyes are healthy for science, and politics.
Glo-Bull Warming is the biggest fraud ever perpetrated in human history.
W.C. Fields used to say, “there’s a sucker born every minute.”
maz2, Rajendra Pachauri, Al Gore, David Suzuki, Phil Jones, Mann Made Glo-Bull Warming, etc………….all of them are crooks.
Now the same people want to have a complete remake of their, so called, science with the requisite funding of course.
The Leftist media is prime example of a cabal of juvenile twits with not enough to do so they’re trying to conjure up something in hopes the masses will be stirred. There’s plenty of good news to report but that wouldn’t be helpful to their agenda.
If they want to talk leadership they better shift to their Liberal party, that’s where the problem lies, there’s no opening any time soon in the Conservative party. Charest need not apply.
Maybe we should leave Prentice alone to play the GW charade, he really has no option at this point given the hogwash that’s been ingrained by the snake oil salesmen out to make a big buck. Otherwise we and he will go down before the fraud artists and in politics that could spell the end. Patience is required, you can’t shoot down Big Al and his scary Oscar winning movie, bucked up by his winning the Nobel overnight. It’s no secret the Conservative party is perceived as being the party of GW skeptics so in the end we may well be saying “told you so”.
GW skeptics
we need a break from politics
parliament is back next week
enjoy the Olympics
great hockey coming up everyone get behind our Canadian team
we want GOLD
fh
‘deal breaker’
Perhaps it’s my principles getting in the way of my support for a party that would rather kow-tow to the UN and send my money to African despots than ask for a full and open debate on global warming because they’re afraid of losing some votes.
When Robert Mugabe stands and demands more money from western nations and is cheered on by the likes of Chavez and Gadhaffi then I have to question the company our PM wants to keep.
When our PM says that global warming is a socialist scam and then changes his tune once he’s elected I get a little pissed.
In fact, I felt the same way after Chretien promised to eliminate the GST and then reneged once he gained power.
I’m going to be paying through the nose for electricity generated by wind power because of McGuinty and his deal with the Koreans when I live in Niagara Falls where hydro-electricity is abundant.
Charest is out to destroy the automobile industry in Quebec.
Harper want to institute a cap and trade scheme.
Now people are using the argument that even if global warming is not as bad as first thought the end result in implementing all of the green policies will be a healthier planet.
Yes, and me and my children and their children will be poorer for it.
This planet is doing just fine without my money being used to develop greener energy or cleaning up dumps.
I’m all for living in smog-free cities but I’m totally against throwing my tax money at developing technology to get us there.
Let the free market dictate the direction in which we’re going to go.
If they develop a green car and offer it to me at the right price then I’ll be the first in line to buy it but I’m not going to pay double the sticker price because the government had set impossible standards.
Somebody has to put a stop to this madness before it gets a lot worse.
I want a politician to represent my views and if none of them are going to do that then I’ll sit the next election out.
On the other hand, if any one party begins to question global warming then they will have my full support.
Don’t tell me to ‘get real’.
Do you really think that writing to an MP is going to make a bit of difference?
I’ve written letters to plenty of MP’s and all I get back are form letters.
My forum for getting my point across is right here via BLY and other Blogging Tory sites.
Global warming IS a deal breaker for me and that is very real.
As I wrote at Riley’s column — since commenters here are avoiding that column, I repeat it here
–, this business about leadership hopefuls is nothing more than idle speculation.
As Jad said, consider the alternatives to Harper.
The usual suspects must be salivating at the thought of rifts in the Conservative Party. Rather than demand the PM yell from the rooftops, I expect my PM to show by his government’s actions that he doesn’t subcribe to the hysteria of global warming.
• Has there been a transfer of Canadian funds to other countries as mandated by Kyoto? No.
• Has there been a punitive national carbon tax as suggested by various environmental groups? No.
• Has Canada participated in an international cap & trade system like the failed one Lorrie Goldstein talks about? No.
• Have unrealistic targets for reducing GHGs like the ones set under Kyoto been set? No.
Does the PM need to declare himself “a denier” or “a skeptic” in order to quell some of his conservative critics?
I don’t think so.
As the PM of this country, his government needs to help Canada achieve what Lorrie Goldstein said in his column (link in the previous thread):
“Canadians want sensible policies to (further) reduce air and water pollution and automobile emissions, make oilsands development environmentally sustainable, conserve energy, clean up toxic waste dumps, safely dispose of nuclear waste, provide clean drinking water to native reserves, preserve forests, put scrubbers on coal-fired electricity plants and expand public infrastructure, including effective public transit.”
Do his conservative critics object to the above sensible policies?
If they do, then by all means, start a new conservative movement — without me.
It has become apparent to me that Bammy’s pushing this Cap & steal proposal for the cash.
The only way that his socialist agenda can get funded is with new money.
As the days go by we see more and more of the scummy agenda of the AGW crowd and it makes me sick to think how close we were to being sucked into this.
Now the fun is watching the warmies doing the face-plant on all of their predictions. It behoves us, to make sure we keep their heads in the dirt till this plays out.
As far as Charest being anyone of consequence, don’t think so, he’ll stay the big toad in the little pond of Quebec.
Gabby, you are always the voice of reason. Thank you for that.
“maz2, Rajendra Pachauri, Al Gore, David Suzuki, Phil Jones, Mann Made Glo-Bull Warming, etc………….all of them are crooks.”
Al Gore’s Weather (AGW): Moi Not a Crook.
Yuall can bank on that.
…-
“Due North: Canada’s Marvelous Mortgage and Banking System (How they survived the sub-prime meltdown)
What about the Canadian banking system allowed it to survive the recent worldwide slowdown without a single bank failure? What can the United States learn from Canada about sound banking?
There were some significant differences between Canada and the United States during the recent financial crisis. In general, Canada’s banking system proved more prudent, more resilient, and much less prone to excesses. Taking a closer look at these differences might tell us how the United States got into the mess it is in, and illuminate some ideas for future reforms.
Consider, for example, some of the following facts, illustrated with charts.
Canada didn’t have nearly the real estate bubble and subsequent corrective crash in home prices as the United States:
SEE CHART 1 BELOW
Canada has had nowhere near the problems with mortgage delinquencies and home foreclosures as the United States:
SEE CHART 2 BELOW
Yet Canadian banks remained profitable and reported positive return on equity even in the worst year of the meltdown, 2008, when U.S. banks (and banks in the United Kingdom and Europe) lost money and had negative returns on equity.
SEE CHART 3 BELOW
These were some of the more interesting banking statistics present recently at the American Enterprise Institute’s seminar, “Canadian versus U.S. Housing Finance: Comparison and Implications,” organized by AEI resident fellow Alex Pollock.
And this recent financial crisis isn’t the first time that Canada’s banking system showed greater signs of stability and less exposure to stress than U.S. banks. In the 1930s, when 9,000 U.S. banks failed during the Great Depression, not a single bank in Canada failed. When almost 3,000 American banks failed during the Savings and Loan (S&L) Crisis, only two small Canadian banks failed in 1985, and those were the first bank failures in Canada since 1923. And while almost 200 U.S. banks have failed since the start of the global recession in early 2008, Canada remains the only industrialized country in the world that has survived the last two years of financial and economic stress without a single bank failure.
What about the Canadian banking system allowed it to survive the recent worldwide slowdown, and even the Great Depression, without a single bank failure, and what can the United States learn from Canada about sound banking? Below is a summary of some of the distinctly different features of Canada’s banks and mortgage markets discussed at the AEI seminar, which help explain the greater financial stress resiliency of Canadian banks compared to American banks.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2459847/posts
Right on Gabby !
Meanwhile, a reminder of what Harper is up against …
Frank Graves of EKOS, on Solomon’s Power & Politics show yesterday:
“We know that climate science has had a bit of a rough ride recently. But notwithstanding that, I think Bernier is definitively offside where most Canadians are … we did ask the question recently …
Perceived Threat of Climate Change:
20 % Seriously exaggerated
44 % Consistent with the level of Risk
32 % Seriously underestimated
4 % Don’t know
OK, let me do some quick and dirty math … using a scale of 0 to 10, assigning 0 to the deniers, 5 to the neutrals & don’t knows, and 10 to the fanatics. I get an average “green kool-aid strength factor” of 5.60.
I think we can get that number under 4.00, once Canadians see the Tea Party take apart the eco-twerps down south.
The power panel talks about Bernier, starting at the one hour mark.
Watch it here
Gabby you nailed it right on
We have the right man at the helm
best Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper
fh
Gabby for PM!
There may not have been transfers to elsewhere, but we have our own Climate Exchange, right in Quebec at the Montreal Stock Exchange:
http://www.m-x.ca/f_comm_press_en/27-08_en.pdf
Note some of the corporate entities involved, one of our favourites: TD Securities
this exchange will be intertwined with the Chicago Climate Exchange:
http://warofillusions.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/obama-maurice-strong-al-gore-key-players-cashing-in-on-chicago-climate-exchange/
Like they say “follow the money”.
And how has it worked out for the Eurozone?:
http://www.ecx.eu/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/6912667/Carousel-frauds-plague-European-carbon-trading-markets.html
http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/fraud-climate.2jo/
http://www.climategate.com/follow-the-money-bbc-exposed-in-biggest-climate-racket-on-planet
http://www.ashleymote.co.uk/?p=600
http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2010/02/bbc-global-warming-and-canadas.html
Carbon Credit fraud causes more than 5 billion euros damage for European Taxpayer
http://www.europol.europa.eu/index.asp?page=news&news=pr091209.htm
maz2, you are not a crook, the others are for sure, my apologies for any confusion.
And maz2, great links as always.
Heat = Cold. Black = White.
The AGW World.
…-
“U.S. Climate Data Compromised by Sensors’ Proximity to Heat Sources, Critics Say
A critical cog in the machinery that drives the theory of global warming may be compromised, as temperature sensors across the U.S. appear to be exposed to heat sources that some critics say is corrupting their information.
A critical cog in the machinery that drives the theory of global warming is a small white box not too far from where you live. Inside the box sits a thermometer that tracks the local temperature, which in turn becomes part of a data trail for the monitoring of climate change on Earth.
But there’s a problem: Nearly every single weather station the U.S. government uses to measure the country’s surface temperature may be compromised. Sensors that are supposed to be in empty clearings are instead exposed to crackling electronics and other unlikely sources of heat, from exhaust pipes and trash-burning barrels to chimneys and human graves.
The National Climate Data Center (NCDC) uses this massive network of sensors to determine daily highs and lows at the 1,219 weather stations in its Historical Climatology Network (HCN). The network has existed since 1892, but only in the last decade has it come under intense scrutiny to determine whether the figures it measures can be trusted.
For the past three years, a group of zealous laymen has visited and photographed nearly every one of the weather stations to determine whether they have been placed properly. And what they found is a stunning disregard for the government’s own rules: 90 percent of the sensors are too close to potential sources of heat to pass muster, including some very odd sources indeed:
• A sensor in Redding, Calif., is housed in a box that also contains a halogen light bulb, which could emit warmth directly onto the gauge.
• A sensor in Hanksville, Utah, sits directly atop a gravestone, which is not only macabre but also soaks up the sun’s heat and radiates it back to the thermometer at night.
• A sensor in Marysville, Calif., sits in a parking lot at a fire station right next to an air conditioner exhaust, a cell phone tower and a barbecue grill.”
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/26/climate-data-compromised-by-heat-sources/
I don’t know if this made the national news when Alberta’s Finance Minister, Ted Morton, tabled his budget:
“… of the $2 billion touted for carbon capture and storage, just $5 million was spent this past year out of an original $100 million budget.
And Danielle Smith wants to scrap the whole carbon capture plan alltogether.
The eco-twerps around here aren’t very brave, as I haven’t seen any of them chime in on these developments.
And going back to Frank Graves of EKOS, he also said:
“On this part [costs] Bernier is on more solid ground. We’ve seen that Canadians are HEROIC on climate change, in the realm of words. In the realm of DEEDS, a little less so. And if anything, there’s been a DECLINING willingness to walk the talk in the way of price …”
So if we can get the Libs talking about COSTS, as they did so disastrously with Dion’s Green$hift, then that moves the narrative onto much better territory for us.
Thank you to my fans
who, I’m afraid, are overestimating me.
======
To Jt at 12:23 pm, thanks for the info on the Montreal Exchange.
I don’t see that as a threat or as the PM kowtowing to the warmists.
Rather, I view it as the free market functioning.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t see the federal government as one of the main investors or MCeX Business Partners listed in the Press Release, although the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec is and Minister Baird was present at the launch.
From the MONTREAL CLIMATE EXCHANGE Press release:
“We know this is the first step in a gradual process of constructing environmental markets in Canada
and attracting investors to participate …”
Do conservatives want to control who starts up or invests in a new enterprise?
I don’t.
Unless I misunderstand the purpose of the MX, which is entirely possible, some public and private institutions have decided to invest in the reduction of CO2 emissions.
It was launched in May 2008, prior to the market meltdown.
How is it doing now?
I don’t know, since I don’t follow it, but does the federal government invest in it?
The Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec may reconsider its investment in it, given the dismal results the Caisse has shown recently.
Also, haven’t derivatives as investment vehicles lost their lustre? So, isn’t it possible that the MX will die its natural death, without government intervention?
As I said, I don’t follow the market that closely to be able to answer the questions I’ve asked. Maybe you could?
========
And for those media types who think Jean Charest will be making a bid for the Conservative leadership
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/l_ian_macdonald/2010/02/25/13031046.html
“Weaning Quebec from Alberta’s purse”
Macdonald writes: “… there is no evidence that the Charest government has the political courage …” to which I would add to do anything at all except talk.
Canadian UNabomber Maurice Strong’s “Earth Summit”.
Maurice Strong is Uncle Mo to Canadian “Liberal leader” Bob Rae.
…-
“Bali-Hoo: U.N Still Pushing for Global Environmental Control (Global Gov by 2012 Rio Summit)
“Despite the debacle of the failed Copenhagen climate change conference last December, the United Nations is pressing full speed ahead with a plan for a greatly expanded system of global environmental governance and for a multitrillion-dollar economic transfer scheme to ignite the creation of a “global green economy.” In other words: Copenhagen without the authority — yet — of Copenhagen.
The world body even has chosen a time and a place for the culmination of the process: a World Summit on Sustainable Development to be held in Rio de Janeiro in 2012, the 20th anniversary of the famed “Earth Summit” that gave focus and urgency to the world environmentalist movement.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2459968/posts
…-
“Power Corporation of Canada: Facts, Discussion Forum, and …
John A. Rae is an executive with Power Corporation of Montreal, former Liberal Party … Prime Minister of Canada Jean Chrétien and brother of Canadian politician Bob Rae. …. Former member of the Liberal Party of Canada Maurice Strong …”
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/…/Power_Corporation_of_Canada
Comment from crosspatch.
Why this comment?
To what is crosspatch referring?
UN/IPCC AGW Fraud.
crosspatch:
“This whole thing is just sickening. If the average citizen understood how they data have been manipulated and the extent to which they have been sold a bill of goods, there would be a run on pitchforks and torches.”
…-
“A new paper comparing NCDC rural and urban US surface temperature data
26 02 2010
Note: See update below, new graph added.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/26/a-new-paper-comparing-ncdc-rural-and-urban-us-surface-temperature-data/#comments
I think some here are missing the point.
While the PM waits for the right moment to declare his aversion to global warming there are Premiers across Canada starting to sell the family farm in the name of being green.
Let us all get real here.
I’m not asking for Harper to deny global warming.
I’m asking for Harper to suggest that a full and open debate on the subject is called for.
Considering the revelations of these last six months how could anyone find fault with that?
The reality, as I see it, is that dealing with the current federal deficit and attaining a balanced budget requires an increase in taxes. There is no other way! But, the CPC is against increasing the usual taxes (income and GST), so we are going to see new taxes disguised as user fees such as Baird’s new airport ‘user fee’. Harper has to stay on the climate change bandwagon to a degree to get Opposition support for these new ‘user fees’ and so I won’t be surprised to see some sort of carbon user fee/tax in the new budget which will be supported by the Opposition. Let’s face it Harper needs tax increases! He must continue on the climate change bandwagon like Campbell here in BC to get some sort of carbon tax/user fee to deal with the deficit. I don’t see any other way. The alternative of a LPC coalition is unthinkable! We can’t stay home if there is an election this spring!
Gabby, governments are the only reason there is a market for carbon credits. It is a completely artificial creation. As such it is very vulnerable to manipulation and outright fraud. The Sao Paulo conference which preceded Kyoto saw Enron spend one million dollars promoting the adoption of carbon trading. There was no thought of helping the environment in their actions, just an opportunity to make huge amounts of money.
Neil, thus far Harper has been framing any move on global warming as a trade issue. If the US implements a carbon reduction strategy, and we don’t, the inevitable trade war would be more devestating to our economy than any carbon scheme we could think up. If some premiers want to do something stupid, thats a provincial issue, hope they get voted out, and if they don’t it’s the will of the people in that province. I agree with many of the posters here, the feds have done the best with they could with the cards we’ve been dealt. Going it alone is OK if you’re the big dog, and Canada most certainly isn’t
There’s another angle you’re missing here, well two actually but the first one is that perhaps Harper knew exactly where Bernier was going on the environment comment and gave him his blessing?
That keeps both camps listening to conservatives. Those who like the PM’s stance still do and those who don’t have Bernier all under one conservative tent. You can’t forget that Harper is usually several steps ahead of things. It would surprise me in the least to learn that it’s a way Harper can start breaking down the global warming hype without actually doing it himself.
Then Harper later announces that the gov’t will welcome debate on the issue.
re: anyone replacing Harper – of course it’s just speculation but the thought crossed my mind before I read it in the media. If the media want to make a big deal of it so what? I think Harper’s happy where he is but I don’t for one minute think he’ll last for two more terms.
jon, the BC carbon tax is supposed to be revenue neutral. Yes that’s laughable, but Harper cannot in any way shape or form use any type of carbon tax for anything else than what it’s supposed to do…..(what I’m not exactly sure of). But paying down a deficit/debit would be wrong and I woiuld be the first to call him on it.
let me rephrase that: Paying down a debt/deficit with proceeds from a carbon tax would be wrong….
Al Gore’s Weather (AGW):
“worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.”
Translation: GoreAGW = Fraud. Massive fraud by the UN/IPCC, et al.
…-
Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics
The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.
The Institute is pleased to submit its views to inform the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry, ‘The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia’.
The submission details our response to the questions listed in the call for evidence, which was prepared with input from the Institute’s Science Board, and its Energy Sub-group.
What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.
2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.
3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:
- those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and
- historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of ‘proxies’, for example, tree-rings.
4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.
5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.
6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails.” (more)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2460089/posts
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi
Soccermom: you’re right, if a tax is enacted it should be used appropriately, but internal to Canada only. If however, the US enacts a tax in the states, and we don’t, they will definitely enact a carbon tarriff against all goods shipped to the US, and we would have no control over what that money is used for. (at least for the brief time that we would still have companies that hadn’t gone bankrupt because of the tarriffs). If anyone doubts this (Neil), try to imagine the political fate of any US congressman, or senator, from either party that would vote to allow Canadian goods across the border with a competitive advantage over US goods due to a carbon tax.
And remember 80% of all that is made in Canada is shipped south of the border.
NeilD, I am not “finding fault” with asking for a debate; if I am “finding fault” it is with those who, on the basis of Harper’s adoption of an environmental agenda (articulated by Min. Prentice), threaten to withdraw their support from the Conservatives or stay home if an election were held.
See, just because Harper once called Kyoto a “socialist scheme” everyone seems to assume that he’s opposed to doing anything pro-environment, and the government’s current position is a flip-flop. I am convinced that is not the case.
Harper’s speeches when he was in opposition and the Liberals were pushing Kyoto demonstrate he has always been about a prudent balanced approach to the environment.
For example, in a Dec. 2005 letter to the editor of the Washington Times, he cleared up his position on several points, including the environment:
“While I think that the Kyoto Treaty is deeply flawed, I support developing a plan, in coordination with the United States and other countries, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by developing new technologies and energy conservation.”
And to Swift at 3:25 pm, true, a carbon market could be “… vulnerable to manipulation and outright fraud” as you state. But then, so were once reputable companies like Nortel, AIG and Bear Stearns, among others. There may have been some manipulation and possibly outright fraud which contributed to their collapse as well, so it seems no one is exempt. It’s not what is being traded, it’s some of the traders.
“I view it as the free market functioning.”
WOW. You have missed the whole point of the post. Carbon markets based on AGW fraud. CO2 is not “polution” it is a trace gas vital to life, Carbon is a component of your physical makeup and people are going to regulate and sell “carbon” on a carbon based planet, based on the fraud that it increases temperature? Where is your carbonometer, lady? You will have to pay a user fee for all that CO2 that you breathe out. That IS where this is going, or didn’t you know? When you can’t pay that is when they make you “disappear” and balance out the carbon equation.
Let’s not forget that this human race benfits from warm periods, not cold ones. You support added costs to industry and life in general on “pricing carbon” so that insiders like AL Gore, even Obama can get rich on the air you breathe out? You tax carbon, you tax life! You trade it on an exchange then you are trading human lives, for profit, just like they were hog bellies.
@NeilD “I’m asking for Harper to suggest that a full and open debate on the subject is called for.
Considering the revelations of these last six months how could anyone find fault with that?”
Yes, the CBC, CTV, The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail etc….
BTW anyone who even entertains the idea of Charest becoming leader of the CPC really has no idea of reality.
Good post Richco @ 4:07
Pretty much the same thought passed through my head as well.
And if in fact it is that way then I’d have to say a pretty good strategy.
I like to think PMSH as an astute player in the rather demented game of what passes for Cdn politics in the second millenium.
Our political climate is reasonably shattered to my way of thinking with waaay to many opposing interest groups…hard to keep them at bay while trying to enact some cohesive policy…too say the least!!
I guess we could think of it as “Stevie in political wonderland (Cdn. version), where up is down…nothing is what it appears and the opposition parties are like the Queen of Hearts; with a russian joker in the deck…Bizzare!
Ardvark
A full and open debate would be nice…I think its probably a little premature at this time as way too much emotionalism to cloud the effectivness of a debate at this time.
Probably a few months down the road could work when more is known and the culprits get more serious about throwing one another under the bus in their scramble to the life boats.
A few stiff penalties would be in order as well.
People should be outraged if for no other reason than to prevent a repeat of this sort in the future.
Jt at 6:38 pm: “Where is your carbonometer, lady? You will have to pay a user fee for all that CO2 that you breathe out.”
My friend, you have just gone way over the exaggeration-o-meter, IMO.
I didn’t call carbon “pollution” in any of my comments. I realize it is a gas that we human beings exhale — some in larger quantities than others, ergo the expression getting hot under the collar, I suppose
I also realize it is vital to the proper functioning of this planet.
But every component in delicate equilibrium.
Even too much of a good thing — like CO2 — can be harmful. But I’ll leave that to the scientists, or writers of the Wiki entry that reads:
“CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy.[2] Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.”
Please note, I am not arguing that the global warming/climate change alarmists are correct. You have apparently interpreted my support and defence of PM Harper’s stand on the environment as siding with the warmists. Not so.
OK, so in your considered opinion I don’t get “the point of the post.”
I am not the first nor will I be the last that doesn’t “get the point” of a post, so no skin off my back.
I’ve had my say on this topic, and now it’s time for me to go to something else I truly don’t understand, but which is very entertaining: the Canada/Sweden curling game.
My interpretation of what Gabby is saying is that reality and practicality dictate that we must be patient until the ROC catches up with what we know to be true.
Sadly, politicians can only reflect the perceived reality.
I think this blog had an issue with one of the Montreal Climate Exchange proponents: TD Bank and a certain few of the Bank’s AGW boosters. Read the post on the Montreal exchange. Who stands to make money selling or buying carbon? who is promoting the green agenda? People ragged on Ed Clark for days on this blog, but I guess it’s just “free enterprises” to promote a fraud while our government sits silent. I have certain issues with the Cons regarding burying CO2. Read this item:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbon-dioxide-is-already-absorbing-almost-all-it-can/
Why are we wasting taxpayer’s money trying to reduce CO2, when a single volcanic eruption somewhere on this planet will out do anything we do to mitigate CO2?
I maintain that the current government has enough ammo right now to debunk any attacks aimed at trying to push the warmist’s agenda. States AG’s are filing suits against the EPA. The largest coal company in the USA, Peabody, is suing the EPA and indirectly, Obama’s cap and trade policy. The Senate hearings into climategate are pushing for legal remedies for US climatologists and it is my fervant hope that they will see jail time.
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/30443/
Frankly, I don’t think our government’s position is clear on this issue and continues to be clouded by the Minister responsible, Mr Prentice. Tell me, you don’t think that Environment Canada scientists aren’t “snowing” the Cons on this? They certainly haven’t done their due diligence for the minister and it shows!
Simon – it’s perfect strategy if you think about it. Right now though I’m loving that Canada continues to rock at these Olympics. Finally…Gold at in speed skating…..2 of them!
Oh,and Harper at both curling and speed skating cheering our athletes on all the way.
It’ great to be Canadian and win!
Joanne,
I really enjoyed the video debate between “Christopher” and the, ahem, “scientist”. I imagine Christopher gave it to him so more. Do you have the link for watching the debate further.
Did you notice what the new angle is…..well if we do nothing and the scientists are right then all goes to hell. If Christopher is right then nothing really changes. Do we really want to risk that. Ah the good old preying on the fear of the unknown. Just like I should put my faith in the education experts/professionals/teachers are providing my child with top notch education.
We need to be focusing our resources and energies on the pollution management not the carbon management.
Soccermom,
Are you tired of hearing all the whining coming from said professionals about budget cuts? I would like to look at all the BC school divisions budgets and see a breakdown of adminstrative cost, teacher salaries etc. I am sure I could find a few dollars to make up for the “short falls”. If said professionals would put more focused energy on our kids education than the whining we wouldn’t continue to fall further behind in standardized testing.
Shane in the ‘wack
Shane, I’m glad you enjoyed the video. Yes there is more. The Aussie station has the entire video but they set it up trying to discredit Lord Monckton:
http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/soapbox/article/-/article/6716693/do-you-support-the-climate-scientist-or-sceptic/
However the comments at the bottom of the page are worth checking out.
The link to the video on Youtube is here, BTW. More great comments there.
Must say there’s not much love for Charest among Conservatives given his behaviour as Premier of Quebec but then he does have to play to Quebec’s interests to keep his job. However,it’s taking a pretty narrow focus to imagine Bernier as leader over his opinion on this one issue.
Wonder what will be the first question out of Iffy’s mush in QP next week? Fire Helena Geurgis for her outburst of frustration at a PEI airport last week? BTW, it’ll get a lot more coverage than McCallum got for being too inebriated to board a plane.