Social media has been buzzing recently over the announcement that the B'Nai Brith has put forward Stephen Harper's name as a possible recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.
This prestigious award is presented to an individual or group of individuals who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
Above all. The promotion of peace.
It boggles the mind.
I can't think of a single incident or plank in this government's platform that promotes peaceful resolutions to anything. They even turned Toronto into a war zone during the G-20 Summit in 2010, then praised the police for their brutality.
During this horrific abuse of human rights, one police officer told a citizen "This ain't Canada right now". For many of us, it feels like we've not lived in Canada since Harper took control of our country in 2006. And I don't use the term "took control" lightly.
But just as an increasing number of Canadians are being made to feel that they are unwelcome visitors, in what was once their "home and native land", the international community has found a Canada that is no longer a peace broker, but a bully for corporate interests.
When Documentary film maker Michael Moore was interviewed by Oprah Winfrey, she stated that she was shocked to learn from him, the things being done in their country's name.
All Canadians need to read The Ugly Canadian: Stephen Harper's Foreign Policy, by Yves Engler. It becomes very hard to feel like a proud Canadian when you learn what this government is doing in our name. "This ain't Canada right now" indeed.
On Power Play recently, former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney (from Canada's first Conservative Party that was disbanded in 2003), stated: “When Canada, for the first time in our history, loses a vote at the United Nations to become a member of the Security Council . . . to Portugal, which was on the verge of bankruptcy at the time, you should look in the mirror and say: ‘Houston, I think we have a problem.’”
Yes we have a very serious problem, and for the B'nai Brith to put forward Stephen Harper's name for a Nobel Peace Prize, not only mocks the integrity of the award, but is a slap in the face to his victims, at home and abroad; who see Harper as the antithesis to peace.
His government is not only supporting the genocide of Palestinians by Israel, but sending out fund raising letters asking for help to make sure that they can continue to condone the slaughter.
The Afghan Detainee issue is yet to be settled satisfactorily, and there is strong evidence that Canada could face a war crimes tribunal with the International Criminal Court, not only because of our handing over of prisoners for violent interrogation, but for the extraordinary lengths that Harper went to to stop the investigation.
In 2012 the UN strongly rebuked Canada, not only for our complicity in torture, but for our horrendous immigration policies and unwillingness to protect Canadian citizens abroad.
We were once a country with a moral conscience, but under Harper, have become a country with no conscience at all.
In 2007, the Nobel Peace Prize went to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"
Instead of addressing Climate Change, Harper has gone above and beyond to not only deny that it exists, but to make sure that groups like the IPCC cannot operate in this country. He has also poured billions of tax dollars into the Tar Sands, and their weapons of mass destruction.
How could anyone possibly believe that this man is deserving? Maybe we need to look at who put forward his nomination.
Frank Dimant of the B'nai Brith is hardly an unbiased judge. While the Brith is a commendable organization, Dimant has aligned himself with the radical Religious group, Christians United for Israel.
In 2006, Charles McVety, president of Canada Christian College hosted the first event (Israel You're Not Alone) of a newly created coalition called Christians United for Israel (CUFI). CUFI counts amongst its members such extremists as John Hagee, Pat Roberston and the late Jerry Falwell. In fact, Frank Dimant, BB Canada's Executive Vice President, shared the podium with McVety and Hagee, and thanked them both in these terms: "But we (Jews) and Israel are not alone because of you and the tremendous leadership of Dr. McVety and Dr. Hagee") (Jewish Tribune, May 25, 2006.
Former U.S. Presidential nominee John McCain, was forced to distance himself from John Hagee, because of remarks he made suggesting that Hitler was doing God's work when he drove the Jews to Palestine.
And Charles McVety, who once handled Jim Flaherty's Ontario leadership bid, is Canada's Religious Right leader, and the man who brought Karl Rove to Canada to instruct Conservatives in the art of stealing elections. They were apt pupils.
Dimant sees Harper and his government, not as brokers of peace, or advocates of human rights, but as willing accomplices in a Holocaust.
Columnist Heather Martinuk condemns the petition, suggesting that it makes a mockery of the Peace Prize's goal. She claims that it is just partisan attack on the Prime Minister and suggests that we should take pride in the fact that he is being thought of for the prestigious award.
If he was deserving, we would be proud. Instead we continue to bow our heads in shame.
Fortunately, the international community does not share Martinuk's views, and Harper has as much chance of winning this, as he does a singing contest, but if the nomination is upheld, it will be an undeserved honour, imprinted in Canadian history. We can't let that happen.
“Peace demands the most heroic labor and the most difficult sacrifice. It demands greater heroism than war. It demands greater fidelity to the truth and a much more perfect purity of conscience.” Catholic Monk and Social Activist Thomas Merton
" I witnessed first-hand the movement of an economy from historic boom to deep recession in a matter of months. A radical, interventionist blueprint of economic nationalism, the NEP caused the oil industry to flee, businesses to close and the real estate market to crash. The lives of honest, hard-working Albertans were upended and I came to know many of those who lost their jobs and homes." (Looking Back at Trudeau, Stephen Harper, National Post, October 5, 2000)
By 2000, Harper had left the Reform Party, and was running the National Citizens Coalition, a right-wing, anti-liberal non-profit; created initially to end public healthcare; but grew to include a fight against unions and a fight for the ability of corporations to fund politicians and political parties.
I don't know if Stephen Harper really believed that the National Energy Program caused the devastation he describes, or he was simply reviving an old wedge issue, while attempting to rewrite history.
Admittedly, the NEP was not popular in Alberta, but its cancellation by Mulroney, was the cause of most of their woes.
Oscar Wilde wrote that there are only two tragedies: one is not getting what one wants; the other is getting it. In the fall of 1985, the latter tragedy befell Alberta's oil industry. The OPEC cartel failed to agree upon a world oil price. The result was a global free-for-all among producing nations. Canada's oil and gas producers were caught in the middle. Having recently gained freedom from the NEP, Canada's oil and gas industry was not protected as the price of oil dropped from US $27 per barrel ... to $8 per barrel by August 1986. ... Forty-five thousand oil workers lost their jobs." (Of Passionate Intensity: Right-Wing Populism and the Reform Party of Canada, By Trevor Harrison, University of Toronto Press, 1995, ISBN: 0-8020-7204-6 3, p. 97)
In fact, most in the industry liked Trudeau's program because it allowed further exploration on public land. What they opposed was the proposed closing of tax loopholes by then Liberal finance minister, Allan MacEachen.
However, they couldn't campaign against that to attack the Trudeau government, so instead sold it as Ottawa aggression toward the West, and Ted Byfield, an early Reform Party organizer, kept the campaign alive. Wrote Harrison: "In the months and years that followed, Byfield's Alberta Report continued to mythologize the intent and the impact of the NEP", giving the Reformers their battle cry, "The West wants in".
Harper's National Energy Program
Since coming to power in 2006, the new and improved Reform Party, now calling themselves the Conservative Party of Canada, has done everything they could to deny that Climate Change exists, or that the Alberta Oilsands has anything to do with it, if it does.
That stance has made Canada a symbol around the world, of what Climate Change denial looks like, though it has increased Harper's creds with the diminishing Denial crew.
In the CPC's latest campaign, they suggest that the toxic bitumen coming out of the Oilsands is actually good for us. No more harmful than cooking a steak on a barbecue. Heck maybe we could bottle it and sell it as a sauce.
Economically, we've been turned into a Petro State with our fortunes dependant on how well the industry is doing.
Yet, according to the International Monetary Fund for every dollar in growth from oil, 82 cents goes to Alberta, with Ontario seeing just 4 cents. Yet the entire country has subsidized the Oilsands to the tune of 34 billion dollars.
Harper has also increased Alberta's federal transfer, while decreasing Ontario's and is moving the National Energy Board to Calgary, creating jobs in a province already apparently experiencing a labour shortage.
Will All of This Largesse Really Help Alberta?
The Harper government recently tried to bury a report, warning of the economic and health risks of the Alberta tarsands. Just another attempt at denying Climate Change exists, that has included muzzling scientists and ending tax breaks for environmental groups.
In the debate over the pipelines, we are told that without them Canada’s economic recovery would suffer serious damage. Says Russ Blinch in the Huffington Post: Prime Minister Harper says he won't lift a finger to help the environment because he's working too hard to protect jobs. In fact he is imperiling our future by blocking innovation in order to support a fading industry: fossil fuels.
The World Bank says that tackling climate change would grow economies, not hinder growth or recovery.
The Northern Gateway that would send the tar to China for refinery, is also not looking too promising. China is moving away from oil and switching to natural gas, which they are getting from Russia. Looks like Putin is laying claim to the Asian market with his own pipelines. So much for sanctions, as he's also moving away from the U.S. dollar.
So will Harper's National Energy Program cause the oil industry to flee, businesses to close and the real estate market to crash? Will it upend the lives of honest, hard-working Albertans, many of whom will lose their jobs and homes?
In the last decade, his Conservative government has done everything but roll out the red carpet for the energy sector. Whether it's multi-million dollar advertising campaigns in the United States, gold-plated junkets to foreign energy markets, or muzzling opposition from domestic environmentalists, never before have we seen Ottawa shill so unabashedly for a single industry ... Unfortunately for Canadians, it’s becoming clear that despite the Prime Minister’s best attempts at economic intervention, their government is playing a losing hand.
If Harper's Reform Party used the revisionist history of the impact of Trudeau's energy policies, with a tagline "The West Wants In", maybe the next election ours should be:
What if Environment Canada issued a tornado warning for your area? And what if along with that warning they offered suggestions to keep you safe? Things like moving into the basement; covering yourself with blankets and staying away from your windows. You would certainly heed their advice, since it's based on scientific knowledge.
However, what if a lobby group, wanting to undermine the scientific community, told you to ignore the warnings? We'll call them the International Damnifying Idealist Organization for the Takeover of Sensibility, or I.D.I.O.T.S. for short.
And what if I.D.I.O.T.S., instead suggested that the warnings were unfounded? Merely an attempt by criminals to get you in the basement, covered in blankets and away from the windows, so they could steal your stuff.
Confused? Science or a noisy lobby group?
Now what if a group of Nobel prizing winning scientists told you that a devastating change in climate, brought on by the warming of the planet, could make a tornado look like a balloon losing air? And what if along with that warning they offered suggestions to keep you safe by slowing down that warming, but it would involve major changes by industry and yourself.
However, what if several lobby groups and short-sighted individuals, wanting to undermine the scientific community, told you to ignore the warnings? We'll call them Exxon, friends of Exxon and the Harper government.
Confused? Science or the money and power behind I.D.I.O.T.S.?
This week President Obama, when pressured by another group backed by the oil industry, we'll call them the Republicans; announced that he would not support the XL pipeline, that would transport bitumen from Canada to the U.S. for refining.
Canada may not care about the environment, but he did.
However, he could not have taken such a stand, had it not been for another noisy lobby group. We'll call them The People. Backed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, they empowered Obama to act on behalf of the majority and do what was right.
The Toronto Star had an oped piece this week, written by someone suggesting that Obama's move was purely political. An attempt to get re-elected. We'll call him American journalist Robert O. Samuelson.
Bill Moyers, another American journalist, was on Bill Maher this week, and he saw Obama's decision as something else. The oil industry pushing for XL, and their wholly owned subsidiary (we'll call them the Harper government), put $42 million into the pockets of politicians in an attempt to undermine democracy.
But the NRDC, and other environmental groups, instead put millions of voters at Obama's doorstep.
Moyers had worked with Lyndon Johnson, when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. When headlines applauded the move, Johnson told Moyers that the Democrats had just lost the South for a generation, and he was right. But the South didn't dictate, the majority did, and the Act was the right thing to do for the majority of Americans.
FDR's New Deal met with the same opposition by big business in the 1930s, but he asked the people to put the power behind him. "Make me do the right thing".
Moyers believes that this is why the Occupy movement is a good thing for these times. Instead of empowering politicians to work against our best interests, by allowing noisy lobby groups to work on behalf on the top 1%, we have to empower them to work for us.
We are the only ones who can build integrity into the political process.
Lesley Hughes was a popular CBC radio host and respected journalist, who had always been an advocate for the less fortunate members of society. In 2008, she was urged to run for the Liberal Party of Canada, in the Winnipeg riding of Kildonan–St Paul, to challenge incumbent Joy Smith.
Smith was a cohort of Stockwell Day's, a social conservative who handled his Manitoba campaign when he was running for the party leadership. Since Kildonan–St Paul is a swing riding, the Conservatives feared that Lesley Hughes could unseat Ms. Smith.
Waiting until it was too late to register another candidate, Peter Kent and the B'Nai Brith, publicly accused Hughes of being anti-Semitic, because of an article she had written in 2002.
It was called Get the Truth, and was in response to the "friendly fire" deaths of 4 Canadian soldiers. Hughes, like most Canadians, questioned our involvement in the Afghan war.
Kent pointed to one paragraph, as being an attack on Jews.
German Intelligence (BND) claims to have warned the U.S. last June, the Israeli Mossad and Russian Intelligence in August. Israeli businesses, which had offices in the Towers, vacated the premises a week before the attacks, breaking their lease to do it. About 3000 Americans working there were not so lucky.
She does not suggest that the Jewish people were behind the attack, only that German intelligence had warned of the attack, weeks before, and since it looked like nothing was being done in the U.S., Israel was not about to let their people be victimized, just in case the reports were true. And she provides her source.
Yet, with the help of the media, she was painted as being anti-Semitic and one who believes in a "Jewish conspiracy". The incident not only cost her the election, since Dion was forced to remove her name, but severely damaged her career. (B'Nai Brith Canada tells Liberals to dump star candidate)
As a former journalist, I was surprised that Kent would sink to this level, but then he was with Canwest Global, a step up from Fox News, though it depends on what you're stepping in.
Peter Kent would also make headlines for his involvement in trying to influence student elections at York University.
"The Conservative party has no authority at all for getting involved in student politics and neither does the York administration. We're an incorporated, independent body," charged Krisna Saravanamuttu, who was elected president of the York Federation of Students in the controversial vote. "Prime Minister Stephen Harper's foot soldiers are deliberately interfering with student elections to help candidates more friendly to their policies." (1)
Through a Freedom of Information request, the student federation obtained 50 pages of email exchanges in which assistants for the two politicians, who represent student-heavy ridings north of the campus, repeatedly questioned university executives about the results of a student council vote this spring.
The students were right that the Conservatives had no authority over their elections.
I can't look at Peter Kent without being angry, and the thought of him representing us at an international climate conference, makes my blood boil.
He was shown on the National, blaming the Liberals for signing onto Kyoto in the first place. Their biggest blunder says Kent. And to bring some "balance" into the story, the National interviewed environmental expert Jack Mintz. Isn't he an economist? But then they can't really interview an actual scientist, because Christian Paradis (2), also not a scientist, has them all bound and gagged. Suncor got to weigh in though, and guess what side they're on?
Mintz is using China as a scapegoat, but even they have a better policy than we do.
And where are the environmentalists in this story? Our climate policies are now being decided by an ex-journalist (Kent), a corporate lawyer (Paradis) and Suncor.
This reminds me of a joke I shared before, when another non-scientist (Bernhard Rust) was heading up the science ministry in 1930s Germany. It was published in a 1933 Time Magazine story, entitled 'Science: Jews Without Jobs':
Two Germans were eyeing a burly lout in the Nazi uniform who was striding through a university hall. First man: "What is the policeman doing here?" Second man: "Sh, sh. That is the man selected to succeed Einstein."
I chuckle at the media suggesting that at Copenhagen we agreed to do what the U.S. does, despite the fact that Italy and Canada were the only G8 nations not invited to attend Obama's private meeting. The Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was back home after being attacked by a protester earlier in the week, and Harper should have just stayed home. (3)
.... speaking before a House of Commons committee on the environment, three experts on the U.S. effort to pass a climate change bill suggested Canada might be better off working on its own legislation then working to link it to whatever legislation the U.S. passes.
Gotta' love the media though. If Harper says it, it must be true.
The Durban climate conference is now telling Peter Kent to stay home. I agree that he shouldn't attend the conference, but why do we have to be stuck with him?
Sources:
1. Stop meddling, students tell Tories, By Louise Brown, Toronto Star, July 6, 2009
2. Ottawa’s media rules muzzling federal scientists, say observers, By Margaret Munro, Postmedia News, September 12, 2010
3. Obama makes last-ditch effort to save climate deal, By Allan Woods, Toronto Star, December 18, 2009
Canada has once again missed an international deadline for submitting an inventory of its greenhouse gas emissions to the United Nations.
While 42 governments, including from earthquakestricken Japan, have submitted their data on emissions of the heat-trapping gases that warm the atmosphere, Canada is the only one behind schedule in reporting to the UN's climate change secretariat as part of its international obligations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
They're blaming it on the election, but the key words here: 'once again'.
...Canada has been criticized in recent years for being late in several cases with reports on its greenhouse gas pollution data. Graham Saul, executive director of Climate Action Network Canada, a coalition of environmental, faithbased and labour union groups, said it reflected a pattern of behaviour by the Canadian government.
"If the Japanese can pull it together in the midst of a devastating natural disaster, then I don't know what excuse the government of Canada could have for failing to produce it on time," said Saul in an interview. He added that the delays suggest the Canadian government is trying to do as little as possible to address climate change and deserves to be criticized as the worst in the industrialized world at promoting progress in international action to reduce dependency on fossil fuels such as gasoline, to reduce pollution and promote cleaner energy options.
Stephen Harper doesn't believe in the science of global warming, so he will do as little as possible to address it.
In fact, someone reported from a local debate, that the Conservative incumbent said that they were proud of their Colossal Fossil Award.
I suppose given that the Harper government continues to spend money on environmental issues, while doing absolutely nothing to address global warming, they might as well just close the department down.
Taxpayers are funding their travel and social events, and getting nothing in exchange.
Clearly Peter Kent was brought on board to simply dismantle the ministry of the environment. They have removed all environmental protection, allowed mining companies to dump toxic sludge into our lakes and rivers, and are still giving the oil sands $1.4 billion a year to create an environmental disaster.
The Harper government is projecting some major cuts over the next year to several of its environmental initiatives, including climate change and clean air, according to newly released federal estimates. The numbers, released Tuesday by the Treasury Board Secretariat, show a 59 per cent cut in global-warming and air-pollution spending as part of more than $1.6 billion in annual, government wide reductions to environmental services across the different federal departments.
It has become very alarming the way that the Harper government has silenced it's critics.
From early on it was pretty clear that Baird as environmental minister would follow the same path as Rhona Ambrose. They weren't interested in the facts. You do as you're told and shut your mouth.
This also fits in with their twisted mentality that if you're educated and an expert in your field, you will be marginalized as a 'university type' or 'elitist' of the 'chattering classes'.
Is this how you advance a nation and plan for the jobs of tomorrow, by silencing our experts? It would appear that Harper and his henchmen do. Things have gotten worse, and Jim Prentice proved to be no better than Baird and Ambrose.
Welcome to Pravda Ca-Na-Da!
'Muzzle' Placed On Federal Scientists Environment Canada has "muzzled" its scientists, ordering them to refer all media queries to Ottawa where communications officers will help them respond with "approved lines." By The Vancouver Sun February 1, 2008
Environment Canada has "muzzled" its scientists, ordering them to refer all media queries to Ottawa where communications officers will help them respond with "approved lines."The new policy, which went into force in recent weeks and sent a chill through the department research divisions, is designed to control the department's media message and ensure there are no "surprises" for Environment Minister John Baird and senior management when they open the newspaper or turn on the television, according to documents obtained by Canwest News Service.
"Just as we have 'one department, one website' we should have 'one department, one voice'," says a PowerPoint presentation from Environment Canada's executive management committee that's been sent to department staff. It laments that there has been "limited coordination of messages across the country" and how "interviews sometimes result in surprises to minister and senior management." ...
Exxon, the world's richest and mightiest corporation, was the leading force behind a massive ten-year campaign to block the Kyoto accord and ensure the world remained hooked on the product that Exxon has made its fortune selling. This was no easy battle, even for Exxon.
Lined up against it was virtually the entire scientific world—and, for that matter, most of the world community. In the end, not even Exxon was able to block the signing of the historic Kyoto Protocol, as the world came together in 1997 in a far-reaching bid to shake our planet-endangering oil addiction. But Exxon did score one huge victory in March 2001, when the newly elected administration of George W Bush and Dick Cheney, close Exxon allies, withdrew U.S. support for Kyoto. The withdrawal of the United States, which emits roughly one quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, was a devastating blow. Still, the world community has pressed on with Kyoto.
Into this titanic, ongoing struggle between the world community and the Bush-Cheney-Exxon axis of oil, Canada has now definitively entered—on the side of the oil interests.
With the release of the Harper government's so-called Clean Air Act in October 2006, Ottawa signalled its abandonment of Kyoto. This amounted to a repudiation of the only serious effort under way to tackle global warming. (HOLDING THE BULLY'S COAT, Canada and the U.S. Empire, Linda McQuaig, Doubleday Canada, ISBN 978-0-385-66012-9, Pg. 22)
So there you have it. The world will never reach an agreement on global warming, when the oil companies hold all the power and the purse strings.
It's no secret that Stephen Harper's float to power was down a stream of crude, or that he has significant links to Exxon himself. His father was an executive at Imperial Oil, a subsidiary of Exxon; and it was at his father's company that Harper held his only real job, before entering the political arena. (the National Citizens Coalition is a right-wing political lobby group, so that's not a real job either)
It's also no secret that our current dictator does not believe in the science of global warming, calling it a theory; and in fact has referred to the Kyoto Accord as a 'socialist plot'.
Now don't get me wrong. The Liberals before him, though helping to create the Kyoto Protocol, allowed greenhouse gases to rise under their watch. But as former environment minister Stephane Dion told the San Francisco Chronicle in May 2005, "There is no minister of the environment on earth who can stop this [oil sands development] from going forward because there is too much money in it."
It presents a problem for Canada, but should not sway our opinion of the tar sands. Unless we can legitimately clean them up, and and I don't see how we can, we have to start moving toward a green economy, and losing our dependency on oil. It's that simple.
In an attempt to organize my archived and future posts, I'm using this page to link to environmental stories, by categories. Further links will be available as you navigate the pages. Just be patient ... I'm working as quickly as I can.
It's not bad enough that we're the laughing stock at Copenhagen, but CBC has just learned that the Harper Government has been funding climate change deniers. I knew that they had appointed deniers to the science board and hired a speech writer that has also been very vocal on the subject, but this is too much.
This group also denies the threat of asbestos. My brother-in-law died of Asbestosis, and it is horrible.
The federal government has been funding an asbestos lobby group that promotes the work of prominent climate-change skeptics.
The revelation comes as Canada's delegation struggles to avoid being cast as the villain at the Copenhagen climate conference, and environmentalists are urging the government to stop financing the group.
On its website, the Chrysotile Institute promotes a chapter that it says debunks the asbestos health-risk hoax from the 2007 book Scared to Death – From BSE to Global Warming: Why Scares Are Costing Us the Earth.
Ottawa has been frequently knocked by opponents for cutting cash to organizations that believe in fighting climate change.
But Chrysotile Institute president Clement Godbout said Monday that his organization — which has received more than $20 million over two decades — actually has no position about the book's chapter on climate change.
He said his group is only promoting the book for outlining how the science of asbestos, and its potential health risks, have been systematically exaggerated by the "anti-asbestos lobby."
"We've never said a word about climate change — we have a mandate on chrysotile [the type of asbestos mined in Quebec] and we take care of that," Godbout said when asked why his website refers to the bestseller by noted British newspaper columnist Christopher Booker and co-author Richard North.
"We haven't studied this dossier … Booker says what he says, I have no comment on that."
Climate change groups lose funding.
But this case is only the latest of many funding spats involving the federal government and climate change.
Earlier this month, a church-based group that conducts human rights and environmental work said the federal government chopped its funding for overseas projects without warning.
A week before the cut, members of Kairos had told officials from the four main political parties that Ottawa needed to do more about climate change and called for a halt to new oilsands projects.
"The government has cut funding to a lead organization that's been doing very constructive work around addressing climate change," said Kathleen Ruff, a senior adviser with the Rideau Insitute and a vocal opponent of the asbestos industry. "And at the same time it's funding an organization that promotes one of the world's leading climate-change deniers.
"I think the world is becoming more and more aware that Canada is a threat to progress on environmental issues."
Ruff and the Sierra Club of Canada are now urging the government to stop funding the Chrysotile Institute, which has received funding from the federal government since 1984.
Sierra director John Bennett said Canadian taxpayers are financing an organization that promotes bad science.
"It's part of the disinformation campaign that industry employs when the world discovers that what they do is damaging to public health or the environment," he said Monday. "In the book, clearly, climate change is a hoax, asbestos is a hoax, [but] the science is quite clear: neither of those things are hoaxes."
Asbestos debate sensitive
The debate over asbestos is sensitive in Quebec, the only province in which the mineral is still mined.
There has also been little political opposition on chrysotile, once hailed as the "magic mineral" before numerous studies linked it to health hazards, including cancer.
Public Works Minister Christian Paradis, the Conservatives' Quebec lieutenant, represents the only riding where it is still mined.
Despite public pleas from more than a dozen Canadian scientists and physicians who say chrysotile is dangerous, Canada still exports the substance to several countries, especially poorer ones.
"In the industrialized world, only Canada is promoting asbestos for continued use — everywhere else in the world, except for developing countries, it's banned," Bennett said.
But Godbout insists that chrysotile is safer than the type of asbestos mined decades ago and he praises the authors for pointing out the differences.
"Their book's purpose is to tell the inside story of many of the major 'scares' which have been given obsessive media coverage in recent years, from the millennium bug to bird flu, from lead in petrol to man-made climate change," reads part of a statement on the Chrysotile Institute's website, which includes the book's price and information on how to buy a copy.
"As the authors show, each of these scares has followed a consistent pattern. They centre on some supposed threat to human health or well-being based on seemingly plausible scientific claims which eventually turn out to have been vastly exaggerated or wholly mistaken — but which in the meantime have cost Western economies astronomic sums, amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars."
As part of its mandate, the Chrysotile Institute educates industry and foreign governments about work practices and standards on how to use the product safely.
In an email, Natural Resources Canada said it continues to fund the Chrysotile Institute because it "provides information to governments, industry, unions, media and the general public in more than 60 countries explaining the risks associated with the handling of chrysotile fibres."
The Associated Press has examined the emails stolen from the University of East Anglia, and have determined, that while they raised questions about the politics; they did nothing to challenge the science of global warming.
Young Liberal Miranda Hussey is in Copenhagen, blogging on her experiences and sharing news. This morning she mentioned that she stood in line for four hours, but is still pumped. I told her that Copenhagen is her generation's Woodstock. The memories will last a lifetime.
It was nice to hear from her that Greenpeace was handing out free coffee.
I don't know if much good will come of this though. I just read that there are 1200 limousines being used to taxi people around. Why didn't they at least try to send a positive message by using 'smart' cars instead of 'stupid' limos? Sigh.
LONDON — E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.
The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change.
However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets.
The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause "that unless you're with them, you're against them," said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed the communications.
Frankel saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'"
Some e-mails expressed doubts about the quality of individual temperature records or why models and data didn't quite match. Part of this is the normal give-and-take of research, but skeptics challenged how reliable certain data was.
The e-mails were stolen from the computer network server of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia in southeast England, an influential source of climate science, and were posted online last month. The university shut down the server and contacted the police. The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them — about 1 million words in total.
One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming. It is not clear if any data was destroyed; two U.S. researchers denied it.
The e-mails show that several mainstream scientists repeatedly suggested keeping their research materials away from opponents who sought it under American and British public records law. It raises a science ethics question because free access to data is important so others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method. The University of East Anglia is investigating the blocking of information requests.
"I believe none of us should submit to these 'requests,'" declared the university's Keith Briffa. The center's chief, Phil Jones, wrote: "Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them."
When one skeptic kept filing FOI requests, Jones, who didn't return AP requests for comment, told another scientist, Michael Mann: "You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting FOI requests for all e-mails Keith (Briffa) and Tim (Osborn) have written."
Mann, a researcher at Penn State University, told The Associated Press: "I didn't delete any e-mails as Phil asked me to. I don't believe anybody else did."
The e-mails also show how professional attacks turned very personal. When former London financial trader Douglas J. Keenan combed through the data used in a 1990 research paper Jones had co-authored, Keenan claimed to have found evidence of fakery by Jones' co-author.
Keenan threatened to have the FBI arrest University at Albany scientist Wei-Chyung Wang for fraud. (A university investigation later cleared him of any wrongdoing.)
"I do now wish I'd never sent them the data after their FOIA request!" Jones wrote in June 2007.
In another case after initially balking on releasing data to a skeptic because it was already public, Lawrence Livermore National Lab scientist Ben Santer wrote that he then opted to release everything the skeptic wanted — and more. Santer said in a telephone interview that he and others are inundated by frivolous requests from skeptics that are designed to "tie-up government-funded scientists."
The e-mails also showed a stunning disdain for global warming skeptics.
One scientist practically celebrates the news of the death of one critic, saying, "In an odd way this is cheering news!" Another bemoans that the only way to deal with skeptics is "continuing to publish quality work in quality journals (or calling in a Mafia hit.)" And a third scientist said the next time he sees a certain skeptic at a scientific meeting, "I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted."
And they compared contrarians to communist-baiting Sen. Joseph McCarthy and Somali pirates. They also called them out-and-out frauds.
Santer, who received death threats after his work on climate change in 1996, said Thursday: "I'm not surprised that things are said in the heat of the moment between professional colleagues. These things are taken out of context."
When the journal, Climate Research, published a skeptical study, Penn State scientist Mann discussed retribution this way: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."
That skeptical study turned out to be partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute.
The most provocative e-mails are usually about one aspect of climate science: research from a decade ago that studied how warm or cold it was centuries ago through analysis of tree rings, ice cores and glacial melt. And most of those e-mails, which stretch from 1996 to last month, are from about a handful of scientists in dozens of e-mails.
Still, such research has been a key element in measuring climate change over long periods. As part of the AP review, summaries of the e-mails that raised issues from the potential manipulation of data to intensely personal attacks were sent to seven experts in research ethics, climate science and science policy.
"This is normal science politics, but on the extreme end, though still within bounds," said Dan Sarewitz, a science policy professor at Arizona State University. "We talk about science as this pure ideal and the scientific method as if it is something out of a cookbook, but research is a social and human activity full of all the failings of society and humans, and this reality gets totally magnified by the high political stakes here."
In the past three weeks since the e-mails were posted, longtime opponents of mainstream climate science have repeatedly quoted excerpts of about a dozen e-mails. Republican congressmen and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin have called for either independent investigations, a delay in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gases or outright boycotts of the Copenhagen international climate talks. They cited a "culture of corruption" that the e-mails appeared to show.
That is not what the AP found. There were signs of trying to present the data as convincingly as possible.
One e-mail that skeptics have been citing often since the messages were posted online is from Jones. He says: "I've just completed Mike's (Mann) trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (from 1981 onward) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." Jones was referring to tree ring data that indicated temperatures after the 1950s weren't as warm as scientists had determined.
The "trick" that Jones said he was borrowing from Mann was to add the real temperatures, not what the tree rings showed. And the decline he talked of hiding was not in real temperatures, but in the tree ring data which was misleading, Mann explained.
Sometimes the data didn't line up as perfectly as scientists wanted.
David Rind told colleagues about inconsistent figures in the work for a giant international report: "As this continuing exchange has clarified, what's in Chapter 6 is inconsistent with what is in Chapter 2 (and Chapter 9 is caught in the middle!). Worse yet, we've managed to make global warming go away! (Maybe it really is that easy...:)."
But in the end, global warming didn't go away, according to the vast body of research over the years.
None of the e-mails flagged by the AP and sent to three climate scientists viewed as moderates in the field changed their view that global warming is man-made and a threat. Nor did it alter their support of the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which some of the scientists helped write.
"My overall interpretation of the scientific basis for (man-made) global warming is unaltered by the contents of these e-mails," said Gabriel Vecchi, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist.
Gerald North, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, headed a National Academy of Sciences study that looked at — and upheld as valid — Mann's earlier studies that found the 1990s were the hottest years in centuries.
"In my opinion the meaning is much more innocent than might be perceived by others taken out of context. Much of this is overblown," North said.
Mann contends he always has been upfront about uncertainties, pointing to the title of his 1999 study: "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties and Limitations."
Several scientists found themselves tailoring their figures or retooling their arguments to answer online arguments — even as they claimed not to care what was being posted to the Internet
"I don't read the blogs that regularly," Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona wrote in 2005. "But I guess the skeptics are making hay of their (sic) being a global warm (sic) event around 1450AD."
One person singled out for criticism in the e-mails is Steve McIntyre, who maintains Climate Audit. The blog focuses on statistical issues with scientists' attempts to recreate the climate in ancient times.
"We find that the authors are overreaching in the conclusions that they're trying to draw from the data that they have," McIntyre said in a telephone interview.
McIntyre, 62, of Toronto, was trained in math and economics and says he is "substantially retired" from the mineral exploration industry, which produces greenhouse gases.
Some e-mails said McIntyre's attempts to get original data from scientists are frivolous and meant more for harassment than doing good science. There are allegations that he would distort and misuse data given to him.
McIntyre disagreed with how he is portrayed. "Everything that I've done in this, I've done in good faith," he said.
He also said he has avoided editorializing on the leaked e-mails. "Anything I say," he said, "is liable to be piling on."
The skeptics started the name-calling said Mann, who called McIntyre a "bozo," a "fraud" and a "moron" in various e-mails.
"We're human," Mann said. "We've been under attack unfairly by these people who have been attempting to dismiss us as frauds as liars."
The AP is mentioned several times in the e-mails, usually in reference to a published story. One scientist says his remarks were reported with "a bit of journalistic license" and "I would have rephrased or re-expressed some of what was written if I had seen it before it was released." The archive also includes a request from an AP reporter, one of the writers of this story, for reaction to a study, a standard step for journalists seeking quotes for their stories. ___ (Associated Press writers Jeff Donn in Boston, Justin Pritchard in Los Angeles contributed to this report. Troy Thibodeaux in Washington provided technical assistance. Satter reported from London, Borenstein from Washington and Ritter from New York.
EDITOR'S NOTE _ Find behind-the-scenes information, blog posts and discussion about the Copenhagen climate conference at http://www.facebook.com/theclimatepool, a Facebook page run by AP and an array of international news agencies. Follow coverage and blogging of the event on Twitter at: http://www.twitter.com/AP_ClimatePool)
Yes some of them got out of hand (and were quickly removed by the protesters themselves) , but that did not seem to be the norm. It's rather interesting though that they would refer to the demonstrators as anarchists. I always think of anarchists as being people who want to overthrow a government, or a violent mob.
And left-wing activists? Is that what this is about now? If you want action on climate change you're automatically left-wing? This whole thing is getting intense, but shouldn't be a left-right issue. It's a human issue. I'll bet there are many climate scientists who vote Republican or Conservative.
Copenhagen climate summit: 1,000 anarchists arrested Nearly 1,000 people were arrested in Copenhagen yesterday as anarchists and left-wing activists fought running street battles with police in the Danish capital as negotiations continued at the climate summit. By Colin Freeman December 12, 2009
Cobble stones were thrown through the windows of the former stock exchange building and foreign office buildings in the city, but police made a large number of pre-emptive arrests under a controversial anti-hooligan law.
Suspected troublemakers were herded into a closed-off street, made to sit down and then tied up with plastic cuffs. They were then bused to a detention centre set up for the climate conference.
Police said four cars were set on fire during the evening. One policeman was hurt by a stone and a Swedish man injured by a firework.
"You don't have to use that kind of violence to be heard," said Connie Hedegaard, the Danish minister presiding at the United Nations talks. She condemned rioters after welcoming the main march at a candlelit vigil outside the conference centre.
One activist group accused the police of abuse complaining people had been forced sit on the road for hours in near-freezing temperatures.
The day's main demonstration - a march involving 40,000 people - remained good natured but there remain fears that a hard-core of more violent demonstrators may still be waiting until later in the week, when President Barack Obama and other world leaders will arrive, to protest.
Inside the Bella Centre, delegates at the COP15 climate summit gathered around flat-screen TVs, showing both the police crackdown and the peaceful rally of environmental compaigners.
The split that the meeting has exposed between wealthy and impoverished nations was laid bare with news that ministers from a select clique of 40 countries were dining together away from the summit venue.
The meal, held behind closed doors at an undisclosed location, was viewed as a last-ditch attempt to cobble together a politically acceptable deal after a week of discussions marred by in-fighting, and "greener than thou" posturing over who is most to blame for global warming. Ministers are desperate to have a document ready when heads of state arrive for the final stages of the two-week conference on Thursday.
Leading them will be Gordon Brown, who has fashioned himself as a global champion in the battle against climate change, and who is arriving ahead of other top statesmen in a bid to stamp his authority on the meeting.
But so far officials from 194 countries have failed to make any substantive agreements on even the most basic goals.
Arguments are still raging over targets and deadlines for limiting global temperature rise, as well as the extent to which rich nations should fund green projects for poor ones, and whether emerging economic superpowers like China should balance green considerations against much-needed development.
Washington and Beijing have also traded insults over whether China should fund its own green measures or receive handouts financed largely by the West.
With signs of an irreconcilable split growing between the large and powerful and the small and poor, last night's dinner, attended by countries including Britain, the US, China and India – was viewed as an attempt by mostly bigger, better-off nations to strike a deal in private.
"A lot of the deals are done in back rooms but there has to be transparency at the same time," said Keith Allott, of the World Wildlife Fund, which claims smaller nations are being left out of the process.
Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, attempted to paint a brighter picture of the conference, insisting he was optimistic of a deal by the time heads of state arrived.
"This remains difficult in process terms because we have 100 and something leaders arriving on Thursday and we have to get to an agreement by the time they leave," he said.
"The world is doing what it has never done before, which is trying to peak emissions and see them fall. It is not a done deal, it remains in the balance."
Mr Brown plans to travel to Copenhagen on Tuesday evening, a day earlier than planned, in an attempt to help "seal the deal". Downing Street sources said the Prime Minister was expected to hold one-to-one meetings with key figures including Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary-General.
He will attend a formal dinner on Thursday and an all-day session on Friday before returning to Britain that night. A source said: "He remains concerned that the commitment for a deal is still short of what is required."
A productive meeting at Copenhagen is widely seen as being crucial to the credibility of the global campaign on climate change. But the first week saw slow progress. Rich and poor repeatedly clashed over the need to reduce greenhouse gases, with Africa and the small island states threatening to walk out unless the developed nations committed to deeper cuts.
Many of the exchanges were bad-tempered, souring an event that aspires to be a vehicle for better global co-operation. He Yafei, China's vice minister of foreign affairs, said he was "shocked" at US climate change negotiator Todd Stern's assertion that Beijing did not need any American money. "It's not just about the US and China, it's the whole international community," he said, insisting that climate change was historically the fault of the West. "The US is a developed country and China is part of the developing countries. To tackle global climate change we need to work together."
Ian Fry, the representative of the tiny Pacific island of Tuvalu, has also claimed that even the more vulnerable countries' intended target to restrict global warming to a rise of 1.5C will leave his island underwater because of rising sea levels.
However, the G8 and major developing economies believe it is realistically impossible to restrict temperature rises to less than 2C. They have also accused developing nations of demanding more "go green" cash than they actually need.
After seven days' negotiating there is so far only a draft agreement on the table. The framework for a possible "Copenhagen Protocol" talks about cuts for developed nations of between 25 and 45 per cent by 2020, and calls on rich nations to pay their poorer cousins to reduce their emissions. But blanks remain in what negotiators term the "square brackets" – where officials must eventually insert precise figures and dates.
There is also the question of making the agreement enforceable in law. Britain has already suggested that a further summit will be necessary in six months' time to address the issue.
Murray Dobbin recently posted an excellent piece on his blog about Harper and his plans to sabotage action on climate change ... again. So apparently he is only going to Copenhagen for the photo-ops, and if that's the case, he should stay home. I don't need anymore dart board covers.
Stephen Harper is clearly not moved by Canada’s rapidly decaying reputation regarding its appalling position of climate change. In a Bloomberg story I have not seen reported anywhere in the Canadian media, Harper told the South Korean National Assembly that he will “…use Canada’s co-chairmanship of next year’s Group of 20 countries meeting to urge members to put economic recovery before efforts to protect the environment.”
This is a blatant violation of the role that Canada has been given to co-chair the first meeting of the G20 as a body acknowledged as the effective replacement of the G8. Canada is now not only a rogue country on climate change but is headed by a rogue prime minister – stating openly that he will abuse his power as a co-chair to do everything he can to derail climate change action and protect the deadly tar sands of Alberta from any effort to slow down its development. ...
The hacked email story has taken on a life of it's own and you know when brilliant minds like James Inhofe and Glen Beck get involved, there has to be something to it, right?
Conspiracy theories abound and deniers are saying "I told you so". But who is right?
Global warming is definitely a threat. We've seen the hard evidence. But the debate now seems to be whether or not it is man made or a natural phenomenon. Many are demanding that no tax dollars go into fighting something that can't be fought. But what if they're wrong?
The video shown on this post presents the matter very well and is worth revisiting, but maybe I can put this another way.
I personally believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have nothing to do with fighting terrorism. As deniers are now suggesting that we look at who is benefiting from the money going into the 'climate change industry', it's not too difficult to determine who is benefiting from these wars. (Ironically many of the same people who benefit from denying the effects of carbon on the planet).
My theory is substantiated by former CIA agents and others, including the diplomat Matthew Hoh, who resigned after realizing that there was no rebuilding going on in Afghanistan, and that the whole thing was a farce. There also seems to be some very compelling evidence that Bin Laden has been dead for seven years, and that the Taliban are a very small group of dissidents, who have actually been empowered since the invasion.
And lets not forget the growing mountain of "evidence" that 9/11 was an inside job. Or that Al Quaeda is a fictional army, named after a computer from the 60's. I'll bet there are many emails floating around in cyberspace from the Pentagon and US state department that pose many questions about the 'proof'.
Now I might have a heated argument with someone, where I lay out my claims, at the end of which, I might be asked 'but what if you're wrong'? What if we did nothing and there was a terrorist attack on the US or Canada that made 9/11 seem like a dry run?
Now let's look at this from an another angle. What is the worst that could happen if we move away from fossil fuels toward a green economy? We can't deny that exhaust from vehicles is affecting the environment. Childhood asthma is on the rise.So are birth defects.
The late Dennis Weaver once stated that there would not be peace in the Middle East until the western world gave up their addiction to oil. So this could also be a first move toward world peace.
I'm not seeing a down side.
I am not a scientist and frankly when I hear the debates about the emails my brain shuts down. One of the most damning words seems to be 'trick'. Now I know what a 'trick' is in some professions, but apparently in scientific lingo it means something else. Who knows?
I can certainly appreciate the immense pressure on climate scientists to speed up the process, since it has become such an urgent political movement. That does not mean that their research is seriously flawed, or that every climate scientist's research is flawed. I suspect we will learn a great deal more about this in the coming weeks.
But in the meantime, we have to move forward with a serious environmental agreement, that will provide necessary funds to smaller countries already impacted by the rise in temperature.
We also have to question why Stephen Harper is telling us one thing and then telling foreign reporters something completely different. And why he is putting so much of our money into climate denial instead of making a binding commitment to the environment.
However, environmental activist Richard Graves, brings up another important aspect of this scandal. Espionage and criminal activity.
Some environmental leaders have been working to minimize the scandal of ClimateGate, by focusing on the fact the hacked email archive of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit has nothing, besides a few cherry-picked quotes taken out of context, that casts a shadow of a doubt upon validity of modern climate science. They are wrong. ClimateGate is a huge scandal, probably bigger than they even imagine.
The real scandal is not the email archive, or even how it was acquired, sorted, and uploaded to a Russian server, but rather the emerging evidence of a coordinated international campaign to target and harass climate scientists, break and enter into government climate labs, and misrepresent climate science through a sophisticated media infrastructure on the eve of the international climate talks.
One leaked archive could have been the result of an aggrieved staff member or rogue hacker, out to grind a political axe or wreak revenge upon a colleague. However, the University of Victoria was targeted in a similar attack, when two people disguised as network computer technicians attempted to penetrate the security of the facility and access the data servers of the Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis. When challenged by an employee, the two individuals fled the scene.
"This is disturbing news and it shows that there is an organized criminal campaign that is going to great lengths to infiltrate secure facilities and steal private data," said Jim Hoggan, author of the new book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming. "We don't know who is behind these criminal acts, but we hope they will eventually be unmasked by police."
This campaign has been proved to be international in scope, with criminal acts of breaking and entering probable in both the UK and Canada, as well as coordinated with the sophisticated communications infrastructure founded and built by former tobacco lobbyists that were hired by fossil fuel interests, such as ExxonMobil, to cast doubt on the links between the sale and use of fossil fuels and the changing of the world's climate. This infrastructure was detailed by within Hoggan's book, as well as documented in extensive detail by projects like Exxonsecrets.org.
One major mistake these groups, including ClimateDepot and Newsbusters, made was in labeling this manufactured crisis as ClimateGate. Perhaps a little history is in order, as almost no news reports even referenced the fact that the Watergate scandal centered around the breaking and entering of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate hotel, by a group of right-wing shadow operatives that a subsequent investigation by the FBI connected to the 1972 Committee to Re-elect the President, CREEP.
President Nixon was exposed as having commissioned the break-in, to uncover the state of the Democratic party, as he had given into fears of electoral defeat and resorted to desperate and criminal measures. Pioneering reporters Woodward and Bernstein made history for exposing the criminal conspiracy at the heart of the White House.
Conspiracy theory has recently become mainstream within the conservative movement in the United States, with both media figures and politicians implying that President Obama falsified his birth records, is setting up death panels to euthanize seniors, or impose communism upon the people of the United States.
The two policy issues that have aroused the most conspiracy theory have been Healthcare reform and Clean Energy Reform, with hugely profitable insurance and fossil fuel companies funding massive lobbying and disinformation campaigns. The Center for Public Integrity recently detailed the massive expansion in lobbying by polluting energy interests, leading to over 1,150 lobbying groups buying influence as the U.S. Congress sought to pass the Waxman-Markey climate bill.
The actual dollar amount spent is unknown, as disclosure laws require few details and have huge loopholes, but the Center calculated that an extremely conservative estimate would give you a minimum figure of more than $27 million dollars spent in direct lobbying from April to June of this year. In a major and still unfolding scandal, Bonner and Associates, an astroturf lobbying organization contracted to the coal industry's trade association, falsified letters to lawmakers from local civil rights, veterans, and other groups opposing federal climate legislation. This comes on top of the documented campaign of industrial espionage against environmental organizations, including Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, that was exposed last year by Mother Jones magazine.
The picture painted by these facts lead to the open question to if, as huge amounts of corporate money started being spent in unregulated funds, including to ethically compromised contractors and security firms, to defeat federal and international climate regulations, some of that money was diverted to fund a criminal conspiracy?
Could there be a criminal campaign to break into the climate research centers of foreign governments, review their archives for damaging snippets of text, and then elevate a fringe conspiracy theory that climate change is a hoax by the world's scientists, civil society organizations, and governments to impose socialism upon the people of the world? If so, this story would be an eerie and ironic echo of Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" that was embraced by many of the same groups currently promoting the ClimateGate talking points.
However, most journalists seem content to play into the false balance trap that has served the opponents of climate action so well over the years, by looking only at cherry-picked quotes and disinformation turned out by the climate denial industry. While the surface parallels between Watergate and ClimateGate may be strong, to uncover the truth will require a serious investigation by media, law enforcement, or even international security organizations.
An investigation into who is coordinating, funding, and leading a last-ditch effort to stall climate legislation through the use of criminal tactics and a well-funded and coordinated disinformation campaign seems to be beyond the capacity of the field of journalism. An industry so critically wounded by budget and staffing cuts that it is perhaps unable or unwilling to spend the resources or staff time to tackle serious investigative issues, even if the direction of a policy critical to the future development of the global economy depends on the outcome.
If so, the question remains, who will get to the bottom of ClimateGate? This could be a scandal bigger than anybody has imagined.
The Canadian media has not yet picked up this story, or maybe are ignoring it; but Stephen Harper told Bloomberg Press that he will use his position at the G20 to halt climate change talks.
He will try to convince them that the economy comes first, despite the fact that our economy certainly does not come first with him.
So all his talk about going to Copenhagen to address this, was all talk. He'll go for the photo-ops, but not much else.
The above is from the Liberal Party's 'anywhere but Copenhagen contest'. You can check it out here. Some of them are very funny and very creative. This is one of my favourite's.
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he will use Canada’s co-chairmanship of next year’s Group of 20 countries meeting to urge members to put economic recovery before efforts to protect the environment.
“Without the wealth that comes from growth, the environmental threats, the developmental challenges and the peace and security issues facing the world will be exponentially more difficult to deal with,” Harper said in an address to South Korea’s National Assembly.
Harper is in Seoul, his last stop on an Asian tour, to discuss with South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak how the G20 conference they’re co-chairing in Canada will advance efforts to coordinate a global recovery. The remarks were made ahead of global climate change talks starting today in Copenhagen. Toronto will host the next G20 summit on June 26 and 27, and the following summit will be in Seoul in November, Lee and Harper said today in their meeting.
Participants at the Copenhagen conference, including Lee, Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama, said last month that their original goal of completing a climate accord at the meeting was out of reach.
About 190 nations will gather in the Danish capital until Dec. 18 to set a framework for a treaty to curb emissions blamed for global warming. Talks have been slowed by differences between industrialized nations such as the U.S. and developing countries, including India and China, over emissions-reduction targets and how much financial help rich nations should provide to poor ones.
While we are hoping that our government does the right thing in Copenhagen, it would appear that it may be the same old, same old. They seem intent on embarrassing us, and further destroying our country and our planet.
Simply put, they do not believe in the science of climate change, and as such have taken on board deniers and think tanks that are fossil fuel friendly.
A recent poll reveals that Canadians want this government to step up. They do want them to simply hook their wagon to the United States, but to come up with a viable plan to address this important issue. I'm not holding my breath because so far they are off to a bad start.
Canada has been awarded the first Fossil of the Day “award” at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. “Canada garnered today’s award for its unwavering commitment to stand firm in its inaction throughout these negotiations,” a media release states. The summit, COP15 for short, opened today (December 7) and is scheduled to run through to December 18.
We've also learned that the situation for those living downstream from the tar sands, is worse than suspected.
EDMONTON - Levels of toxic chemicals in the Athabasca watershed are up to 50 times higher downstream of oilsands development, a new University of Alberta study has found. The research, spearheaded by renowned aquatics ecologist David Schindler, also estimates that Suncor and Syncrude deposit the equivalent of an oil spill’s worth of bitumen into the surrounding environment each year.
And that this decade has been the warmest on record.
The head of the World Meteorological Organziation, a United Nations weather agency, said Tuesday that this decade will "very likely" turn out to be the warmest on record going back to 1850. Michel Jarraud, the WMO's secretary general, added that 2009 will likely be about the fifth-warmest year on record. The WMO released it findings on the second day of the Copenhagen climate conference. Delegates at the 192-nation conference, which opened Monday, are trying to reach a new agreement on controlling greenhouse gas emissions.
