Yesterday, when the Conservatives limited debate on the budget, NDP Pat Martin tweeted his frustration with a colorful expletive. He remains unapologetic, as he should.
Why the media is giving this so much attention is beyond me, but the Harperites have certainly managed to take the focus off their budget and onto something that few care about.
The photo above is Conservative MP Daniel Petit, giving the finger in the House of Commons. Pierre Poilievre was also caught making a rude gesture while Peter Milliken was speaking, and launched his own F-Bomb during a Parliamentary Committee meeting.
Evan Solomon had Tom Lukiwski on his program, with Lukiwski suggesting that Martin's language crossed a line. Ah yes, that beacon of propriety:
The full tape is filled with so many F-Bombs I'm surprised that it didn't blow itself up.
Andrew Scheer is looking into a formal punishment, that's how far they are willing to take this.
This government has often turned the House of Commons into an Animal House frat party. From Elizabeth May's book, Losing Confidence:
In one memorable Question Period, the question was about the safety of pet food in response to the tragic incident of poisoned pet food from China. The Conservative backbenchers started barking, "Woof, woof. Bow-wow" ... Heckling has also taken a crueler tone. Sexist taunts are more common. Government MPs have even taken to loud booing of certain Liberal MPs they most dislike, even before a question can be asked. This is particularly the case for women MPs. For a while, whenever Judy Sgro rose to speak, the Conservatives would chant "pizza" in reference to the allegations from a campaign worker that she had violated elections laws by accepting free pizza for her volunteers. Although she was cleared by Elections Canada, chanting "pizza" seems to entertain the Conservatives.
A lot of things entertain the Conservatives.
But they're not necessarily as stupid as their actions often imply.
Where is the media critique of the budget? Most headlines relate to a 140 character tweet. It makes me so f#$%**% mad!
In 1987, Mel Hurtig edited a book If I were prime Minister (ISBN: 0-88830-315-7). Each chapter was written by a prominent Canadian, who outlined what they would do if they were prime minister of Canada.
Green Party's Elizabeth May, has a piece at Huffington Post, where she outlines her goals, if she were in fact prime minister. And her primary goal would be to limit the powers of her office.
In Canada, at the moment, we face a significant menace to our democracy. The prime minister of Canada (stated as a generic, rather than a personal reality) has far more power than a U.S. president or a U.K. prime minister. Checks and balances have been bypassed in Canada. Even in a minority parliament, the Canadian prime minister has shown himself able to dictate terms, laws, and policy without having a parliamentary debate on such things as violating Kyoto, sending jets to Libya, or leaving one of our nationals in Guantanamo Bay.
Now, following the May 2, 2011 election, the prime minister of Canada, leader of the Conservative Party, has a majority of the seats in the House of Commons -- even though the electorate's popular vote was 60-plus per cent in opposition to his government. The unelected, appointed Senate (the Canadian version of the British House of Lords) has now been stacked with Conservative appointments.
So my wish list under the heading "If I were prime minister" begins with reducing the unhealthy and undemocratic power of the Prime Minister's Office.
I think it might be nice to have another book published, similar to the 1987 offering.
The former president of Quebec’s largest police union has reversed his position on the gun registry now that he is the Conservative candidate in the federal election. Jean-Guy Dagenais, who on Tuesday evening announced his candidacy in the Bloc Québécois-held riding of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, is no longer a strong public advocate for the survival of the registry, which the Tories have long pledged to kill.
The Conservative position on the gun registry is nothing new, and a candidate towing the party line, not news.
But what's with all the police officers joining the Reform movement? If they win this election, they will have just as many cops as religious fanatics. An odd and somewhat dangerous combination.
Gun owners across the country are pouring thousands of dollars — nearly $10,000 so far, acknowledged Alexander — into his effort to defeat Holland, at $39.10 a pop.
Alexander says it is a relatively small amount that pales in comparison to the $130,000 to $150,000 he has raised since 2009 in his effort to canvass the riding and reach out to voters.
Although Alexander says websites like canadiangunnutz.com and turfmholland.ca are not affiliated with his campaign, he welcomes the contribution of “all Canadians” because he, too, believes the long-gun registry is bad policy.
Despite knowing that most Canadians support gun control, Stephen Harper has never gone off message. He will shut down the gun registry if elected. And he's sticking to that message because he needs the support of groups like Gunnutz, who are gun nuts.
I didn't sleep much last night. For the first time during this campaign I was genuinely frightened, and it takes an awful lot to frighten me.
Harper's strange interview with Peter Mansbridge, that looked more like a Conservative infomercial. The Conservatives promoting the NDP and the polls that suddenly took a strange turn.
But it has also invigorated me. And keeping my friends close and my enemies closer, I went back to Harper's past for answers, and found them with the National Citizens Coalition.
We are being played.
But what's important is that we don't lose focus. The NDP still has the best chance in the West, so in many ridings, we throw our support behind those candidates. We do the same with the Green and Liberals. Whatever we can do to get rid of Harper.
I mean do you really want a group of gun nuts determining how we vote?
A poll this week shows that Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party is gaining ground on the hapless Gary Lunn in the Saanich-Gulf Islands riding.
Of the voters who have decided and say they are definitely voting, 34 per cent said they'll support Lunn and 32 per cent will back May. Liberal candidate Renee Hetherington and NDP candidate Edith Loring-Kuhanga each received 17 per cent. May, who moved to the riding a year ago to take on incumbent Lunn in the next federal election, said she's "never liked the way our political culture gets addicted to polls" and expects future polls may well have different results.
Nonetheless, she's happy with the results and said they reflect what she's hearing during her door-knocking in the riding.
Elizabeth May is one person who needs to be in Parliament.
I know I have said that I'm supporting the Liberal Party and believe that Michael Ignatieff is going to make the best prime minister we've had in a very long time, but I'm a Canadian first.
That is why I want the best this country has to offer, and it's why I would never campaign against people like Libby Davies, Pat Martin, Charlie Angus, Olivia Chow or Gilles Duceppe, to name a few.
They do a very good job of moving this country forward.
And it's why I want Elizabeth May to win. My country will be the better for it.
When Stephen Harper took his 2 1/2 month prorogue vacation, on the advice of his doctor, Guy Giorno, it set off a firestorm of protest, triggered in large part by Christopher White and Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament.
But another group is becoming very important, since they are working to get people engaged in the political process: Canadians Advocating Political Participation. Apathy favours the incumbent and dirty politics, like constant attack ads, help to create apathy.
So it's great news that Elizabeth May will be speaking at CAPP. She is brilliant and I'm really pushing for her to beat out the hapless Gary Lunn.
She needs to be in Parliament. It's that simple.
So if you live in the Toronto area, be sure to check it out.
While the Conservatives are not responding to letters, the other parties have all given their support to our grassroots movement. The NDP are going back to work on the 25th and Elizabeth May will be attending the Ottawa Rally.
Michael Ignatieff also sent us a response. The video above shows 1200 young people lined up to hear him speak at the University of New Brunswick.
Open Letter to Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament To the members of CAPP,
This Saturday, January 23, thousands of Canadians will attend anti-prorogation rallies organized by the Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament (CAPP) Facebook group. They won’t be going as Liberals or New Democrats, as Bloc Québécois, Conservatives or Greens. They’ll be going as Canadian citizens, united in their opposition of Stephen Harper’s shut down of Parliament. That will happen because one of you had the courage to stand up in protest – and then another, and another, and another.
I want you know to know how heartened I am by the mere existence of this group – the largest spontaneous online political movement we’ve seen yet in this new digital age of politics in Canada. I am heartened because the vitality of our democracy depends on the participation of its citizens, regardless of their political stripes.
And your efforts and your numbers – over 200,000 of you so far – proves that Canadians truly are standing guard over our democratic traditions and institutions.
Some dismiss your efforts as nothing more than a click of a button. They are wrong. I know that your organizers have been volunteering their own time for several weeks to prepare Saturday’s rallies. And I know that thousands of you will be taking time off school and work, or away from your families to attend them.
Anyone who pretends that those sacrifices don’t count is highly mistaken. When this group first formed, your rallying cry was “Get back to work.” Well, on January 25, the day Parliament was set to resume, my entire caucus will be back on Parliament Hill for several weeks of roundtables and working sessions on job creation, veterans affairs, the environment, health – issues you care about. Issues that can’t wait.
And this Thursday, January 21, from 3 - 4pm, I will be holding an online town hall on my Facebook page. It’s part of a national conversation about this country’s future that includes all Canadians and recognizes the importance of open and honest debate.
When Stephen Harper shut down Parliament on December 30, he was counting on Canadians’ reacting with cynicism and indifference. You showed him that’s not who we are. You showed him that Canadians believe in their institutions and have clear, common sense expectations of their politicians: Get to work, work together and get the job done.
It’s what’s expected of every Canadian all day long, and politicians should not live by a different set of rules. I hope your important work these past few weeks means Stephen Harper gets that message loud and clear this Saturday.
But Christian Paradis is the MP of the only riding where asbestos is still mined, and he's not going to stop the practice anytime soon. In fact his appointment to public works raised new concerns over asbestos.
OTTAWA – The Green Party is expressing concern today over the appointment of Christian Paradis to the Public Works portfolio. Mr. Paradis has made comments supporting asbestos use and has previously served as President of the Asbestos Chamber of Commerce and Industry and Secretary of the Asbestos Chapter of the Management Club of Canada.
“Mr. Paradis’ history of supporting ‘safe use’ of chrysotile asbestos is very worrying,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. “Many Canadians are not aware that asbestos is still legal and in use in Canada, even though ‘safe use’ of asbestos is like drinking anti-freeze safely – neither is possible.
The Green Party is concerned that Mr. Paradis’ appointment may mean increased asbestos content in the construction of public buildings. Will Mr. Paradis commit to eliminating all asbestos in public projects or will he increase asbestos content in new construction?”
Asbestos has been called the ‘perfect carcinogen’ and no level of exposure can eliminate the risk of developing asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma. No one who uses public buildings is safe from exposure, including workers in office buildings, students in schools and patients in hospitals. Workers engaged in renovating, maintaining and cleaning buildings are at an elevated risk.
“According to the Worker’s Compensation Board, nearly a third of workplace-related fatalities are due to asbestos exposure,” (my brother-in-law was one of them who died from asbestosis) said Ms. May. “This is why virtually every labour union in the country opposes asbestos. Asbestos exposure is a serious occupational health issue. “The Green Party has long called for an asbestos ban in Canada, safe removal of asbestos from existing buildings and an end to mining and export with a just transition strategy for workers. The federal government’s continued subsidization of the asbestos industry and funding for industry associations is a disgrace.”
Ms. May added that Canada’s work to block UN efforts to place chrysotile asbestos on the list of the world’s most toxic substances are deplorable.
Ottawa, ON – Public Works Minister, Christian Paradis, is misrepresenting the report of an International Panel of Experts on asbestos, says the Panel Chair, Dr. Trevor Ogden.
Speaking on a recent national CBC program, The Current, Ogden said that the Minister “is wrong” in telling media that he Panel did not agree. In fact, all Panel members agreed that “exposure to commercial chrysotile causes cancer,” said Ogden.
Dr Ogden described as “particularly objectionable” the minister’s statements suggesting some panel members endorsed the possibility of “safe use” while others said “not to touch it”. Ogden said “The panel did not discuss whether controlled use was a satisfactory policy – this was totally outside the panel’s brief.”
In an interview with the Globe & Mail, Ogden stated that he thought the reason the government suppressed the report for so long was that “there were interests in continuing Canadian production of chrysotile and they saw the report as a threat.”
Ogden, who is editor-in-chief of the U.K. scientific publication, The Annals of Occupational Hygiene, criticized Health Canada, who commissioned the report, for not publishing it more than one year after they received it. “It is inexcusable that the Minister is going around talking about the policy implications of the report, when the report has not been published,” he said.
The report was obtained through Access to Information by Montreal journalist, André Noël. Contrary to its normal practice, Health Canada has not posted the report on its website. The Rideau Institute on International Affairs has posted the report on its website, http://www.rideauinstitute.ca/.
“We have known about the hazards of asbestos exposure for nearly 70 years, and the evidence today that exposure to asbestos of all forms causes cancer and asbestosis is incontrovertible,” said Panel member Dr. Leslie Stayner, Director of the University of Illinois School of Public Health. “Governments that attempt to suppress science and scientists do so at the peril of damaging their credibility in the international community. I call on the Canadian government to ban asbestos, as the World Health Organization has urged.”
“The tragedy of disease from the use and production of asbestos in the West is now being repeated in parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America,” said Kathleen Ruff, Senior advisor on human rights to the Rideau Institute and author of Exporting Harm: How Canada Markets Asbestos to the Developing World.
Ruff, who has been monitoring the Health Canada asbestos report for the past year and a half also noted that, “Canada’s reputation has been tarnished around the world because it has repeatedly stood in the way of ensuring asbestos is labelled as a hazardous material.”
Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party, weighed in on Harper once again abusing his power to avoid allegations of criminal activity.
This time it was war crimes, that risk being heard at an international court, if he doesn't smarten up.
Cynicism and Calculation December 31, 2009
The Prime Minister's latest move, to pick up the phone and ask the Governor General to shut down parliament until early March, proves once again his extreme cynicism and mastery in political calculation.
As commentators, from Jeffery Simpson, to John Ibbitson, to Andrew Coyne have pointed out, there is no excuse for this affront to democracy. But as Ibbitson noted, Harper is probably right in guessing that in the week between Christmas and New Year, on New Year's Eve, not enough people will be outraged.
As Kady O'Malley pointed out, you cannot even dream up the talking points for this one.
Parliament gets in the way of Olympic games? Athletes will find Question Period an artificial performance enhancer?
There is no precedent for this. Amazingly other nations have managed to have government continue during the Olympics.
PMO flak Dimitri Soudas, last seen in Copenhagen haranguing and wrongly accusing Stephen Guilbault of a prank that embarrassed Canada, announced that prorogation was necessary as the government's economic approach required "recalibration."
"Recalibration"-- there's a word to conjure. Obviously having Parliament in session would exude vibrations interfering with the total stillness required for recalibration. As Coyne said, this is "bilge."What now? We need to expect the unexpected.
We need to kick and scream at this insult to democracy -- because that is what it is.
We need to support each other, efforts by other parties, non-political leadership. Wherever a clear and compelling call for democracy emerges, that voice must be supported.
When I wrote my last book ("Losing Confidence- Power, politics and the crisis in Canadian democracy") I thought we had seen the most outrageous abuse of our system of government.
But this is worse. Harper's move this week is premised on the assumption that enough Canadians simply do not care about democracy or the role of Parliament. It presumes that Parliament can be shuttered for trivial political reasons; that legislation, committees, government accountability, a climate plan, progress on pensions, the investigation of the alleged cover-up in the treatment of Afghan civilians and other detainees --- that none of that matters enough to have consequences for Mr. Harper.
In the interests of democracy, let's hope this time his cynicism has miscalculated.
And an editorial in the Globe and Mail was right on the Mark
Globe Editorial Democracy diminished, accountability avoided The Canadian Press Globe and Mail December 30, 2009
For the second consecutive December, Stephen Harper is putting Parliament on ice. In the act, the Prime Minister is turning prorogation, a sometimes sensible parliamentary procedure, into an underhanded manoeuvre to avoid being accountable to Parliament. In the interests of political expediency, the government will diminish the democratic rights of Canadians. Proroguing stops committee work and makes all legislation pending before Parliament vanish.
Historically, it has been used when a government has implemented most of its agenda. Until Mr. Harper's innovation, it was not an annual occurrence; the last minority government to use it more than once was Lester B. Pearson's Liberal administration in the 1960s.
Today, the Conservative agenda remains unfulfilled. More than half of all government bills – 37 of 64 – introduced since January, 2009, have yet to be passed into law. Eleven of these are justice bills, dealing with such weighty matters as elimination of the faint-hope clause (which still needs to be taken up by the Senate) and tougher sentencing for white-collar criminals and drug traffickers.
These can be re-introduced when the new Parliament resumes in March, but they will need to go through the legislative process anew. In any case, Mr. Harper's decision means Parliament will lose more than 20 days: time that could have been used debating, amending and passing these bills.
There is a tactical political advantage to prorogation. The government temporarily eludes an issue of national importance that is particularly inconvenient: its knowledge of torture of Afghan detainees. Government members have already acted as truants when Afghanistan committee hearings are called. The government failed to provide documents to committee members, and implied it will disregard a parliamentary order to produce those documents.
Prorogation is the logical extension of such thinking: shut down parliamentary debate entirely.
Prorogation would also allow the government a freer hand in the Senate: five vacancies need to be filled, and committees can be reconstituted after prorogation, giving Conservatives a “governing majority.”
Political calculation is clearly behind the decision to prorogue. The Conservatives are hoping to bask in the glow of Olympic glory while dodging the mess and scrutiny of lawmaking, Question Period and an outstanding, unprecedented order from Parliament to provide transparency and truth on the detainee file. Then, they hope to return in March, stronger in the Senate and ready to reclaim, they hope, the public agenda.
Canada's democracy should not be conducted solely on the basis of convenience for the governing party. If the debate over detainees cannot be carried out in Parliament, then it should continue among Canadians at large. On this and other important issues, the government cannot delay accountability forever.
With all the nonsense about 'Climategate' my gal Elizabeth May read all 3000 stolen emails and broke them down. Conspiracy theorists will still spin this, but remember they are not climate scientists. I can't even tell you how much respect I have for this woman. Yet we're stuck with Jim Prentice.
Elizabeth May: A Response to Comments on East Anglia Emails December 7, 2009
Last week, in response to the hacked emails at East Anglia, Elizabeth May took the time to read every single email.
Providing context and analysis, her report goes a long way, giving us more than just the cherry picked nuggets that skeptics have taken out of context and doggedly been holding on to.
Here, she follows up with a response to the comments on her original posting...
DeSmogBlog comments require response:
I am a neophyte in the blogosphere. The first time something I have written for the Green Party site has been widely picked up was my article on the East Anglia scientists and the stolen emails. James Hoggan, Kevin Grandia, and Richard Littlemore do a powerful lot of good on “DeSmogBlog” and through James’ and Richard’s new book Climate Cover-Up.
Posting my CRU email blog on the DeSmogBlog site got it some attention, including in the New York Times. Reading some of the posted comments led me to want to rebut and share that rebuttal with Greens. You may need these points to do your own sand-bagging against the rising tide of skeptic/contrarian propaganda. Here is a sample of the nonsense with my response…
Ms May, with all due respect this is pure nonsence.(sic) If you read the entire set how come you missed the emails of threats to those at ClimateAudit? How come you missed the one where they cannot account for the current cooling? Or how about the MANY where they conspire to black ball journals that keep publishing skeptical papers, get certain editors removed, and changing the peer reviewed process?
Or how to change the data mixing unrelated data, that hides the decline the treering data showed after 1961? How come you did not comment on these? JR Wakefield
Thanks to JR Wakefield, (although the message “with all due respect” would ring more sincerely if your headline had not been, “Lizzy, you missed the juicy stuff.”)
My point is there is no “juicy stuff.” There are intemperate messages from people writing in private about the levels of frustration created by years of harassment. None of us like to be besieged. Few of us have had to endure the levels of targeted harassment of the scientists in the CRU group at East Anglia.
There is one message where a colleague expresses concern that the models do not seem to account for the where the heat forcing of the trapped solar energy is going.
The discussion is started when Dr. Stephen Schneider, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, expresses concern that the BBC is mis-leading the public on current science:
Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Ninoyear and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth afew tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be anotherdramatic upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--waswilling to bet a lot of money on it happening in next 5 years??
Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest inreconstructed 1000 year record and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below.
Translation: BBC has seized on one year “cooling” and ignores the issue of time lags in the global climate system. As I tried to point out in the Munk Debates, climate modelling is not about a one year at a time climb in temperatures. It is significant at the level of decades.
You have to grasp time lags. The GHG we release today will have an impact on the climate for the next 100 years. The system is nearly infinitely large and complex, with land heating faster than oceans. As well, there can be confounding factors -- sunspots on 11 year cycles or El Nino (referred to in the East Anglia emails as “ENSO” El Nino Southern Oscillations) that heat things up, volcanoes (like Mount Pinatubo or sulphate and particulates from burning coal that ironically) can act to mask the warming trend. These impacts are temporary and the climate models seek to screen them and see what anthropogenic forcing is doing to the climate. All the models for decades have shown that it is impossible to produce the warming trends the planet has seen when you exclude anthropogenic forcing.
Dr. Kevin Trenberth from the Boulder, Colorado National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) replied to Schneider. He has been for some time interested in better methods to account for the physics of the issues: where does the heat go when trapped at the earth’s surface by warming gases.
His work is described on the NARC website as “being used to validate coupled atmosphere-ocean climate models and understanding heat flows that are so important in climate change. He has continued to improve estimates of the global hydrological cycle. A particular focus is on changes in precipitation type, frequency, intensity and amount, and thus on how droughts and floods, and climate extremes change.”
In other words, in the following email, he is promoting is own area of research, not attacking the fundamentals of climate science.
The oft-quoted email sentence from his message of October 13, 2009 said:
Dr. Michael Mann, Director of the Earth Sciences Centre at Pennsylvania State, replied the next day, Kevin, that's an interesting point. As the plot from Gavin I sent shows, we can easilyaccount for the observed surface cooling in terms of the natural variability seen inthe CMIP3 ensemble (i.e. the observed cold dip falls well within it). So in that sense,we can "explain" it. But this raises the interesting question, is there something goingon here w/ the energy & radiation budget which is inconsistent with the modes ofinternal variability that leads to similar temporary cooling periods within the models.
I'm not sure that this has been addressed--has it?Dr. Tom Wigley, a senior scientist in the Climate and Global Dynamics Division, also at NCAR, and a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) wrote:Dear all, At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.These sums complement Kevin's energy work.Kevin says ... "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the momentand it is a travesty that we can't".
I do not agree with this. Tom.(Emphasis added)
Other scientists point out that we are still not clear on how many sulfates are being emitted, particularly in the rapidly industrializing developing world. It is clear that sulfates (particulates) provide a cooling effect, even while carbon dioxide levels keep growing. In another post, the scientists discuss why NASA results show higher global temperature than the Hadley results from the UK. One conclusion is that the Hadley data does not have as many Arctic data points. Warming in the Arctic is 2-3 times faster than the global average.
By the next day, October 14, Trenberth writes that he is not challenging anyone, just making a point about the fact his area of research needs more attention.
In an open letter defending the East Anglia scientists (December 3, 2009), he wrote:
I am proud of what Phil and I did for Chapter 3 in AR4, and it is disappointing that the IPCC has not been more forthright in standing up for its procedures.
Dr. Trenberth’s private email is being distorted and touted globally as some sort of “smoking gun”, or to hear the industry-funded Pat Michaels “a mushroom cloud.”
There is no “smoking gun” here. It reads, as do all the email threads on closer examination, as scientists exchanging candid, off-hand, messages. They know each other well and often speak in short-hand. Clearly Dr. Trenberth is NOT arguing that the models have been cooked up to avoid a climate cooling trend. Nor is he denying that there is an urgent need to reduce GHG. He wants to see a clearer understanding of the energy dynamics on the planet.
Sadly, I see it has taken three pages of text to counter the one sentence “How come you missed the one where they cannot account for the current cooling?”
For JR’s other points, forgive me for just replying without copying and pasting in all the emails. There was no effort to “blackball journals.” There WAS a sad realization that one journal, in particular, had ceased to exercise the appropriate level of scientific rigour. It was publishing papers that could not have passed peer review anywhere else. The CRU emails did no object to the publication of the paper because the scientists disliked the authors or their conclusions, but because obvious and large mistakes had been made. “Shoddy work” was an apt description.
The journal, Energy and Environment, was discussed on a number of emails, especially after it published a terrible paper by Baliunas and Soon. The group of scientists, whose emails make up most of what was stolen, decided to put a serious peer-reviewed effort into debunking that article. The Energy and Environment Journal is not a top journal. It is not included in Journal Citation Reports which covers the top 6,000 journals. The name of the editor rang a bell.
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, who is mentioned by the scientists concerned about the sloppiness of the work, was the source of a key footnote in Lomborg’s Skeptical Environmentalist. Lomborg claimed that negotiations to arrest climate change were driven “not, as you may have thought, [by] the prospect of possibleglobal warming” but by windmill manufacturers, climate researchers and other “institutionalized interests.” His source? Solely her name. No published article. Nothing. Just Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen.
The data problems plague people in many areas of science. Techy issues with computers and managing different platforms etc could drive a sane man mad. If this were a serious problem at East Anglia, clearly other scientists would not have the same results using their own systems and intellectual property to put the raw data into computer friendly formats.
The key point here is that the raw data (at least 95% of it) is available in the public domain, and has been for years. Independent scientists all around the world, sliced and diced in a wide variety of ways, keep pointing out that the planet has never had as much carbon dioxide in one million years, nor has it been this warm in the last 1,000 years.
Turning to another critic of my post:
In this instance it appears that this case will certainly be changing from Hackergate back to Climategate. As it turns out, the source of the information in the e-mails and the data files at CRU is an employee at CRU Hadley. This individual is now in contact with Steve McIntyre over at ClimateAudit. The mole has even shared a highly sensitive data file that McIntyre requested under British FOIA laws but was denied. The data file contains all of the station data from around the world (unaltered) that McIntyre tried to get for quite some time.
To show how quickly this issue is disintegrating in the UK, the Met (the UK’s equivalent to the U.S. National Weather Service) is opening up all of their data and investigating the last 160 years of world temps de novo. This will take until sometime in 2012. That’s quite a while. In the mean time I am watching the sea ice data in the Arctic blow right past the last few years.
The sea ice returneth despite what you may have seen or heard on TV or radio. DJ
“The ice returneth?” That’s quite the claim. Quiksat imagery has shown a continuing of the dramatic trend towards thinning ice. Much of the multi year ice is now gone in the Arctic. Areal extent was a little larger than 2007 in both 2008 and 2009.
But, volume was way down and both 2008 and 2009. There was some hope, blown up by the ironically named “Friends of Science,” that a small recovery in annual ice would support some polar bears, but Dr. David Barber of University of Manitoba, made a voyage to check and found the whole area was like “swiss cheese,” or “rotten.”
The millions of square kilometres of disappearing Arctic ice are visible through satellite data.
Visible in photographs from outer space. So would you have us believe that those wily scientists at East Anglia has intercepted satellite images and doctored with the photos? Or maybe there are no satellites! Maybe they just use a sound studio outside Norwich and have a planet earth look-alike that they can film as though they were in space!
As for the idea that an “insider” stole the emails, I suppose anything is possible. But the credibility of this claim is more than a bit undermined by alleging the “mole” to be “an employee at CRU Hadley.” Fascinating that. CRU is the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia located in Norwich. No connection whatsoever to the Hadley Centre of the British Government in Exeter. (Established by the wild-eyed radical, Margaret Thatcher.)
None of this means that we should be dismayed there is an investigation underway. Failing to hold a full investigation will only allow the climate denier crowd and the Fossil Fuel Lobby to attack the science and use a few intemperate, overly human outbursts by good and honest men, to hurt the legitimacy of their work. But we should be prepared.
There will be more emails stolen. More scientists attacked. We cannot afford to sit back and wait for the investigation of the CRU emails to be completed. Nor should we think for one moment that a full investigation of the CRU that exonerates the scientists will end the matter. The climate denial-contrarian effort is well-funded and fuelled with rampant paranoia, fears of global government (how do we get them interested in the WTO instead?), conspiracy theories and a deeply held commitment to NOT accept the clear science.
There is no way to reach those people, but there are some legitimately confused members of the public. They want someone to be clear about what it going on. That is our job as Greens.
Defend scientists who have done nothing wrong. Work for an effective treaty at Copenhagen. Ensure that we avoid runaway global warming by demanding cuts sufficient to, at least, stop the rise in global GHG by 2015-2016.
We have a lot of work to do. Sadly, now, some of our time must be spent in rear-guard actions to protect the truth.
I really like Elizabeth May, which is why I wish the left would unite. She needs to be in cabinet and we need her as our environmental minister. It's that simple.
Ms May offered her comments on the Afghan abuse story that is unfolding in Ottawa now, and I thought I'd share it.
Rarely does the news of the government’s failures and abuses have such impact as to make one feel physically ill. But the looming possibility that Canadian soldiers routinely arrested civilians in Afghanistan, on no evidence whatsoever, and turned them over to be tortured, made one ill.
That we, as a nation, may have been responsible for many (hundreds?) of innocent people to be snatched from their families and cast into those hell-holes of prisons to be tortured is devastating. These are war crimes we are talking about, but it is also people whose lives we were supposed to be protecting.
I remember the constant denials that Government members knew anything. The explanations of former Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor that when Canadian forces turned over Afghan prisoners we could rely on the International Red Cross to monitor their condition.
Mr. O’Connor gave this answer for a full year, even though there was no truth to it. None at all.
Even though Mr. O’Connor was briefed by the head of the International Red Cross in September, 2006, he stuck to this fairy tale that we relied on the Red Cross for any information about inhumane treatment of prisoners once they left our custody.
His apology once the fiction was exposed was lame and evasive. In Question Period on March 21, 2007, the Prime Minister attacked the former Liberal Opposition Leader Stéphane Dion when he demanded O’Connor’s resignation. Stephen Harper deflected the question, saying “I can understand the passion that the Leader of the Opposition and members of his party feel for Taliban prisoners. I just wish occasionally they would show the same passion for Canadian soldiers.”
Now the evidence of a brave and well-respected diplomat, Richard Colvin, who claims that the torture was routine, that it was known and that his efforts to document and report such treatment were blocked at every turn. He testified that the government would not even take phone calls from the Red Cross.
His evidence demands that a responsible government dig to get the facts. Instead, the Harper government has gone on a media offensive, attacking Mr. Colvin as someone duped by the Taliban. Peter MacKay went on the attack.
Colvin was painted as someone with a crazy theory, or as Don Martin noted a “Taliban stooge,” noting that “Defence Minister Peter MacKay went much further on Thursday, blasting the ‘holes’ in his testimony and wondering why Mr. Colvin never raised such concerns with him directly.”
But as Macleans reporter John Geddes pointed out, these accusations were swirling for some time: “In a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations way back on Nov. 27, 2006, here’s what Human Rights Watch had to say about the situation Canadian troops, and others, were embroiled in:
NATO forces have stated that they have detained only a few detainees, even in the heavy combat zones of southern Afghanistan. Dutch forces operating in Oruzgan announced their first five detainees two weeks ago, while British and Canadian forces operating in Helmand and Kandahar, respectively, have publicly acknowledged fewer than 100 detainees. Given the ferocity of the fighting in these areas, the absence of more detainees raises two alarming alternatives: either that NATO forces are not taking detainees, or, more likely, that NATO forces are circumventing their bilateral agreements by immediately turning over detainees to Afghan authorities and thus abrogating their responsibility to monitor the detainees’ treatment.
We have received credible reports about mistreatment of detainees transferred by NATO to Afghan authorities. It is our understanding that the Afghan Ministry of Defense does not have in place a legal framework for holding detainees. We understand that the Afghan government has not yet ratified a law on military tribunals drafted with the assistance of US authorities.
For now, we understand that in practice most NATO detainees are transferred to the National Directorate of Security (NDS), an opaque, unaccountable and abusive institution still governed by classified laws promulgated during Afghanistan’s communist era. The NDS operates detention centers that fail to meet international standards for the treatment of detainees.”
Other NATO nations took greater care to follow up on detainees. Canada didn’t. The implications of Colvin’s testimony shake us to our moral foundations as a country.
Now we have a government not only bent on ignoring and sabotaging global climate negotiations, we have a government intent on ignoring, and even defending torture. I have seen this movie before. It used to star George W. Bush.
With the media picking up their big cardboard cheques and all but handing Stephen Harper a majority, would this be a good time to talk seriously about uniting the left?
Michael Byers wrote a piece not long ago about a strategic uniting for the next election, to remove the neo-Conservative government that is threatening our country, while the nation sleeps. He seems very passionate and maybe we should listen, especially after Harper's former campaign manager admitted that Harper lied about the coalition.
I read a comment on one of the boards "Heard Elizabeth May and Michael Byers yesterday on Michael Enright's Sunday talk show! A discussion on how Stephen Harper could be defeated by the left developing a strategy of the parties working together. Would be a good first mission for Mr. Ignatieff to send Peter Donolo on...to explore the possibilities?"
With a 34% approval rating for Harper, that hardly warrants his new 'king' status, but we're talking the Canadian media here? Since when did they put Canadian interests ahead of their own?
Harper's success is because he united the right and eliminated the competition.
The only thing that could be a problem is that Jack Layton now has a Harper complex, and fancies he could be the next PM. He used to care though and maybe we could get him to care again.
a coalition government threatened to bring down the Conservative government, it was said that Stephen Harper united the right ... and the left.
Well is that such a bad thing?
Looking back, I think if Michael Ignatieff had been head of the Liberal Party at the time, the coalition might have stood a chance, but they were up against a professionally run smear campaign, orchestrated by raving lunatics.
They pulled out all the stops, standing on street corners with cries of impending doom, obviously just after meeting with their street corner drug dealer, because given their insane rantings, they were definitely under the influence of something.
With dilated pupils, flared nostrils and frothing at the mouth, the entire Tory caucus were completely out of control. In fact, they now show tapes of the House of Commons from that time and use it in 'just say no to drugs ' campaigns. They're enough to scare anyone straight.
However, it would now appear that only Michael Ignatieff has a good shot at ousting this menace, and Jack Layton has become almost inconsequential, which is a shame because I think he really wants what's best for Canada.
So why not unite the left? There are so many amazing people in both the Green Party and the NDP. People like Elizabeth May, Jack Layton, Olivia Chow, Pat Martin and Thomas Muclair, to name a few, deserve cabinet posts. They could certainly do a much better job than most of the cabinet ministers in Harper's government, but I'm afraid that they will never be given a chance.
The Conservatives are the only right wing option, yet can still garner barely a third of the vote. They count on the left battling each other and splitting support.
The Bloc will still be the Bloc, and Gilles Duceppe is such an asset to the House of Commons. If truth be told, my political beliefs are probably more in line with his, except for the whole Quebec separation thing, though Elizabeth May and Michael Igantieff are also amazing.
I can't believe we have all this talent that's being wasted because of partisan politics.
So how about it Jack? ... Elizabeth? .... jump on the big red bus. Canada needs you guys if we have any hope of getting our country back.
Bubble has burst for NDP leader since coalition, and party has lost its momentum from 2008 vote Jun 27, 2009 Richard J. Brennan
OTTAWA BUREAU
OTTAWA – Jack Layton looked like a kingmaker when the Liberal-NDP coalition threatened to topple the Conservative government last fall, but eight months later he is struggling for attention.
By throwing in his lot with the Liberals, led then by Stéphane Dion, the NDP leader saw a chance for real power. However, his ambitions came crashing down when Governor General Michaëlle Jean agreed to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's request to prorogue Parliament, sending MPs home.
Since his power play, Layton's party has lost the momentum it had during the 2008 election and his personal popularity has nosedived.
While part of the NDP's decline can be traced back to Layton's role in the failed coalition, it is the growing strength of the Liberals led by Michael Ignatieff that is really pushing the party to the margins.
When he was compared to the hapless Dion, Layton looked good but the changing Liberal dynamic has voters wondering what he stands for, other than opposing everything the Conservative government proposes.
It used to be that Harper treated Layton with obvious deference – considering him an ally in the fight to keep the Liberals on the ropes – but now Harper routinely attacks Layton, accusing the NDP of being irrelevant.
"The problem for the NDP is that the lowest-level game being played in this Parliament is by the NDP," Harper told the Commons last week. "The NDP does not seem to accept that the people of Canada re-elected this government, and this government wants to work with other parties. (Who said Stephen Harper doesn't have a sense of humour?)
As long as the NDP decides it will oppose everything before it even knows what the proposals are, it will remain completely irrelevant to Canadians."
Pollster Nik Nanos said when the Liberals get wind in their sails, the New Democrats' numbers decline.
"The slow climb of the Liberals has in large part been at the expense of the New Democrats," he said. "When the focus is on Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper, Jack Layton basically gets pushed off the agenda and it is much more difficult for him to have profile."
During the 2008 election, Layton consistently placed second to Harper as the person who would make the best prime minister. NDP support at the time spiked at 22 per cent, compared with 15 per cent now.
"The election is a bit of a false indicator for Jack Layton, because a lot of that had to do with the weakness of Stéphane Dion," Nanos said.
A serious recession should be a time for the New Democrats to make political hay, but rather than picking one specific thing to go after the government for, they have chosen more of a shotgun approach, accusing the government in general terms of taking the country in the wrong direction.
While the shine may be off Layton's public image, he is not expected to be subjected to a leadership review at the party's national convention in Halifax, Aug. 14-16. With the possibility of an election this fall, he's likely to be given one more kick at the can in light of the party's numbers in the 2008 election.
