Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Chock full of global warming nuts

Who's nuttier? "Laurie David" Suzuki, 71, for berating a gymnasium full of grade 6 students in Calgary or former Liberal defence minister Paul Hellyer, 83, for suggesting he believes advanced technology from extraterrestrial civilizations offers the best hope to "save our planet" from the perils of climate change.

Suzuki's organization should be audited immediately as a political party, it's not a charitable group. The Martin Liberals had the CRA investigate the Catholic Bishop Conference when they criticized Liberal policy and hypocrisy, why not tax the mouthy millionaire hypocrite Suzuki?

"The only thing (Harper) cares about is getting re-elected with a majority government," ranted Suzuki to the 11 year olds in the captive school gym audience. (And this was a group of well meaning kids who were donating $835 to his own cause!) "It's up to your moms and dads to ensure your futures and livelihoods are part of the agenda. I don't believe there is a green bone in Harper's body," continued an angry Suzuki. "(Harper) has never, ever indicated he cares about the environment."

David Suzuki has an enormous home with huge windows overlooking windy Kitsilano Beach in Vancouver. He has at least one other home as well. To say he's over housed is an understatement. He drives coast to coast to coast in vehicles that make SUVs look like a Prius. He's a "carbon copy" of Laurie David, Al Gore and other unctuous 'celebrity expert enviro-hypocrites' who just won't shut up and who never walk the walk.

Winnipeg Sun columnist Tom Brodbeck broke the story last week, pointing out Suzuki is travelling across Canada lecturing us peons on how to emit less greenhouse gases, even as he rides in spacious luxury in a diesel-spewing rock star tour bus that is large enough to ordinarily seat up to 54 people, but is only transporting eight at any one time including the chauffeur. And now he's coming back to Ottawa again for another Love-In with the "editorial board" of the Ottawa Citizen, which is now more akin to a shoddy NDP high school newspaper, having long ago abandoned any pretense of journalistic objectivity in favour out outright cheerleading for Suzuki and his unqualified hypocrites of his ilk like Gore, Stern, David et al.

Yes the UF-ologist Hellyer can be seen at UFO conventions for "World Peace" but if he does ask E.T. about how he gets that litle bicycle to fly and gets an answer, I'll bet the little two wheeler is a lot cleaner than Suzuki's 54 seat rock star bus, either of his mansions, his V8 gasoline powered limousines or his big dirty frequent-flyer jet airplanes.

In this battle of the Timothy Leary nut bars I can at least picture Paul Hellyer trying to ride a unicycle at Pali Gap with lei around his neck. Suzuki? He'll be sitting up front on the jet, typing away on his laptop and dreaming of the next gig on his rock star tour...later flying home Business Class to stretch out and enjoy the beach view at his Gore-like palace, or warming his hands by the fire at Rideau Hall with Gourd Downer of the Practically Hip... "When does it snow in Ottawa?" indeed!

He's better than you, you know. Laurie David, Suzuki, Nick Stern, they're all better than you. Jet-setting millionaire (multi) mansion-dwelling finger wagging hypocrites. They're ALL better than you. Or so they keep saying. Just look what they can get away with!

A spokesperson with the CRA (Revenue Canada) said yesterday, if someone complains about Suzuki's partisan rants by calling 1-800-267-2384, it will be investigated and "taken seriously". I'm calling, are you?

King of the hypocrites

Al Gore's massive 10,000 square foot Tennessee mansion uses more than 20 times the national average in energy.

Utility records show his average monthly electricity bill was over $1,200 US.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh ­more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh­guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of his movie An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for his mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

Now, don't you finally agree he is better than you? I nominate him for the Laurie David Suzuki award in Outstanding Hypocrisy.

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Monday, February 26, 2007

Popping a Rivet

So Methuselah Gainey finally pulled the pin, and ever conservative, it was, on the surface, nothing to write home about. Could the move possibly bode well for the Habitants a year or two from now though? Or even in the immediate future?

By jettisoning the longest-serving Canadien, assistant captain Craig Rivet of North Bay (Saku Koivu's roommate), Bob is not only retooling the team for the future by ditching an overpaid underachieving temperamental player who had become selfish, taking dumb penalties, fighting with the coach and resisting discipline but Bob and the brain trust have also acquired a very decent young kid. Captain of Kelowna's juniors, an ex Team Canada Silver Medal winning defenceman who is already playing 17-18 minutes a game for the Sharks. With him comes a first round draft pick, showing GM Wilson's desperation perhaps?

I had grown increasingly disappointed if not outright exasperated with Rivet's temper tantrums on the ice, several of which hurt the team. Losing it after what he thought was a questionable penalty call, he drew another (unsportsmanlike or misconduct), putting the team down by two men, usually leading to an 'automatic goal' by the opposition. When told he was sitting out a game recently by Guy Carbonneau, he lost it again, stormed out of the arena, well...just another example of his level of frustration and lack of control. When passion becomes irration(al), it's time for action. It was not a Brashear-Tremblay showdown or Roy-Corey but it was enough.

Rivet had become a very average or below average 32 year old, unable to adapt to the new faster NHL. Now the next guy on the bubble as an overpriced under-achieving player is Matthieu Dandenault, who seems to be treading water and is over his head far too often, eclipsed by even the small Mark Streit as an effective utility player. Where is J-F Cote`, scheduled in October as the sixth defenceman? Injuries to him and Frankie Bouillon didn't hurt the team out of the blocks but it's been telling since Christmas as the vets sagged.

It will take more than the Rivet move to magically transform the Habs into a playoff contender though. With Huet gone (and he was 'gone' as an effective backstopper well before he tore his hamstring), Aebischer back to being a question mark as an effective number two and the 21 year old rookie Halak looking promising but yet to 'walk on the water' in a Dryden or St. Patrick game-robbing team-carrying fashion, things are looking bleak.

If Steve Begin returns in time, if Kovalev suddenly heals and shows some heart...well there are too many 'ifs.' (Both may play against the Leafs tonight, Kovie describing himself as "70%".)

Overpriced, underachieving, emotionally fragile, this year's version of the Canadiens looks headed for the links. True, if they make they playoffs they could surprise someone in the first round with hot goaltending but that's about as far as they could go. No Claude Lemieux dudu-disturber, no Stephane Richer sniper as in '86 and '93, no game-stealing wunderkind goalie (yet)...the Leafs game will either show their mettle or the way to the showers. Who wants it more? That eighth spot should be enough motivation for their best players. The grinders are doing their best. Too often it's the two top lines who have snoozed while the team lost. Contrast their play with that of the Buffalo Sabres: eight regulars out of the lineup and still giving a fine team like Ottawa a rough weekend (they split the games with Buffalo scoring ten goals in spite of their thinned ranks).

If this fade continues down the stretch it will be time to jettison the perpetually disappointing Koivu. He's again suffered long periods of moody ineffectual play, 2 goals in 24 games type of stretches, he's no leader. Watch him next game against Sundin, let's measure him that way.

Your move, Saku. Playoffs or playing through?

(Late note: RDS is claiming Gainey may be stocking up on first round picks with this Rivet trade, as he can now trade a 1st-rounder, keep one and acquire a a second line scorer rental player without really losing anything. The clever old goat may have done himself a goodun here. Who'll he go after?)

Sunday, February 25, 2007

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Hillary v$ Obama

The latest leading Dems' scat-flinging has produced the news that each plans to attempt to raise $100 million - just to campaign in California!

Bill Clinton raised $3 million when he had his first primary run in that state.

Imagine how much good money like that could do like that for the poor, the homeless, inner cities, health care relief, medical research, global warming...

If an obscene amount like that does not shake everyone out of their torpor then nothing will.

Campaign reform America, yesterday.

As I've written before, if they (the United States) have not learned from the failed presidency of Dubya that fundraising alone is not enough...the States cannot afford another president with steroidal fundraising who just bought the office.

At this critical time it has to be about ideas, a plan, an ideology. They need another Reagan, a Thatcher. Not another Dubya and certainly not a vacuous ambitious liberal like Clinton II or young Obama. Let's hear from people with grand ideas rather than uber-financed airheads.

Friday, February 23, 2007

Suzuki hypocrisy lambasted

FINALLY a few media types have begun saying what this scribe has been bellowing for years: David Suzuki is a ridiculous hypocrite on the environment.

The celebrity expert on global warming (who like most celebrity Chicken Littles is not a climatologist) has come under severe criticism for his Dirty Diesel Bus Tour.

It's instructive that no one even thought to ask whether the coast to coast to coast bus tripping was an effective tool to conduct his propaganda tour let alone whether the massive bus, its tons of equipment and supplies, ten employees (including Suzuki and the driver) was running on bio-diesel or the regular disgusting dirty stuff.

Today we finally have the admission that yes, it is a regular dirty diesel bus, identical to the type used by rock stars and other self-aggrandizing celebrities. They could have used bio-diesel or regular fuel blended with "soybeans or canola" one source said but a Suzuki spokesman said "that would have voided the engine's warranty."

The spokesperson claimed the Suzuki organization would later "purchase high-quality carbon offsets that support renewable energy and energy efficiency projects."

A Winnipeg Sun writer (I could not find their column online and the Glib and Mail typically does not mention the competition by name) said Suzuki "may want to look in his own back yard before lecturing Canadians on how they're destroying the earth" because his bus releases lots of carbon dioxide.

Not to worry. Since he is much better than you, as usual the rules don't apply, he'll just con you into giving him money so he can do the tour in his dirty diesel bus, polluting the atmosphere and releasing GHGs and then buy some 'credits' with your donations later. Ah, life as an untouchable enviro-saviour!

The tour cost over $300,000. No word whether that includes the "forgiveness" Suzuki will be buying with donated monies after the 'wrap.' The Globe quotes a Suzuki spokesman as saying they will be buying $80,000 dollars worth of forgiveness by the way.

Let's see the receipt, your holiness.

Goldenberg Confesses Cretin's Kyoto Con

Jean Chretien's grey eminence Eddie Goldenberg admitted shamelessly to the media today that he and the Ti-Gars never had any intention of meeting the Kyoto targets when they negotiated and signed the treaty on behalf of Canadians.

Goldenberg was unrepentant yesterday in London ON, admitting that the Chretien Liberal government was not ready to take the difficult measures necessary to comply with Kyoto.

"I am not sure that Canadian public opinion - which was overwhelmingly in favour of ratifying Kyoto in the abstract - was then immediately ready for some of the concrete implementation measures that governments would have to take to address the issue of climate change. Nor was the government itself even ready at the time to do what had to be done. The Kyoto targets were extremely ambitious and it was very possible that short-term deadlines would at the end of the have to be extended."

The Liberals signed the treaty in 1997 and committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels in 2008-2012. They did nothing and now emissions are 30% above that target. In an ironically timed coincidence, current Liberal leader Stephane Dion also came under fire today for his latest $14,000 Ottawa-to-Montreal limousine bill. No word on whether he would buy any "carbon offsets" as the David Suzuki Dirty Diesel Bus Tour has promised. (Hint: the Liberal Party is broke.)

Eddie Goldenberg is now an Ottawa lobbyist for TransCanada Pipelines, which supports a MacKenzie Valley pipeline to transport oil from Alaska to Alberta.

Jean Chretien is now a lobbyist for the Peoples Republic of China.

Canada? Well we're behind the multi-billion dollar boondoggle eight ball of yet another Liberal swindle.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Hillary vs. Obama

The delightful romp between the two leading Ego-crats recalls the Bill Buckley quote about the hostilities between the Khmer Rouge and Communist Viet Nam circa 1979 or 1980. "Both sides should be supplied with the most up to date and effective weapons possible."

Ooh, and look I'm not the only one who sees it that way!

"Aha!" my tucchus! (UK troop levels)

The sudden media attention to Tony Blair's draw-down of Brit troops in (southern) Iraq is really quite pathetic.

The UK has been reducing its fighting force in that country for some time. At its peak they were over 30,000 strong and now are down to 7,100. This is a matter of public record.

Few in the media (or the Democratic party) apparently noticed this until this week's announcement that the Blair government was reducing their troop level from 7,100 to 5,500 this spring and then to 5,000 by the end of the the summer of '07. The British are stationed in the Basra area, a primarily Shiite and relatively trouble-free area of the country (compared to the 'Sunni triangle' and Baghdad). It's not Kurdistan but it's certainly more 'pacified' and less violent than Baghdad and 'the triangle.'

"What would be absolutely disastrous - and we are not doing in any shape or form - is to say that future draw-downs are unconditional. It is all conditions-based, based on the progress and the capability of the Iraqi forces." Blair declared that "the next chapter in Basra's history will be written by the Iraqis."

The latter quote has either been under-reported or omitted entirely from both news and partisan Democratic sniping. Blair would not comment on reports that all British troops would be removed by 2008 in an apparent rebuke to the media speculation on that date for a full UK withdrawal. Blair himself will be leaving office in the summer of 2007 and his successor may make the final decision.

Are we to believe that this long standing plan snuck up on the media and the liberal left? Puh-lease!

Inconvenient Pop Quiz

Pop quiz given to 200 viewers of the Al Gore movie by Prof. Robert Pielke Jr., director of the Center for Science and Technology Research at the University of Colorado

1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its latest report earlier this month. It projects a likely global average temperature increase for 2100 of (degrees C):
a:) 1.1 to 6.4
b.) 1.5 to 4.5
c.) 5.0 to 11.5
d.) 7.0 to 9.0

2. The IPCC report projects a (mid-range) global average sea level rise for 2100 of
a.) 16 inches
b.) 48 inches
c.) 10 feet
d.) 70 feet

3. If the Kyoto Protocol were to be fully implemented, including U.S. participation, the effects on global average temperatures in 2080 would be:
a.) undetectable
b.) a reduction of 0.5 degrees in the projected increase
c.) a reduction of 1.0 degrees in the projected increase
d.) a reduction of 2.0 degrees in the projected increase

4. If global greenhouse-gas emissions magically stopped right now, global average temperatures would:
a.) stop increasing immediately
b.) continue increasing for many decades

5. In order to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide at current levels, we would have to reduce net global emissions from today’s levels
a.) to 1990 levels
b.) by 20 per cent
c.) by 50 per cent
d.) by 100 per cent

1. A
2. A
3. A
4. B
5. D

“Very few came close to the correct answers on 1, 2, 3 or 5. In fact, on 1, 2 and 3 the overwhelming answers were ‘C’ and ‘D’ and on 5 it was ‘A’ and ‘B’." - Professor Pielke.

One more question for Canadians from Prof. Pielke ( who “is not a climate skeptic but who does think people tend to believe the UN consensus projections are more catastrophic than they really are, and that cutting CO2 is the big answer.” - Margaret Wente, Globe & Mail)

If Canada stopped producing greenhouse gases tomorrow, how long would it take for the growth in China’s emissions to replace our entire annual output?
a.) 18 years
b.) 8 years
c.) 3 years
d.) 18 months

the answer is ‘D’

“The real climate-change deniers are those who believe that if only we had the will, we could cut GHGs deep and fast enough to fix the problem.” M. Wente, Globe & Mail

Globe on "the Goracle"

The Globe & Mail and writer Anthony Reinhart in particular redeem themselves somewhat in their reporting of Al Gore's 'sermon on the mountie' (Feb. 22 issue).

Instead of the 'cult of hysteria' and outright propaganda we've witnessed the last 6-12 months, Reinhart actually included some closing notes on who and what the cult-ish ideological-religious fervour drew to Gore's appearance at the University of Toronto.

" looked more like a sideshow outside, as hopefuls looked for tickets, scalpers told reporters they were not scalpers, and bona fide ticket holders ran a gauntlet of activists handing out leaflets.

There were vegans seeking new recruits, people calling for the closing of Ontario's coal-fired power plants, a Greenpeace mascot dressed as a polar bear - even the UFO believers showed up.

"I know you won't believe this," one of them said with a practised tongue, "but the extraterrestrial technology involved in's free energy man. Absolutely free energy, and it'll be the end of fossil fuels."

Across the driveway in front of the hall, a large banner exhorted the crowd to "Heed the Goracle."

"From my perspective, it is a form of religion," said Bruce Crofts, 69.

I cannot help but picture every scruffy English-y 'the end of the world is nigh' placard-waving Raging Granny and unicycle riding wild eyed bearded cultist...and I dare say again, why has the media given Gore a free pass? Why do they acquiesce on their "polite barring" as the Globe called it? The Globe did not report whether Gore flew in on a spaceship, a broom or a large fossil fuel burning jet aircraft, let alone whether he arrived in a Prius or a Lincoln limousine. Use your imagination. He's using his.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Gore's Globe Groupies: whitewash

Today's Globe & Mail ends its gushing Al Gore feature:

"Mr. Gore has his critics. They wonder why he didn't talk much about global warming during the 2000 election, why was he able to accomplish so little on climate change when he was in office.

He prefers to deliver his message directly to the people, undiluted by the news media. He asked that reporters not attend the U of T event, and at one earlier in the day in Montreal. He declined an interview with the Globe and Mail."

Could it be that his royal enviro-highness cannot stand the heat? Or is it just that he doesn't believe in a free press, in its and his responsibilities? Again, an enviro-ayatollah who is not just better than you but is even better than his groupies in the media. It's an 'inconvenient truth', there's no use even having a discussion, shut up and listen to me. The other side has no right to dissent and the press, even a lapdog press, does not even have the right to be in attendance! Did Gore remove his footwear, sit cross-legged on a rug with a turban on and giggle excessively??? Did he rail or Rael?

Today's 'article' was written by supposed science 'reporter' Anne McIlroy, who, like too many journalists these days, ended up sounding more like Ben Mulroney than Ben Bradlee. Can you imagine if John Baird or Stephen Harper refused not only to do interviews but barred the media from their lectures?

Global warming? Oh pooh. Smells like someone's baking brownies.

"Cornered by the green lynch mob"

Jeremy Clarkson's hilarious blog about UK enviro-nuts

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Now: extrapolate

I think most of us in the area are not economists. We can't speak with anything like the credibility that Sir Nicholas has." ("Diesel" Suzuki, at Nicky Stern's Toronto press conference Feb. 19, 2007)

If this is so, Dirty Diesel Doctor Dave, the Polluting high Priest of Prevost, why not apply this to your (and his) mewling Marxist ministry on "global warming?"

If you are not fit to comment (let alone build a massive following in one short year out of hot air on alleged hot air the way Stern has) why on earth are you qualified to scream "the sky is falling" when you are not a climatologist??? How can you shout down scientists who disagree with you??? You don't know anything about the science, you just have an "opinion" that somehow trumps everyone else's - if they disagree with you.

And further, why are Al Gore and Nick Stern criss-crossing the globe like a Laurie David on amphetamines in their big jet planes?

Because they're better than you and the rules don't apply to them. The rules don't apply to them when it comes to being a frequent flyer and the rules don't apply when it comes to academic or scientific knowledge. They're not just better than you they're environmentalist royalty and if you don't agree with them you're in favour of the death of the planet.

Stern's qualifications for his meteoric rise to global warming guru? He is "an academic economist who has written books on Kenya." A year ago Stern was an unknown. Let it be so a year from now. Let him be methane in the wind, teaching agrarian reform to Kenyan M.A. students at the leftist London School of Economics. Let the sycophantic and hysterical media find another celebrity to anoint as our enviro-saviour.

The farce spins ever wildly out of control. Joe Public, wake up and smell the coffee. Please.

Monday, February 19, 2007

Davis Strait polar bears flourishing, GN says

“Scientific knowledge has demonstrated that Inuit knowledge was right”


The Davis Strait polar bear population is much more numerous than originally expected, says a preliminary report conducted by Government of Nunavut biologists.

There are some 2,100 polar bears in the Davis Strait population, says the report, which is part of a three-year study currently underway. That’s a big jump from an estimate of about 850 Davis Strait polar bears made by the Canadian Wildlife Service during the early 1980s.

Mitch Taylor, the GN’s polar bear boss, says the latest findings confirm what Inuit hunters have said for a long time: polar bears who live along the southeast coast of Baffin Island, Ungava Bay in northern Quebec, and the northern coast of Labrador are healthy, and growing in numbers.

Inuit hunters revised the Davis Strait population estimates one decade ago to 1,400, then up to 1,650 in 2004, based on the number of bears they encountered on the land.

“The Inuit were right. There aren’t just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears,” Taylor said during an interview on Tuesday this week.

“Scientific knowledge has demonstrated that Inuit knowledge was right.”

That hasn’t always been the case. In western Hudson Bay, which covers the southern Kivalliq and northern Manitoba, Inuit, backed by the GN, claim the bear population has risen from about 1,200 animals to 1,400.

But scientists such as Ian Stirling of the Canadian Wildlife Service claim that between 1987 and 2004, the western Hudson Bay population dropped from about 1,200 animals to 935, a 22 per cent decline.

That’s led some, including Stirling, to argue that growing numbers of polar bear sightings doesn’t necessarily mean there are more bears – in some cases, polar bears may be hungry, and venturing closer to communities in search of food.

That could be due to shrinking sea ice levels, which force polar bears to spend more time on dry land, without easy access to food, making them weaker and less healthy. Stirling and his collaborators say fewer cubs and young bears now survive the lean times of a lengthening summer.

But Taylor says experienced Inuit hunters should be given more credit for their observations, and dismisses the theory that polar bears may simply be more visible, rather than more abundant, as a view that sees these hunters as “so simple, and so childish, they could be fooled.”

“I find it difficult to even respond, and be calm about it.”

And in the case of Davis Strait, the polar bears are increasingly seen on the land and sea ice, not necessarily near communities.

Meanwhile, most polar bear scientists also believe Nunavut’s Baffin Bay and Kane Basin bear populations may be in decline.

Stirling’s estimates of polar bear declines in western Hudson Bay have been seized on by environmental groups, eager to use the polar bear as a poster child for climate change, to argue the animal is on the brink of extinction.

But Taylor says he hopes the Davis Strait study will draw attention to how not all polar bear populations fit this generalization.

Ironically, the growth in Davis Strait polar bear numbers may be due to animal-rights activists.

Efforts to ban seal hunting during the late 1970s and early 1980s hurt Inuit by destroying the market for seal skins. But this likely helped Davis Strait polar bears, because with less human competition, more harp seals were available for bears to eat.

This growing food supply could have helped the Davis Strait polar bears multiply, Taylor says.

The anti-seal hunt campaign also chased Norwegian vessels from Canadian waters. At one time, Norwegian sealers had their own polar bear quota, which they used when hunting harp seals.

Taylor also suspects the old Davis Strait study done by the Canadian Wildlife Service underestimated the number of polar bears in the area. He explains the study took place during the spring, when polar bears spend their time out on pack ice.

This makes the bears difficult to spot by surveyors inside a helicopter, as the bears spend much time in the water.

It’s also difficult to safely land a helicopter on pack ice, and a crew that tries to tranquilize a swimming bear risks letting the animal drown.

These are all reasons why the current GN study underway is being conducted during the summer, when the bears are on dry land.

For the last two summers the study has been underway, GN biologists, with help from their Nunavik and Labrador counterparts, have spotted record numbers of bears in the Davis Strait range.

Taylor says during a good survey, field biologists will manage to spot and capture between 160 and 180 bears. In the summer of 2005, when the current study began, researchers found 635 bears. The next summer, they found 842.

The Nunavut communities of Pangnirtung, Iqaluit and Kimmirut hunt the Davis Strait population. These communities share 46 tags annually.

Labrador hunters take about six Davis Strait bears a year. Nunavik hunters can take as many Davis Strait bears as they want.

Birth and death rates of the Davis Strait polar bears won’t be known until the final report is prepared, in 2009.

With temperatures increasing over the last 20 years in the Arctic, shrinking the amount of sea ice, Taylor says it only makes sense to increase monitoring of polar bear populations.

But he says the Davis Strait population also demonstrates the importance of listening to what Inuit hunters say.

“Maybe that’s the beacon for the future.

Stop the Insanity: "Political" science

Scarred by fascism, they fan the flames of hysteria with more vile “celebrity pseudo science.”

Like David Suzuki, Englishman Nick Stern is yet another “celebrity” trumpeting the alarm with regards to global warming. And also, like Suzuki, he is not a climatologist. Stern is - get this - not even a scientist!

And like Suzuki, he was scarred by World War Two, the battle between fascism and democracy. While Suzuki and his family were seized and confined to a wartime internment camp, leading to a (justifiable and obvious) lifetime of bitterness, Stern, “the son of Jewish parents who fled Nazi Germany for Britain in 1938, he grew up in an activist household. As a schoolboy in London, he choked daily on the coal-fired smog then enveloping the city. "You could smell it, you could taste it, you could touch it," he told The Times of London."

So here we have two of the most feted (fetid?) proponents of Marxist anti-western anti-technology anti-consumption anti-capitalist guilt, shaped by World War Two, two cunning ambitious men, one in his 60's, the other in his 70's, setting themselves up (thanks to their celebrity) as “experts” on the hysteria of the moment, “Global Warming.”

Twenty years ago it was global cooling. “The new Ice Age is coming!” Now, self-professed celebrity experts, many of whom are not even scientists (stinky Al Gore and jet-setter Laurie David can you hear me?) have decided that the massive redistribution of wealth between rich and poor countries is partly the answer, the other is the suicidal self-flagellation of paying for the triumph of the Communist Chinese Revolution, the solidification of Vlad “KGB” Putin’s hold on Russia and other sad projects such as trillions given to fiscal sinkholes like India.

The cult of “Global Warming”, the orthodoxy, the totalitarian onethink Newspeak mindset, the IPCC’s political science of wealth redistribution and “conclusion first, science later” all tell us one thing.

We’re being had.

When celebrities and “political” scientists invent a crisis, frame its cult-ish ‘debate’ as an Orwellian tragi-comic high farce, it’s time to pull up the drawbridge and man the parapets. All is not lost yet but “Ooh, Bob Rae and Scotty Brison are going to be there at Nicholas Stern’s lecture.” Doesn’t that send shivers up your spine? An English Labour Party economist lecturing other celebrity leftists on Global warming, now that’s alarming.

The only thing more disturbing than the media’s lockstep cheerleading and onethink is the sound of the public’s snoring. The Thomas A. Boldt cartoon (below) speaks volumes. When the public realizes how they’ve been hoodwinked by these ‘experts’ and the LiberalNDP (and Bloc), Harper has his majority. Even the 905 soccer moms and "New Canadians" may defect to the Tories.

If anyone is to save Canada from this "New Marxism” it will be Harper and his strategic thinkers. Environmentalism yes. Trillions to China and Russia? Insanity. Hysteria and insanity. No two words more aptly describe Kyoto.

Stop the insanity.


Czech President questions Gore's Sanity, calls Global Warming a "Myth"

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.

In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses. This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrically opposite. Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change. Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism. (My italics, McL)

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...

A: ...I am right...

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa. It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected incomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago. That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.
[English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos Motl]

Thanks to Tim Denton's page:

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (, is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at

Saturday, February 17, 2007

Friends of Science & the debate (yes there is a debate)

For balance, for common sense, for the "other side", to prevent a 1929-like Depression and 'crash' of the Canadian economy visit this site:

You will find sobriety, second thought, science, sanity. No rat pack media hysteria, rather sober questions and real insights.

Unless we demystify Kyoto and educate the average Canadian about its political aims at wealth redistribution by "taxing" the wealthy west (to send the money to Communist China, Russia, India et al), there will be an economic catastrophe like we have not seen in 75 years.

From the FoS website:

Britain's Hadley Centre, the "Met Office", which advises the UK government as its prominent climate research source on Kyoto, once published this graph. It shows their belief that by the year 2050 the net benefit of full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would effectuate a temperature drop of just 0.06 degrees Celsius, compared to the year 2000.

This reduction would come at a global cost estimated at one trillion dollars.

Until and unless Canadians arise from their media and LiberalNDP induced sleep, the current projected $3,000 per household cost will double or even triple, destroying our way of life.

Sure, David Suzuki, Peter Mansbridge and Martin Mittelstadt can afford this but the average 'lunchbox' cannot nor should they have to contend with cutting their income, lifestyle, consumption by over 30%.

Visit the site and educate yourself before it's too late.

So there was David Suzuki...(again)

Outdoors, bundled up, doubled over in laughter, kibitzing with Bald Downey of the Practically Hip by a raging open fire at the outdoor hockey game in Ottawa this week...imagine the Global Warming there...

Suzuki, on his $300,000 Dirty Diesel Bus Tour, standing beside a large open fire, at an outdoor hockey rink featuring rich LiberalNDP celebrities, corporate types and many of the 1981 (?) Oilers Stanley Cup Champeens...who presumably did NOT (like Suzuki) ride their Chinese bicycles to this phoney photo op...

This is just SO typical of the Laurie David 12 year old hypocrite enviro-nut mentality. Never mind Suzuki, who does not even like hockey, had made the dumb, dishonest and unscientific mention of Bramptonians being unable to have outdoor rinks in their back yards this year: "Imagine Canada without hockey!" and yet there he was, freezing his designer-clad Birkens-tucchus off at a celebrity outdoor match in Ottawa at -25C.

Any lie, any false anecdotal rhetoric, improvisation, invention, obfuscation, anything for "the cause."

I say we send them on a bike tour of the far north for a polar bear scat-collecting expedition. And Barney Bentall can sing to them about playing hockey with "frozen turds." A CBC documentary coming to Newsworld soon, hosted by VJ George Stromboulopouolos's earring collection and featuring close-ups of his wrinkled forehead, denoting CONCERN!

Friday, February 16, 2007

Kyoto: "The Impossible Nightmare"

Today's lead editorial in the Toronto Globe and Mail chastises the near-sighted and devastatingly poor judgement shown by the LiberalNDP and DionLayton in their saddling Canada with the curse of Kyoto.

It's literally a Depression-causing (as in 1929) giveaway to aggressive totalitarian (yet "developing") People's Republic of China and polluters like India.

Our only hope is closer ties with the United States of America - and a Harper Conservative majority government which can creatively deal with the legal challenges as a result of Trudeau's "Charter of Wrongs" and the Kyoto economic disaster as it unfolds.

Thankfully we live next to the biggest economy on earth, a non-signatory to this disastrous "treaty" and with Harper's (and his inner sanctum's) intelligence, literally and figuratively speaking, we may be able to mitigate the coming Depression. Whether the Notwithstanding Clause is applicable or whether the threatened court challenges by enviro-Marxists (paid for by legal aid from the taxpayer$) will force compliance with Kyoto and bankrupt the nation, there is only one person I would choose to steer the good ship Canada away from the rocks and that is our current PM.

The next election will be a referendum on Kyoto and whether we leap off the cliff - or not.

"No responsible government could come close to reaching those targets without bankrupting the federal treasury. But in an effort to score political points, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has stubbornly plodded ahead, smearing the gloss of virtue on this economic and political folly.
It's the impossible nightmare. Last May, after five years of Liberal inaction, the Conservative government conceded that the level of emissions in 2004 was 34.6 pr cent above Canada's Kyoto target.... Canada's emissions have since sailed even higher (probably by another 35%).
Canada would have to go abroad to buy emissions credits or sponsor carbon-reduction initiatives in other countries. Most experts put the price tag for that splurge at a minimum of $10 billion. It could go far higher as the market gets tighter, squeezing federal funds for everything from health care to retraining programs.
Mr. Dion has made a grave miscalculation. Both his party and the country could pay dearly for the mistake."

(Toronto Globe and Mail Feb. 16, 2007)

Toyota's NASCAR cheating: Bubba-san!

On the NASCAR home page the two biggest news items according to voting fans at that site are:
1. the suspension of four crew chiefs by the sanctioning body for cheating (various offences)
2. Toyota's Michael Waltrip still qualifies with his Camry (-resembling) race car

Those who fretted admitting Toyota to the field would be un-kosher somehow may have to rethink their red meat red state American only traditionalism.

In a very strange way Toyota has become as "Bubba" as the moonshiner founders of the sport like Junior Johnson and his ilk.

A conspiracy advocate could even suggest that the tall foreheads at Toyota wanted to get caught. There's a long tradition in all of sports but particularly in NASCAR of interpreting, stretching and even breaking the rules. As recently as the late Dale Earnhard and the currently disgraceful Tony Stewart the sanctioning body (and many armies of rabid fans) have not only tolerated but worshipped this cutthroat 'win at any cost' moonshiner attitude.

True, the France family (which has ruled the body since day one) has done wonders with their "New Country-WWF" style marketing of the drivers on the circuit but there's always that sly nudge nudge wink wink tolerance of cheating and dirty driving. Good ole boahs will do them kinda thangs doncha know.

But along comes Toyota, can it be true, and not only procures a decent and quite well liked driver (Waltrip) who won the Daytona 500 in which Chevy's Earnhard was killed blocking (then) Dodge's Sterling Marlin so Waltrip could win the race and...Bubba-san is caught with a sticky substance inside the intake manifold which boosts octane and or oxygenation of the fuel at high rpm, just when you need it.

There hasn't been much tech released on the substance yet but the Toyota "gotcha!" eclipsed the news of the suspension of the 'other' four (American make) crew chiefs and in a very real sense is a huge P.R. triumph for the Japanese auto maker.

Not only have they stealthily built tested and deployed (!) a very fine (and delicious sounding) V8 engine in their trucks but they have, with this slap on the wrist by NASCAR's tech people, confirmed that they are as Bubba as Bubba. "Bubba-san, wha' can honourable Toyota executive say, shi-shi happens!"

And Michael Waltrip not only escapes sanction apparently but qualifies for the Daytona 500 in his backup car. Scriptwriters could not have written anything so perfect. If Waltrip wins Daytona the stock car Pearl Harbour will be complete.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Head in the sand

No I am not going to launch into a tirade about the ostrich-like west, America in particular, and the political, intelligence and preparedness failures with regards to the decade-long (or longer) war against us by terrorists of all stripes (not just Wahabi fascists.)

Rather I am asking the rhetorical question "where have the great thinkers gone when it comes to the economic war being waged on North America?"

Consecutive corpulent, sleeping legislative and executive branches of the US government have not only not risen to the challenge, they have studiously ignored it.

Now Chrysler, GM and Ford stand on the brink of collapse and if they collapse, look out. The mayhem will sweep across the continent, sparing few businesses associated with Motor City's big three.

It is never too late to respond but indeed it is very late and the UAW and CAW have to play a central part in the strategy of dealing with the "Asian" (originally just Japanese) economic threat. But will they? No sign of it yet. Their leaders are as much to blame as the clueless corporate royalty steering the Big Three towards the economic rocks as the politicians who deny, drift and dream.

Now the threat has expanded to the massive Peoples Republic of China (and their aggressive policies both economically, politically and militarily). Will the 21st century belong to Communist China? That is their design. It is effectively a "war economy" incorporating the most aggressive aspects of Communism and viral capitalism.

Sensible Asian economic experts and corporate types should recognize serious damage to the North American economy will kill the golden goose and their fat US-Canadian market may wither. Where would that leave them then? We can "do business" with Japan, South Korea et al but are the Chinese interested in economic detente or an economic scorched earth policy? (The answer is in the January satellite killer test.)

Traditionally the west has not responded until it is very late in the game and this long decline cannot be turned around overnight. A strategy cannot even begin to address the problem until the problem is acknowledged.

Until the "sleeping giant" of the American voters is awakened - likely by a single presidential candidate - nothing constructive can be done re: the protectionist trading practices of the Asian countries. With the distraction of foreign intrigue, terrorism and war, can any candidate (or party) bring a focus to the economic threat to the US?

The failed presidency of George W. Bush should have shown the US that a full campaign coffer and heavyweight lobbyist friends cannot replace ideas or policies and a proactive policy-driven President (and Congress) is what the country needs. But without campaign finance reform and without a voter-driven debate on economic policy the drift and decline will accelerate.

Can Rudy Giuliani be the populist solution to the challenges ahead? Does he acknowledge there is a challenge? Does anyone on the political scene other than CNN's Lou Dobbs and a few right-populist media commentators recognize the peril we face?

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

Suzuki Snow bulletin

Suzuki: "When does it snow in Ottawa?"

September to July Dave, September to July.

Global Warming

Happy Valentine's Day to everyone in "Winterpig" where Global Warming is taking a terrible toll on their environment this Feb. 14th.

Look, on the sidewalk, it's my nose!!!

(Joe Pesci voice per piacere.)

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Celebrity Pseudo-Science found wanting

Socialist-biologist-crusader and wannabe climatologist David Suzuki is making a cross-country $300,000+ "dirty diesel bus tour" (with money he "scrimped and saved from his fund years ago") to beat the drum about his cause celebre, global warming.

Anti-capitalist, anti technology and arguably anti-human (as a tree-hugging BC biologist he puts homo sapiens on the same level as say newts and other creatures, we have no right to supremacy) he is everywhere in the (sycophantic leftist) media this past year, and as the enviro-hysteria mounts, a clear and present danger to rational discussion of such issues as climate change (and who or what is responsible if there is indeed climate change), urbanization, consumerism and capitalism itself.

Though it's presently the coldest day in Winnipeg since 1939 at -35 C and even a rather less than sweaty -24C in Ottawa (-35C with the wind chill factor) and though the "weather man" did not accurately forecast this past December's left coast-ish green Christmas in central Canada (let alone what can happen three days from now), the end is nigh according to "Diesel Dave", the Laurie David of Canada. In her interview online Mrs Larry David confesses she is

"the first to admit that her mainstream brand of environmentalism does not require sacrificing a Hollywood standard of living. Though she wouldn't be caught dead driving anything with lower gas mileage than a Prius, she offers no apologies for her super-sized house, her extensive wardrobe, or her frequent-flyer lifestyle."

Likewise Suzuki lives the celebrity life, conducting his sermons on the mount, touring like a rock star in his gi-normo bus to promote...walking to work and bicycling through the snow drifts in -35C temps in Winterpig??? Ask 20 Canadians about Kyoto and you'll get 20 answers, all of them wrong or inaccurate. Suzuki sees this ignorance as a golden opportunity to attack capitalism and western consumerism, scare us two legged lamb chops into a stampede and introduce his Utopian "vertical filing cabinet" apartment sheep pens for the new breed of urban animal. If he is the answer to our prayers LET HIM RUN FOR OFFICE AND HAVE THE PEOPLE MAKE A PRONOUNCEMENT ON HIS WORTHINESS. Teenage pronouncements like "buy more local produce" do not resonate when it is -35C unless you're picking a dirty Popsicle out of the (salty) ditch.

Our left coast Saint Suzuki, though he's been cleverly playing partisan politics and diplomatically dirty dancing with unlikely partner Tory pit bull John Baird (the environment minister who succeeded schoolmarm-ish Rona Ambrose in that portfolio), salutes himself and NDP-UN "saint" Stephen Lewis as "two of Canada's leading thinkers." Immodesty aside, they would be better described as two of Canada's loudest self-promoting socialists, perpetual feeders at the public trough and two Tommy Douglas-like ND-Preachers who practice the ultimate penthouse socialist art of "do as I say, not as I do."

When Toyota flew Suzuki in to Ottawa for their promotional Prius hybrid unveiling at the National Museum of Science and Technology in 2003 he was picked up and squired by (always running) Cadillac limousines to and from the airport and nearby Chimo hotel where yes, he took a shower contrary to Al Gore's decree one should only have them every second day. "But I flew in on the Air Canada overnighter!"

Even when he walked to nearby buildings from his limousine at the NMST he did not ask for the Cadillac to be turned off. Air conditioning is a necessity for comfortable celebrities doing photo ops in Ottawa in July, isn't it Dave? He did the TV news spots and said the typical Suzuki-esque sound bite things and flew back to Vancouver the same day. Two national nearly cross-country flights (like Larry David's wife) when the whole thing could have just as easily been accomplished in Vancouver. Was he paid? How much was he paid? What does he think of Toyota's development of its hot new V8 engine, its large SUVs, pickup trucks and its entry into Dubya's Bubbaland of NASCAR? Deathly silence. You couldn't hear him over his Prevost bus if he had anything to say anyway.

Fury and profanity spew easily from his lips when discussing Rona Ambrose or the so-called "skeptics" of the IPCC pronouncements on "climate change." Remember, the IPCC had raucous divisive talks, issued their conclusions about climate change and global warming first and several months from now will backtrack and tell us why they were right and what science if any this press release and "tablets-from-the-mountain" approach is based upon. Conclusion first, evidence later. Pythonesque high farce. Where are Peter Sellers and Slim Pickens when you need them most?

Now Dr. Dave is doing a coast to coast tour in a diesel bus. I haven't read that it's a Toyota NASCAR V8 bus or whether it's a french fry oil enviro-diesel bus but in this age of the Internet and virtual appearances why don't we question whether the gentle Ayatollah of Ethanol should be doing this at all when he could just as easily 'virtually' accomplish it from high atop the ivory tower on Saltspring Island?

Photo ops, self-promotion, ayatollah-like imperiousness, Suzuki has mastered the art to the point to where when one Carleton University professor wrote a less than favourable review of one of his books a few years ago Suzuki pulled his scholarship at the Ottawa university, effectively hurting...innocent students.

Suzuki is one of the principal proponents of the new anti-western Marxism, this enviro-hysteria which childishly suggests we walk or ride our bicycles to work in the coldest country on earth (second only to Russia and Outer Mongolia).

Yeah Dave, every city will have 100 new buildings full of bachelor apartments with 20 people in each one, taking showers every second day, surfing Al Gore's invention the Internet for your daily dose of dull Douglas-isms. Never mind we're all changing jobs if not careers every 1-3 years, we can have some kind of groovy government co-op to help us share the land, man. And my next job in Saskabush? I'll ride across northern Ontario listening to Kathleen Edwards on my Ipod to get to my new vertical filing cabinet hovel.

Dr. Dave is one of those pie in the sky "we can compress 50-100 years of international industrial and societal change into 7-10 years" 12 year olds and the sooner the average person takes a dispassionate look at what he is really suggesting for us and our progeny (and their progeny) the sooner he will be outed as not just an intolerant extremist, a shamelessly self-promoting narcissist and a Utopian enviro-ayatollah but as a hypocrite and unrealistic twit - out of his depth in a field of science he knows nothing about.

He should have taken Ken Kesey's psychedelic bus on tour.

Twenty years ago it was The New Ice Age. Time magazine trumpeted Herpes as the bug that would destroy humanity. The media grabs these tabloid "End of Times" headlines and runs with them. It's AIDS, it's Herpes, it's civil war in Iraq, it's North Korea...It's time for this latest run to run out.

The next Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics in a report by Robert Erlich will show the link between solar resonant thermal diffusion waves and terrestrial climate change. "They give a fairly precise overlay for climatic variations through the past 5,300,000 years and appear to explain the sudden emergence in time of the already-known 'Milkankovich cycle" while eliminating many of the problems previously associated with it. Don't know what I'm talking about? Then why would you have an opinion on global climate change?" (David Warren, Ottawa Citizen Feb. '07)

Suzuki and indeed many of the enviro-chickens have no clue as to the science of or whether there indeed is a global warming threat let alone what we should do or how or when it should be done. That doesn't stop him from his daily appearances in the media (he favours television of course where 'real journalists' have been replaced by mouth breathing models and MuchMusic VJ's because he can suffer no divergence of opinion on this matter, indeed one must licks his boots and purr contentedly as the Marxist Moses mutters to his minions about mutton methane. If you've seen him lose it during a 'debate' he attacks with the alacrity and sophistication of a Ray Emery stick to the face. Ugly. Extreme.

"Sustainable development"...come on Dr. Dave, you're still trying to bring down the west to a bunch of Third World villages. Who will find the solutions to the challenges we face: development of the Third World, conquering cancer, spreading democracy and freedom and wealth and peace?

If we return to the Saltspring Islands hippie communes of the world, will that not entail turning off our computers and TVs and consigning your hypocritical Laurie David rock star tours to the 'ash heap of history?'

Forget the wannabe climatologist self-promotion from this guru of soy and sandals, I'll be watching the Daytona 500 and listening to hear what the 700 horsepower Toyota V8 sounds like. Bet it's louder than his condemnation of Toyota for buying into the meat eating red state Bubba lifestyle and taking direct aim at Detroit's most gas-hogging excessmobiles. Sorry, scratch that, that would be something like a Canadian Prevost bus like you and Dubya both drive. Oops!

This "Used Suzuki" is a Real Lemon.