Why are there so many Believers in Human Induced Climate Change?

Up until recently I have been puzzled by why so many people believe that humans are causing catastrophic changes to climate even though there is ample evidence that the main proponents use outright falsehoods and twisting of the truth allied with denouncing those who have a difference of opinion by calling them names rather than disproving their facts. I think I have a handle now on why this is so as a result of several items I have come across on the internet and through personal experience.

The first example, and one that took me completely by surprise at the time is a brief interview of Christopher Hitchens on the subject of climate change. Many may know of him as he has been a vociferous opponent of religion such as his book "God is not Great". Here is a link to his Wikipedia biography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens . Simply put, and he does present very convincing arguments, religion requires one to have blind faith. Take for example confessing one's sins to ensure you will go to heaven otherwise you will go to hell. That assumes a) that there is an afterlife and b) that no matter how bad a person you are, as long as you "confess your sins" you will be "saved" and will go to heaven. It is this type of thought that Hitchens railed against.

But in one interview he was asked what he thought about "climate change" and here is the transcript of his reply:

"The argument about global warming is not whether there is any warming but whether or not and to what extent human activity is responsible for it. My line on that is that we should act as if it is, for this reason, which I borrowed from Jonathan Schell's book on the nuclear question, The Fate of the Earth: We don't have another planet on which to run the experiment. Just as we don't have a right to run an experiment to run an experiment in nuclear exchange on this planet, we have no right to run an experiment in warming it either. So if it turned out to be that there was no severe global warming threat or that it wasn't man-made, then all we would have done would be make a mistake in analysis - which we could correct from. But if it turned out that there was and we didn't do anything about it, then it would be too late to do anything at all. And that would lead to disaster."

"[W]e should act as if it is"? When the subject is religion he takes the opposite view, which he frequently described eloquently, that one should NOT assume the worst, just in case! That is exactly why confessing one's sins, just in case there is an afterlife is so wrong! So this begs the question how could a learned man such as Hitchens come up with such an idea that is antecedent to his usual line of thought?

This is where a blog entry by Scott Adams' of the cartoon strip "Dilbert" fame recently wrote dealing with what he calls "cognitive blindness": the inability to see the strong form of the other side of a debate (see http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154679929646/watching-the-climate-science-bubbles-from-the). In this post he goes on to say:

" I noticed this phenomenon [cognitive blindness] when I started blogging about climate change. The citizens who side with the majority of scientists in saying climate change is influenced by humans and the prediction models about doom are accurate have – as far as I can tell – never seen the strong versions of the argument on the other side. (I know because I ask about it.) They have only seen the weak versions presented by their own side. And the weak version of the argument goes like this: “The other side are science deniers and quacks.”".

Up to that point I totally agreed with him but then he adds this comment:

"My bottom-line belief about climate science is that non-scientists such as myself have no reliable way to evaluate any of this stuff. Our brains and experience are not up to the task. When I apply my tiny brain to sniffing out the truth about climate science I see rock-solid arguments on both sides of the debate".

What rings so false about this last statement is that everything I have read and heard is that there are no "rock-solid" arguments by the proponents of Climate Change and that rather than defending any criticism  with supportable facts they always fall back on calling those opposed names, such as "deniers" and "quacks".  All people who have had at least a high school education have the means to ask critical questions based on whether or not the information they have been presented coincides with what they have previously been taught. If no inconsistencies can be found then it is reasonable to at the very least assume that the idea presented is plausible. And there lies the problem of why so many accept what others cannot; they do not ask the critical question "does this mesh with what I know to be true"?

This same point I saw presented in another blog called "Manhattan Contrarian" and I found his description more eloquent that mine:

"If you are a reasonably intelligent person, and you are willing to spend a few hours on an issue, there is a very workable method to discern which side of a debate is not playing straight with you.  This method is the same method generally used by judges and juries in deciding which side is going to win a trial.  The method is this:  look to which side has and provides the best answers to the hard questions posed by the other side.  If one side refuses to answer hard questions, or is evasive, or refuses to provide the underlying methodology by which it came up with its answers, then that side has a problem.  And rightfully so." 

Anyone who has read my previous posts that deal with the subject of "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" know that the reason I do not accept the premise is that there are too many disconnects with what I know is reality, in part due to my advanced training but primarily because of the basic learning we have all been subjected to. This includes what is "climate", "photosynthesis", "average" and of course "accuracy and precision". On top of that, as I have worked with computer models for a long time now, I know that it is very difficult to represent complex phenomena with mathematical equations. The more complex the system the less likely they can be modeled with any sort of accuracy. And "climate" is one of the most complex systems we have to deal with on a daily basis and the reason why even forecasting days ahead is typically fraught with error!

In closing I didn't really get on this train of thought until I was talking with a friend and the subject of "climate change" came up. Even though I had explained many times before the weaknesses and errors of the proponents he is still a firm believer. If today is hotter that he remembers for this time of year and the news accentuates that by repeating the same fact less statement and saying we are to blame he remains convinced it must be true thus showing his cognitive blindness.  This I find ironic because like so many others like himself he enjoys summer more than winter, revels in spring coming earlier than usual or fall arriving later. Basks in the sunshine and thanks god for such a blessing but then takes on his shoulder what he believes is his share of the blame for any weather phenomenon that he considers bad; while only god can create good it is man that creates all that is bad and we must own up to that "fact". Such self righteous self conceit I have nick named the "god complex" in that too many people think we have the power of god. While we do have a knack for self destruction we really are at the mercy of nature and to think we can control nature is deplorable!

Environmentalism has replaced Socialism

Politics, for me, is a fascinating subject in that there are so many shades of meaning such that it is hard to differentiate those who favour one political philosophy from another. In Canada we have three main parties and several also ran's that lie more on the fringes. The three I am referring to are the Conservative party, the Liberal party and the New Democratic party (NDP). In a "perfect" world they would be labelled as being right wing, centrist or left wing where by the "right" and "left" originated with the French parliament during the French Revolution whereby the monarchists sat to the right of the chair of the parliamentary president.

In more modern times those who support "capitalism" are considered to be right wing, or "conservatives" and those who support "socialism" are left wing or "socialists". "Liberals" traditionally have tried to find a happy medium between the two extremes; except in Canada where by all three major parties are in essence centralists in that our "conservatives" support socialistic policies and our "socialists" support capitalistic policies.

No matter which party one was previously aligned with the common thread was what was best for the people of Canada. A case in point are the farmers of the prairies, the birthplace of the NDP and where Provincially they have been well represented for a long time. Farmers in essence are independent businessmen, capitalists, but with no control over critical aspects of whether or not they make a profit; the weather and grain prices. When times are tough (the grain markets are doing poorly or the weather prevents a good harvest) they band together to help one another survive until next season; they are socialists. But when times are good (the prices received for their grains more than meet costs or the weather has resulted in a bumper harvest) they stand apart and are capitalists again.

We are now in strange times in that environmentalism has infiltrated both the Liberals and the NDP to the point that neither party are about what is best for society. Instead society has become the scapegoat for everything that is imagined to be wrong with the environment such as the supposedly imperiled woodland caribou or climate change. The Liberals embraced environmentalism the earliest and the NDP are trying to as well thanks to the LEAP Manifesto.

One politician who sees clearly the problem with adopting the draconian actions of the Liberals and NDP is Brad Wall of Saskatchewan as illustrated in this video:

https://www.facebook.com/kenneyjasont/videos/10154749705632641/

While he believes in climate change he does not agree at all with the policies being put in place by the Liberals, both Federally and Provincially across this country. Government is financed by taxes. Taxes are paid by working people. If people lose their jobs due to untested and unproven environmental policies then we are due for economic collapse.

What is most puzzling though is how did this come about? How did two political parties lose sight of who they are supposed to be representing, the people of Canada? Not too long ago Barbara Kay, a columnist with the National Post wrote a piece titled "The deplorables' get their moment. Break out the pointed hoods". She tells about how radicals now pretend to be others as a means of attaining their own agenda; a methodology created and promoted by Saul Alinksky who wrote a book called "Rules for Radicals". In it he encouraged radicals to work within the system while accruing power to destroy it. If you think of it Gerald Butts, former CEO of the World Wildlife Fund of Canada and now Justin Trudeau's principal secretary and previously the principal secretary for former Premier Dalton McGuinty's fits that description to a tee.

So in summary Canada's political system has devolved whereby the Liberals and the NDP have become corrupted from within to the point that they care not for you and I, the people of this country. The Green party never did and the Bloc want to tear the country apart for different reasons but with the same result. At this point in time there is only one party that is left to for Canadians and ensuring Canada survives and we with it; the Conservative party.

Junk Science

In recent years we have seem a proliferation of "Junk Science".

First we need to define what is meant by "junk science". In summary it is faulty scientific analysis typically used to advance special interests and hidden agendas. A common feature is using data sets that are not made freely available to anyone else so that verification of the conclusions drawn can be made and confirmed by other researchers. Another feature is to use slip shod methods.

As a scientist involved with the mining industry I have a moral, ethical and legal obligation to apply full disclosure, ensure proper validation of my raw data and not to make false or misleading statements. As a result I have to ensure accuracy (how close a value is to the actual) and precision (how close measured values are to one another).

Here is an image that illustrates the two (http://www.mathsisfun.com/accuracy-precision.html):

A common modern day use of junk science is the support for "global warming" and "climate change". With the former researchers have collected temperature data from around the world and then averaged them to get what they call the "Global Average" and typically show that number as being at least accurate to the first decimal place (first order of magnitude). In reality the raw data was collected by a myriad of measuring instruments none of which were calibrated to one another which ensures low precision. In addition the measurements were taken in non-suitable locations such that they typically are biased towards populated areas and certain countries in which some sort of network has been established. This has resulted in clustering of the data. If no declustering has been applied then a spatial bias is introduced. The net result is that once averaged any honest researcher would not ascribe a high precision to the results and should only report whole numbers with no decimal places as there is too much uncertainty. Instead we see global average temperatures reported to two significant digits implying a precision that is impossible to obtain.

To illustrate further, think of how you would get a precise measure of the average temperature in, say your living room. Would you take a single measurement in the room? If so where should it be knowing ahead that as warm air rises any measurement closer to the ceiling will be higher than any measurement close to the floor. Keep in mind too that due to air currents we can get some stabilisation of the temperature but there still will be pockets of stagnant air which are either warmer of colder than what the true average is. How do we overcome these issues? Normally one would systematically, using the same measuring instrument, take sample readings at regularly spaced intervals throughout the room making sure no area is over sampled or under sampled. Pretty tough to do for just a room yet we are led to believe we can do it for the whole world and we are not even considering the effects of diurnal variations (day and night) nor elevation and latitude!

Another aspect of global warming/climate change, as we only have poorly measured actual temperature data for roughly a century or so is to use proxies; data sets derived from other means to which we can ascribe a temperature equivalent. A common one is through the use of dendrochronology or, tree rings. While tree rings vary in width depending on the local climate they actually are a poor stand in for temperature as a tree will have widely spaced tree rings if the growing conditions are optimal; warm but not too warm yet also wet but not too wet and therefore not a good measure of temperature alone.

Another factor is the location of the tree species. As Bristlecone Pine trees are very long lived they have been sampled relatively extensively. The problem though is that they only grow in areas where few other plants can grow such as the upper reaches of mountain ranges. So you have a tree that grows in a very forbidding climate zone and you expect to get a reliable proxy of global temperature? Not likely. So the use in generating a temperature time series such as what Thomas Mann did to generate his now infamous "hockey stick" temperature graph is of course junk science and not to be trusted at all!

Other proxies are available and have been used, such as oxygen isotopes measured in ice core samples and marine sediments. But like tree rings they are neither accurate measures not precise. Typically precision and accuracy  are illustrated by showing error bars, like the gray bars in the image below, which by the way is the one originally created by Mann et. al. (1999).

The above chart is from http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp and can be considered a source of junk science as the chart is mixing two different data sets (tree rings and actual temperature measurements) plus has obviously been massaged (altered) as it does not show either the well documented medieval warm period or the little ice age as shown in the chart below (from http://www.passionforliberty.com/2013/08/31/climategate-part-three-what-does-the-data-really-show/)

This web site also has raw temperature data that for some areas dates back to the 1850's. Take a look of the charts of this raw data and compare to the above chart where it is obvious from the red and blue lines that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) can't make up their mind how they wish to doctor the data just so long as it has the near term temperature spike; junk science.

For another perspective, this time by Dr. Richard Keen, a climatologist by training:

Climatologist Dr Richard Keen - Show Me The Data

In summary the real problem with junk science is that it fools just about everyone who is not a scientist and even many who are, but for emotional reasons believe this nonsense. If I was caught doing the same thing with a resource estimate not only would I lose my license to practice I would face serious financial penalties! Unfortunately it is the victims of the government policies enacted to fight a non-existent foe that are being punished financially by these practitioners of junk science; the general public and not the perpetrators of this farce. 

On "Arrested Development"

Earlier this morning I was mulling over writing about "Junk Science" and how it and "Fake News" have merged to give us a Main Stream Media (MSM) that no longer fact checks and presents as news falsehoods. But then I read today's edition of the National Post and this was the headline:

"Arrested Development"

http://business.financialpost.com/features/arrested-development

The story summarises pretty well how any development, even when it has been subjected to rigorous environmental review, is attacked by Environmental Non Government Organisations (ENGO's), Not In My Back Yard types (NIMBY's) as well as First Nations trying to extract a better deal through extortion and obstructionism. All represent a distinct minority of the population but who are against any development and are given unfair and unjust coverage by the MSM such that the politicians who make public policy believe them rather than the person who is paying the bills and suffering the job losses, the average Canadian.

I have been searching for some time for a media source that I can rely on for truthful reporting and the only Canadian one I have found is the National Post. But even it is seriously wanting in that while it has on staff a number of pundits and columnists who mostly provide well reasoned commentary representing a variety of views the same cannot be said of the news editors who regurgitate the same nonsense as the rest of the MSM totally devoid of ethics and truth.

So now I am in a blue funk as while I try to be cautiously optimistic for the future I see nothing but doom and gloom ahead. We have a Prime Minister who is so blinded to reality that he is willing, as are all but two Provincial Premiers, to saddle all of us with job killing carbon taxes. In addition it was announced that the Federal Liberal Government is looking at taxing my health benefits that supplement the shoddy health care system we are so "proud" of. 

Here I have been "retired" all of 6 years and I see no resurrection of the mining industry that has served me and this country well. I see my pension, which at first I thought was alright, looking awfully inadequate; I can't even afford to move to any other place where I could be better off!

Just over a year ago the phrases "Anyone But Harper" and "Sunny Ways" turned the tide during the last Federal election. We are now into the dark of the storm and I do not think we will survive. I hate being repetitious but to once again paraphrase John Donne. For whom does the bell toll? It tolls for us Canadians, as we are doomed as long as the Liberals, both Provincially and Federally are in power. The only hope we have is that we can survive long enough to turf the bums out and even then it likely will be too late.

Musing on “Electoral Reform”

As happened a number of times over the last several years the topic of “electoral reform” has made it into the headlines. Personally I do not see a need and am puzzled as to why it has gained as much traction as it has unless very few have thought about the reasons and the ramifications.

The primary reason I accept the current system (First Past the Post or FPTP) is that it makes logical sense. Those of us in a particular riding must choose one person from a slate of typically 3 to 4 to represent our collective interests in the legislature, whether provincial or Federal. It is no different than a multiple choice test whereby there can be only one correct answer. The winner is the fraction based on the total divided by the number of choices plus 1.

Like so many words in the English language, “majority” can be interpreted in different ways. In the case of multiple choice, such as the current electoral system in Canada, a “majority” is the choice that has more votes than any other choice just as illustrated above, and not the sum of the others. But the problem is that far too many people say that a true majority, having 50% plus at least 1, is required irregardless. To show that FPTP is fair take for example the last Federal election whereby the Liberals got 39.5% of the vote, the Conservatives 31.9%, the NDP 19.7%, the BQ 4.7% and the Green Party 3.5%. Keep only the top two and discard the others (remember, we are only choosing 1 representative and to evaluate who has the 50% plus 1 majority we need to reduce our list down to two), and rescale so that the percentages sum to 100, then the Liberals would have had 55.3% and the Conservatives 44.7%. I would say that justified the Liberals ending up with 54.4% of the seats in the House of Commons. So what is so wrong with that?

The funny thing is that the ones who promote the 50% plus 1 majority before rescaling are typically those on the losing side and thus wish to call into question the legitimacy of the winner rather than facing up to their own inadequacies. Should such attitudes be tolerated? Absolutely not as that kind of self-serving distortion of the facts is at the core of bi-partisanship which in turn makes cooperation and compromise next to impossible.

So these losers have tried promoting alternative systems with one of the more popular ones being “proportional representation” whereby a party gets a number of seats in the legislature proportional to the total vote that they received. The real scary problem with this is that the selection of the representatives is no longer in the control of the electorate but instead in the hands of the party itself as they choose who will sit in the legislature representing their party. In essence it is truly undemocratic as “democracy” is supposed to be “government by the people”.

We, the people, have seen enough erosion of our trust through the loss of democracy within our political parties; once elected by party members as “leader” they are in effect dictators who are then difficult to remove. No wonder Justin Trudeau is so enamoured with the leadership of China and Cuba. You don’t need to be smart to be a dictator. Just ruthless and power hungry.

Further Comment on Senate Reform

The Canadian senate was established to ensure distinct regions had a voice, a voice easily lost in the cacophony of representation by population. It is not nor has it ever been "illegitimate". A serious problem with the senate are the rules on how it is populated as they allowed its members to become the puppets of the Prime Minister, and the party they head, who makes the nominations to the Governor General and the Governor General who never questions the nominations. It was further weakened by the fact it gave too much sway to Upper and Lower Canada (now Ontario and Quebec) while at the same time not really taking into consideration national growth and the formation of new Provinces.

While many can say Justin Trudeau has loosened the political grip on Senators all of the weaknesses are still there, ready to be abused if a prime minister is so willing. Unfortunately to change the rules on how senators are even nominated requires amending the Canadian Constitution, as does "abolishing the senate". To make an amendment to the constitution requires, according to section 38(1) of the Constitution Act "(a) resolutions of the Senate and the House of Commons; and (b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of the provinces." (http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/Const/page-16.html).

So is any reform of the Senate possible? Only if a compromise can be found that satisfies either Ontario or Quebec (need one or the other to meet the 50% population mark as those two combine for about 62% of the current population). Sir Wilfred Laurier was noted for his ability to get compromise. Until we have another national leader of Laurier's skill and ability we won't be seeing any real effective change. And I doubt very much Justin Trudeau is anywhere as skilled or able as Laurier was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories_by_population

Is Canada Really A Country We Should Be Proud Of?

Now don't get me wrong by the title of this post as I am a proud Canadian but unlike so many in this country I am convinced we can do a heck of a lot better at making it a better country. Instead we see in the news media efforts to make it less so. Take for example the concepts of "discrimination" and "cultural appropriation".

I for one do not believe in discrimination other than selecting the best person for any particular job, which if you want to be picky is discriminating against the inept. When push gets to shove we discriminate all the time and think nothing of it. Because of treaty rights non-natives are discriminated against as those rights do not apply to them. Others have skills that you do not have so you are discriminated against because of that, and so on. So where does one draw the line? Very simple, you ignore those traits that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand, such as skin colour, sex or ethnic background!

So in Canada how do we handle discrimination? Why, we discriminate! Too few women in a particular trade? Irregardless of ability you preferentially hire women and cal it "Affirmative action" so you can feel good by doing wrong. Not enough "visible minorities", why you do the same, ignore ability. They say justice is supposed to be blind, well "social justice" needs to be too!

I remember from grade school history that the Americans to the south once promoted a "melting pot" approach whereas in Canada we would instead embrace our differences. So where has either policy got us? By embracing our differences we actually encourage non-integration of immigrants into Canadian society and in doing so promote hypocrisy; women should have the same rights as men, if your religion allows that. If not, well I guess we will make an exception. And that is just the start of a long list of double standards. Even our base "Canadian Society" has a double standard! In Canada English and French are both accepted, except in Quebec. But that is a "special" case and so doesn't count. Or does it?

Something that has been gaining a foothold of late is the concept of "cultural appropriation". You know, where by you "dis-respect" another culture by eating the food that they traditionally eat or dressing the same way that they traditionally dressed? This the same twisted logic as that used by those who oppose discrimination by discriminating.

So we really are not such a great country to be proud of because of the many double standards and hypocrisies that we support and promote!  So what do we do about it? Just introduce another double standard or hypocrisy. Yeah, I am really "proud" that we do that. Not!

So, what is the solution? Simple really. We decide what "values" we support and stick to them. Don't believe in discrimination based on colour, sex and ethnic background? Then don't discriminate based on those grounds! Note how I did not include "religion"? Too many encourage discrimination of the three cited so therefore it must be excluded as it is not compatible with them and therefore should not be considered equal. But if a religious sect is willing to accept that discrimination based on colour, sex or ethnic background is unacceptable then no problem, you are welcome too.

It makes me think of a metallurgical process called "alloying"; you take different metals that share some common traits, melt them together and voila! You end up with an alloy that while it honours the differences merges them together to produce a substance with superior properties! Maybe the "melting pot" idea that the American's once promoted wasn't such a bad idea. Just too bad they didn't understand the process and ended up with too many impurities resulting in an inferior product although we have nothing to be proud of either.

The Energy East Pipeline

I originally wrote this just over a year ago and submitted to the Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal. It was not published. Even so the opinions given and their reasons are still valid!

The fact there is any opposition to the Energy East pipeline is mind boggling! North America is criss-crossed by a multitude of pipelines, both natural gas and oil, primarily in the US or from Canada to the US. Some, such as the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline traverse some of the most challenging landscapes possible. Spills of any sort are extremely rare.

Trans Canada Pipelines has proposed to convert an existing gas pipe line to one that would transport oil. So they are proposing taking a structure designed for carrying high pressure gas to oil, a substance that would apply much less strain to the pipe.

The petroleum industry is one of the key components of the Canadian economy with positive economic effects that extend well past the boundaries of the Prairie Provinces that are our primary producers. One issue of late is that the existing limited pipeline infrastructure results in a lack of marketing opportunities as the vast majority connect only to the US. Thus we are at the economic mercy of the US and it’s, at times such as now, quixotic politics.

Instead of opening up access to other world markets we do our best to shoot ourselves in the foot by supporting those who lobby against either building new pipelines to either coast. Or, in the case of the Energy East proposal, converting an existing yet under used asset so it will benefit the nation. Unfortunately too many, including Ontario Premier Katherine Wynn, are so narrow mined and self-serving they just can’t see that this type of economic development has a wide ranging impact right across the country.

We need to think of ourselves as one country and that anything that can benefit one part will have a cascade effect right across our nation. But only if we work together!

Where art Thou Caribou?

According to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Boreal Caribou (formerly referred to as Woodland Caribou) occur in naturally low densities in mature boreal forest habitats. Based primarily on observation rather than any scientific studies it has been speculated that their range has receded northward to approximately the 50th parallel within Ontario and Quebec with some isolated southern populations such as the Slate Islands.

As an example Christopher Wilkinson published the following map in volume 28 of "Rangifer" (http://www.ub.uit.no/baser/septentrio/index.php/rangifer/article/view/147):

Note especially how the 2007 line compares with the range shown in the following map from "State of the Woodland Caribou Resource Report" published by Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) in 2014 (https://www.ontario.ca/document/state-woodland-caribou-resource-report-part-1):

Amazing how reality (the second map) doesn't match very well with speculation (the first)!

Gord Miller, the former Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, stated in his 2010/2011 annual report that woodland caribou "to date only crude population estimates and delineation of herd ranges have been publicly available". This bears the question, why? And if all we have are "crude estimates" then how were they identified as an endangered species?

When the population is sparsely distributed how does one get a reasonably accurate census? Similarly back at the end of the 19th century, which is the time that most references to their former range refer to, how could they have been observed with confidence? The only access at that time in Northwestern Ontario was either by canoe routes or the recently established Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR). Even today occasional sightings are made far south of what is considered their current southern limit. Could those sighting from over a century ago have been of similar transients?

Even I have speculated that the Boreal Caribou may have moved north to where there is no interaction with humans. But in reflection that does not explain for example the herd in the Onaman Lake area that is south of the Canadian National Railway (CNR) which one would assume would be the southern boundary if that premise is true.

When it comes to caribou there is only one thing certain; we know very little about the species and only in the current century has much research been done. So why is a species that is found right across the width of Canada with its range pretty well defined by the northern half of the boreal forest a) considered "endangered" and b) the source of public policy when there is no evidence that human contact has had a negative impact on its range, both real or imagined?

Consent no Barrier, or is it?

One thing that has been bothering me for a long time is the capitulation of Provincial and Federal Governments to the Indians. You know, those covered by the "Indian Act"? Note that it is not called the "First Nations Act" or any other "modern day" derivative. I for one expect our governments to honour the terms of those treaties. Note that from the Ottawa River westward to the Rocky mountains much of Canada is covered by treaties, some such as the Robertson Superior dating back to the middle of the 19th century.

An article in the September 21, 2015 issue of the Thunder bay Chronicle Journal caught my eye titled  “Can we talk? Study touts free, informed consent as key to resource development” (http://www.chroniclejournal.com/news/national/can-we-talk-study-touts-free-informed-consent-as-key/article_eaa3c030-4a9a-5bd5-9674-15f3b52de7b8.html). It describes an attempt by a group to rewrite history including the terms of existing treaties in the false hope that by caving in to extortion, moving mining projects especially, forward will become easier to the point of ending the current impasse we see at the Ring of Fire.

The articles of Treaty 9 for example, the treaty that covers the Ring of Fire area, are very explicit: “the said Indians do hereby cede, release, surrender and yield up to the government ..., all their rights titles and privileges” with the  “right to pursue their usual vocations of hunting, trapping and fishing ... subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by the government ... saving and excepting such tracts as may be required or taken up from time to time for settlement, mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes.”

Three times the Supreme Court has issued rulings in which it invoked a duty to consult: 2004 Case 73 Haida vs. BC; 2004 – Case 74 Taku Tlinget vs BC; and 2005 – Case 69 Mikisew Cree vs. Canada. In the first two, as little of BC is covered by treaty, active negotiations were, and still are, in place and the BC Government attempted to deal away rights they had no title to and were chastised in that they had a duty (Honour of the Crown) to consult with those tribes they were negotiating with. The third on the other hand dealt with First Nations covered under Treaty 8, with very similar articles as Treaty 9. In this case the Federal Government contracted the construction of a winter road through the Mikesew reserve without consulting them. This was further complicated by having a “200 metre no firearm corridor” that impacted their right to hunt. Again the Supreme Court chastised the government, and rightly so, as First Nations rights to reserve lands can only be affected “with their consent first had and obtained”.

An important aspect of the Mikisew Cree decision is that the Supreme Court, while agreeing there was a duty to consult explicitly states that it does not grant the right of “veto”, in other words the ability to grant consent.

So while there can be, and the Supreme Court has left the threshold rather vague, a need for consultation, nowhere in either the treaties or in any applicable Supreme Court ruling have First Nations, when they have ceded their rights, retained the right to give consent. And now the Boreal Leadership Council wishes to give them something they don’t have in the hope it will make getting new projects approved? For example try that with the First Nation at Big Trout Lake (Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug) and see how far you get. Nowhere, and that indeed is a barrier.

The Television Media in Canada

Another item from my archive. This was written in September of last year but is still as relevant now as it was then!

In Canada we have four primary television broadcasters: CBC, CTV, CITY and Global. Of those, one, CBC, is funded from the public purse. As a result it owes its allegiance to all regardless of political affiliation and thus can, and should, act in an impartial way when it comes to any political commentary whether when reporting the news or for entertainment purposes. But it has been a long time since I can remember a CBC broadcast as being neutral, or better yet, "objective".

Yes, a free press is a cornerstone of a democratic society and as such one could say that they have the right to report as they see fit. But they have an obligation to those who pay their bills, we the “shareholders”. And that it did for a very long time being well respected for its even handed and unbiased reporting so that no matter your personal political leanings you got fair reporting. I have fond memories of “The Journal” with Barbara Frum.

Now I know that the government in power should be considered fair game but the incessant Harper bashing is ridiculous. For example Rick Mercer can be very entertaining but a person making the same rant episode after episode gets awfully tiresome. South of the border “The Simpson’s” has been on for what seems forever. Their secret? They skewer anyone and everyone and then just move on leaving all viewers feeling entertained and in a position to make up their own minds rather than being hectored to.

The net result is that the CBC has become a very pale image of its former self with declining viewership and increased demands for public funding. As I rarely watch anything on CBC anymore I certainly wouldn’t miss it if it faded into black. But it is not too late for it to go back to its roots and become once again the National Broadcaster that set the bar for fair and well balanced reporting and general programming.

Cry, the Beloved Country

I originally wrote this back in March of 2016 but the angst I wished to share still applies. I have updated it by referencing the change in leadership of the Conservative Party in Great Britain as it makes a good example of how things should be here in Canada.

Back in March of this year (2016) the moment I saw the headline announcing the Federal budget the title of Alan Paton’s famous novel came to mind, “Cry, the Beloved Country”, because while I love my country all I wanted to do was cry. We are now powerless while the spendthrifts are in charge with no hope until the next election and even then so many will be so desensitised that they will have forgotten how it used to be and will end up re-electing these same fools.

Yes, we will all be of the same social class pretty soon; poor. Those that can afford to will have had already left leaving the rest of us with no future.

I have commented to friends in the past that in this country we have allowed politics to devolve into a “democratic dictatorship”. This has been brought about through bad policies put in place originally by the Liberal party, a party that at one time long ago could be summarised by the phrase “fiscally responsible but socially conscious” - ironically the same principals I believe in.

These policies were implemented under the guise of more power to the constituents but actually centralised more power with the party leader. They were quickly adopted by the other parties. But the Liberal party, both federally and provincially, has lost its way and opened the door to infiltration by “greenies” – environmental radicals that imagine themselves as gods who can control the world around them yet are so stupid that they do not comprehend the impacts of their “solutions” that put our industries at a distinct disadvantage. As a result, since so much of our economy is dependent on foreign trade, our home grown industries can no longer compete resulting in layoffs and company closures. Even those industries that are more resilient, such as mining where you cannot move a mine to a more politically favourable country, are unable to help because they cannot even get started anymore.

But I digress. The point I wish to make is that once a leader of a political party has been selected by party members, typically those who know little about the candidates, they are pretty much in full control- in other words a dictator. And if that party is elected with enough seats to form the government their leader has full control over that party. They will not be sanctioned by caucus as the leader has sole discretion as to who will be allowed to run for office come the next election thus keeping their caucus members in line. If this “leader” happens to be a fool we as a nation are even worse off. For those anti-Harper people across the country you now know what you helped replace him with, and a pox on all of you! If anything Mr. Harper calmly accepted all of the slings and arrows without ever over reacting and in return gave us reasonably good government!

 In the British system, from which our Canadian system was originally modelled, it is still the caucus, the elected representatives, who decide who amongst themselves, will be chosen as their leader and if enough become dissatisfied they can, and have, chosen someone else. As an example look at the rapidity that David Cameron was replaced! First, he showed great honour and respect for his country that he willingly stepped down as Prime Minister as he saw the obvious hypocrisy of negotiating an exit from the European Economic Union when he in fact believed Great Britain  should stay a member. Within a matter of weeks the caucus had selected a new leader of the party who thus became the new Prime Minister; Theresa May. Could this happen in Canada, a country whose parliamentary system is supposedly modelled on the one in Great Britain? Not a chance!

This devolution of our political system has been compounded in this country by a disgraceful fifth estate, the news media,  that collectively rather being the nation’s conscience, have either been strongly partisan by being anti-conservative or at best weakly open minded. The most disgraceful of all has been the CBC! This is a publically funded media empire that for the last decade has been so pro-Liberal that it has been sickening. For example I gave up watching the Rick Mercer Show due to his “Rant” as I became very tired of his continued attacks on then Prime Minister Harper and his government. Could the other parties be ridiculed for slips of the tongue and other faux pas’? Of course, but I certainly don’t recall any. Any public broadcaster should be neutral, or at the very least satirise all parties equally as none has the moral and ethical high ground and the March budget exhibited that to a tee for the current Liberal government.

As an aside I have noticed no more calls for “proportional representation” and other forms of “democratic representation” that do nothing but favour minority views. Obviously now that the shoe is on the other foot the Liberals are now more comfortable with “first past the post” after all. What hypocrites!

For whom does the bell toll? It tolls for all of us as we are doomed with this insanity. My apologies to John Donne but I cry for my beloved country.

The Fools Around Us

Ironically I wrote this 3 months prior to my previous post on this blog titled "The Power Of Nature". I just wonder if and when sanity will ever be restored in Canada and the world at large. I am now starting to doubt that I will live long enough to see that.

I was told once that I do not tolerate fools gladly. And an all too prevalent foolishness is that we in Canada can do something about “Climate Change”, “Global Warming” or whatever you want to call it. Here we are in a country of just over 36 million and too many think we can counteract what is being done by the billions who live elsewhere. The only ones who will see an impact are ourselves as we turn our land into a third world country as we kill off our own industries in the Quixotic attempt to make a difference.

So these fools say let’s move to “Green Energy” as it doesn’t pollute and is “free”. Well, start asking questions, such as from what and how are those solar cells or windmills produced? Yes, wind and light are “free for the taking” but silicon and the metals and composites used to construct the devices needed to collect that energy do not grow on trees! In the final analysis the only thing “green” is the colour of money as the modern day P.T. Barnum’s who run the manufacturing plants overseas laugh all the way to the bank.

In the meantime home grown industries are dying because energy costs are soaring so we can pay for this extravagance.

Another related fools game is converting thermal generating stations, which by the way can be turned off and on as demand requires unlike those “free” methods of solar and wind, from coal to “biomass”, or in layman’s terms, wood. So we take a natural occurring mineral, coal, which through heat and pressure nature has transformed so that it now it has far more energy per unit volume than just about anything else that can be burned and we replace it with wood, one of the most inefficient?

While it will result in a short term positive effect on our local economy no way can we compete with others once “economies of scale” are brought to bear. Basic economics says that if supply goes up, unless there is an equal or greater increase in demand, prices will go down. To illustrate take for example the application of clear-cutting on the pulp and paper industry. It didn’t take too long before prices collapsed and mills closed permanently.

As in the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes we must not believe everything we are told, especially when the evidence does not support those claims. And don’t just take my word. Do your own research and see what conclusions you draw. I bet you will be surprised!

The Power of Nature

Back in January of this year (2016) I submitted a letter to the editor to the Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal. They published it but because I did not provide my own title so they gave it one they thought suitable:  "Doom and Gloom Disregards Nature".

Here is a link to the article:

http://www.chroniclejournal.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/doom-and-gloom-disregards-nature/article_7eaaaa7c-c378-11e5-8535-5f68e135eaaa.html

And here is the original, as they typically edit letters to make sure they fit or for other reasons:

Being a geologist I am a scientist well trained to be skeptical and so analyse any statement to ensure it correlates with the facts. For example the geologic record well documents climate change as being a normal and natural phenomenon. But human induced climate change, not at all, and I have been very diligent in examining any possible research that could demonstrate such.  Likewise I am skeptic of wild claims without any support such as disappearing caribou herds due to human activity. Pure nonsense because there are no facts to support those claims!

So why is it that we are being inundated by doom and gloom scenarios promoted by environmentalists? And why is it that politicians have taken up the same fear mongering, especially the Liberals? I find it especially ironic that Justin Trudeau campaigned against that very activity but in the very next breath jumped right on the band wagon.

I chose my life’s work because of my desire to work close with nature, and I have not been disappointed. In doing so it has left me in awe at our insignificance and very respectful to the power and total disregard to human endeavor that are the relentless elements and time. We talk about “preservation” and say things like “for ever” but nature does not stand still for us nor will it ever. Only a fool would believe that they can control nature.

What is most galling is that the “answer” the environmentalists promote is that we must stop every activity that ensures our way of life and our current level of prosperity. So we must willingly give up every means at our disposal that ensures we can cope with what nature throws at us? To keep ourselves warm and fed and able to afford the means of continuing to do so?

Is this environmental cleansing any different than “ethnic cleansing” and every other dastardly scheme that some group has come up with to reshape to their liking everyone else, just like so many other radical groups through human history? No, we don’t need to fear nature and our interaction with it. We need to fear ourselves because we are our own worst enemies.

This elicited a rebuttal from a Barry Beaupre:

http://www.chroniclejournal.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/climate-sweet-spot-is-in-great-jeopardy/article_a7665e72-c475-11e5-8a83-3ffdf893bdd9.html

This "rebuttal" , to me, just showed the ignorance of so many people out in the world and why "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" have and still has so much traction. So I submitted a response especially to address this nonsense of a "climate sweet-spot":

Re: "Climate Sweet Spot is in Great Jeopardy".

So, Mr. Beaupre couldn't understand what my point was with my recent letter to the editor. Well, I won't mince words. The point was to get people to think first rather than follow blindly the protestations of "environmentalists", the latest of a long line of radical evangelists. And obviously Mr. Beaupre is one of these zealots as evidenced by the misinformation in his letter.

"The delicate climate balance"? "Climate sweet zone"? Obviously he has no idea what climate even is. There are three primary climate zones: polar, temperate and tropical and each can be sub-divided into several others such as "desert", "mountain", etc. So tell me Mr. Beaupre, which is the "sweet spot"? And to think that we humans can modify "climate" is pure hubris.

A friend of mine describes mans relationship to earth using the metaphor of "like fleas on a dog". Other than the odd irritation the dog couldn't care less. And we have plenty of evidence for that; for example the terrible strife we inflicted upon ourselves during the 20th century including two World Wars and the use of atomic weapons. Those events had no impact on the "delicate climate balance" although they had a dramatic effect on humans.

We are bombarded right now by evangelists such as Mr. Beaupre who wish to "save the world" , which is implying we are omnipotent, which we are not. And the answer is to destroy our economy by implementing "solutions" that have no factual basis? It galls me to see right across North-western Ontario in particular the slow collapse of small communities and the stagnation of the larger ones, especially Thunder Bay, because environmentalists are against anything that can even maintain a semblance of the prosperity that we once had.

And if you wish to have a good read I suggest you check out "Hubris" by Michael Hart:

https://www.amazon.com/Hubris-Troubling-Science-Economics-Politics/dp/0994903804

In closing note that the Chronicle Journal did not publish my response. It was then that I realized that they only printed material that supported their narrative and that is obviously the pro- Climate Change one with the odd letter such as mine to help stir like minded people like Mr. Beaupre. I haven't bothered sending anything to them since as what is the point when, rather than supporting open debate, they actually wish to promote a particular bias. 

Idealism vs. Pragmatism

Many of us as we grow to early adulthood take an idealistic view of the world as we embrace such concepts as free speech, equality and helping our fellow men and women free themselves from the injustices of the world. But as we gain life experiences typically a pragmatism takes hold. But the remaining idealists sometimes evolve into something that is akin to a cancer; evolving into a false image of their former selves that then tries to kill the very body that supports it.

Greenpeace and its members have turned into such a disease of modern society.

This is an organisation that began with noble and just reason in its fight to save whales from extinction. Over time it changed and became more involved with a broader range of topics related to the environment. And the general population lobbied governments to create legislation to ensure that we respect the world around us in a sustainable way. And that includes the forest industry.

The attacks on Resolute show that Greenpeace has lost all touch with reality and now has become a destructive rather than constructive group; just like a cancer. Through the application of lies and strong arm techniques they are trying to kill a primary component of our national forest industry, and the last survivor of what once was a very prosperous industry in Thunder Bay.

Those residents of our area who are members of this organisation should be ashamed that they are associated with such an organisation and should lobby hard for it to return to its roots of fighting the good fight. And the rest of us need to support our local community politicians as best we can to thwart this disease before it becomes deadly.

Is There A Faint Spark for the “Ring of Fire”?

On Friday, November 11, 2016, “Northern Ontario Business” reported that two principals from Noront Resources, the company that now controls most of the chromite deposits in the Ring of Fire, had visited Sault Ste. Marie (https://www.northernontariobusiness.com/regional-news/sault-ste-marie/tom-dodds-new-best-friends-dabble-in-the-ring-of-fire-461986). I have seen this as a very viable option for some time now as that city, which is right on the St. Lawrence Seaway, has a direct rail connection to Nakina, via the former Algoma Central Railway that branches off the CN mainline at Oba.  Nakina by the way is the closest community to which any industrial railway that should be built to serve the Ring of Fire chromite deposits could tie into the CN rail system.

While I have personally tried to lobby interest in a deep water port in Red Rock as a potentially economic means of getting any product to market, if and when the mines finally come on stream I also accepted that this opportunity has a serious flaw. Just prior to the announcement of the discovery of chromite in the Ring of Fire area CN made the business decision to remove all the rail from the Kinghorn Line that connected Thunder Bay with the mainline at Long Lac. It is not an insurmountable challenge as building the right of way and not the actual rail is the most expensive part of building a rail line. But if there is an alternative with higher, but acceptable operating costs, but no capital cost then that may be a better choice.

When Cliff’s had the Black Thor chromite deposit they proposed the base case idea of shipping chromite to Sudbury for processing as Sudbury is also accessible from the CN mainline. This idea, which many even to this day believe, had series flaws. But hey, it was a “base case” – a starting point because it was physically possible. When you start adding economic criteria it falls readily apart. For example once reduced to ferrochrome you still have to ship it to user markets and while rail is cheaper for bulk commodities than road, water is by far cheaper and Sudbury is a long way from any port. Likewise Sudbury does not have access to cheap power. Other weaknesses are present but those two are enough that it really had no hope of ever happening.

Now if you can get the same chromite ore to the Sault you have one of two possible options: use the material directly in the steel plant there so that it now can manufacture stainless steel thus accessing a premium niche market, or put it on boats and send it elsewhere as cheaply as possible. I have heard of the possibility of building a natural gas reduction plant in the Nakina area as, like the CN mainline, this is close to the Trans-Canada gas pipeline and thus forming ferrochrome as early in the supply chain as possible. This would save on additional transportation costs as now the raw ore has been concentrated into a material that can be used directly in the manufacture of stainless steel. If that comes to pass then shipping to the Sault and the possibility of it being used by the steel plant there becomes even more viable.

There are still a lot of unknowns but I see a lot of positives from this article! Now if we can only get the Provincial and Federal Liberal governments to take their heads out of the sand and get the ball rolling again in the Ring of Fire! First by getting an all season road access built close to the site so the mining infrastructure can be built. Maybe then we might finally see the beginning of recovery to the northern Ontario economy!

Musing on the Recent American Election

I have sat by casually amused by the recently completed US election observing from the side lines what the two primary candidates were saying, what the media were reporting and what friends and family have been opining or posting. All the while trying to be detached because frankly, as I am a Canadian citizen and unable to vote in the US, what influence could I possibly have, or should have, on the outcome?

Now it is time for reflection.

Early on I could sense that Trump was going to appeal to a lot of blue collar Americans, and not because they are “red necks”, or whatever derogatory term one wishes to invoke, but because he was addressing real issues that face the average person; their jobs or lack thereof, fear of terrorism on their native soil, abuse of their basic rights by an uncaring government and a long list of other grievances. As the Huffington Post wrote recently “People don't want to be told how to think and they want to hear ideas that personally resonate” (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/randall-craig/marketing-lessons-trump_b_12911648.html); Trump did not tell Americans how to think and he gave them ideas that resonated. Clinton failed on both counts. Did I think he would win? Honestly, since emotion makes up such a high component of why a person votes the way they do, I really had no idea

.

Do I think they made a good choice, actually yes. He is not beholding to the political elite that his supporters were tired of. As the leader of corporations whereby he had to keep a majority of shareholders satisfied he knows what needs to be done. He may not have political experience but that actually is a good thing as far too many politicians pander to a distinct minority of special interest groups and others looking to suck on the public teat.

As a person is he admirable? No. But should one’s persona be given more weight than their actual abilities? I have met a lot of people who were very good at their jobs but had not so likable personalities. And I have seen the opposite; smooth talkers who really had no substance. Thus I learned a long time ago to not put much measure in that particular aspect of the person. George W. Bush, to put it simply isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer but he surrounded himself with a very capable cabinet outside of the war monger Dick Cheney. Thus other than the Iraq fiasco he really didn’t do that bad a job. Can Trump do better? Depends a lot on the people who he selects for his cabinet. Only time will really tell.

A very troublesome aspect of the full election cycle though is how so much of the media is populated by “reporters” who, as pointed out above, tried to tell people how to think. I especially find it also a real shame that the vast majority of comedians out there are making the same error of treating their audience as if they are ignorant fools. The full political spectrum provides ample material for a good comedian who can use sarcasm, satire, hyperbole or other tools of humour to sneak through the armour of closed mindedness.  The late great George Carlin really held no political favourites although conservatives easily gave him ready fodder, like being against abortion as all lives matter yet favouring the death penalty.

Before closing though I have one more aspect that troubles me not so much because it is so prevalent in American politics but because we as Canadians are creating our own version; disrespect for those who do not agree with us. Yes, I will admit that I too fall into that trap but I try very hard not to. How can you expect someone to respect your opinions if you disrespect theirs? I am really lucky to have friends who have different views than mine to which I patiently listen and, most importantly of all, they patiently listen to mine. Mutual respect is the foundation of effective debate because it is not until you see all sides of an argument that you really get a sense of where the real truth lies!

I Wonder if Michael Moore Will Take Up My Challenge?

I have been a long time unbeliever of first "Global Warming", and when that was first shown to be false quickly morphed into "Climate Change". And it is not based on a gut feeling but through careful study and analysis; it holds no water! Yet it keeps growing in popularity as the chicken little's of the world get more and more converts thanks primarily to the media in general as it gives them the fear mongering material that sells the best regardless of the truth.

I find it ironic that it got its first big push through the propaganda film put out by Al Gore called "An Inconvenient Truth"  which was really nothing more that a cinematic collection of convenient lies.

Unfortunately another sad irony is that the political left has taken up support of this falsehood. It is especially ironic in that traditionally they have claimed to be on the side of what traditionally would be referred to as the "blue collar" worker, the very foundation of our industrial society yet the green policies they have put in place, and have planned, hurt them the most.

A cinematographer whose work I have admired for a long time is Michael Moore. In his low key folksy manner he lets his targets expose their dark side willingly without being patronising or over the top. He does this be being himself, a common schmuck of a human being. And like all of us he has his own personal biases such as having no choice philosophically of voting for only the Democratic party as it best aligns, though not perfectly, with his ideals. And I respect that. Likewise he publicly announced he would never vote for Hillary Clinton but earlier this year announced he was reneging on that "promise". Again I respect that as one must change if one has new information that invalidates a previous decision.

Prior to the US election he acknowledge that he thought Trump would win, for similar reasons that I observed. He did not agree with them and, as is the duty of anyone who has a say in said election, tried his best to convince others that it would be folly. Even so it came to pass as the voting electorate is an emotional beast and logic seldom works to assuage that emotion. As a result he has published a morning after 5 point plan:

Michael Moore’s Morning After to do List

1. Take over the Democratic Party and return it to the people. They have failed us miserably. 

2. Fire all pundits, predictors, pollsters and anyone else in the media who had a narrative they wouldn't let go of and refused to listen to or acknowledge what was really going on. Those same bloviators will now tell us we must "heal the divide" and "come together." They will pull more hooey like that out of their ass in the days to come. Turn them off. 

3. Any Democratic member of Congress who didn't wake up this morning ready to fight, resist and obstruct in the way Republicans did against President Obama every day for eight full years must step out of the way and let those of us who know the score lead the way in stopping the meanness and the madness that's about to begin. 

4. Everyone must stop saying they are "stunned" and "shocked". What you mean to say is that you were in a bubble and weren't paying attention to your fellow Americans and their despair. YEARS of being neglected by both parties, the anger and the need for revenge against the system only grew. Along came a TV star they liked whose plan was to destroy both parties and tell them all "You're fired!" Trump's victory is no surprise. He was never a joke. Treating him as one only strengthened him. He is both a creature and a creation of the media and the media will never own that.

 
5. You must say this sentence to everyone you meet today: "HILLARY CLINTON WON THE POPULAR VOTE!" The MAJORITY of our fellow Americans preferred Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump. Period. Fact. If you woke up this morning thinking you live in an effed-up country, you don't. The majority of your fellow Americans wanted Hillary, not Trump. The only reason he's president is because of an arcane, insane 18th-century idea called the Electoral College. Until we change that, we'll continue to have presidents we didn't elect and didn't want. You live in a country where a majority of its citizens have said they believe there's climate change, they believe women should be paid the same as men, they want a debt-free college education, they don't want us invading countries, they want a raise in the minimum wage and they want a single-payer true universal health care system. None of that has changed. We live in a country where the majority agree with the "liberal" position. We just lack the liberal leadership to make that happen (see: #1 above).

All are fine and good but I was disturbed by part of point 5, which I have highlighted. Can it be true that a "majority" of Americans believe that, or is this another example of equivocation where by the promoters of human induced climate change make it appear that the "majority" are on their side, just like the Quebec separatists twice worded fuzzy questions in the hope of give the appearance they had majority support?

Well, I certainly haven't been successful getting the message out so I have asked Michael Moore to examine the issue as I know he will do a honest job if he so tries. So this is what I posted on his Facebook page:

"Michael, after this I won’t both you anymore but I ask you to help convert us non-believers in Global Warming. Prove that the prophet Al Gore was right and lead the Jihad. Cast the impassionate eye of your camera northwards to the industrial heartland of Canada, to Ontario where Father McGuinty and Mother Wynne have been leading the way with such legislation as the Green Energy Act. See firsthand how Canadian blue collar workers are thriving with all the green jobs and expectations of better things yet to come including carbon taxes that will help the poor. Cast that eye further to the ice caps of Antarctica and Greenland. View the vast tracts of new arable land not seen since medieval times. Go to Holland and see firsthand the Herculean efforts of the Dutch as they try to hold back the ever rising waters of the Atlantic Ocean. Then end with a walk through the holy mecca of the UN in New York City. Rub shoulders with the bureaucrats such as those from China and India who too are leading the way and guiding all of us to enlightenment.

I dare you!"

Only time will tell if he takes up the gauntlet.

Free Speech in Canada

This morning one of my nieces posted the following to Facebook:

"I now have a pretty large list of states I will never drive through or visit. Terrifying how many people have voted for this man."

This comment was made to reflect her "opinion" on the just completed presidential election in the US. Personally it disappointed me in several ways. First is how she, without considering the ramifications, insulted everyone south of the border who voted for Donald Trump. And a lot did! From the overall numbers he had support from just about every demographic including women and blacks. He identified issues that resonated with many across that nation. The main fallout though from this election was that both sides strove to insult the other and somehow make themselves appear superior. That kind of attitude I would like to think we as Canadians are above but obviously that is not the case.

The next is how do we rate that we can stand on our high horse and ridicule our neighbours when in actual fact we had no input into that election? None of us, or at least no Canadian who doesn't have dual citizenship, could vote so why should we insult those who made their own choice? I made a response to that post pointing out this fact.

So another niece added to the fray and cited free speech, again without considering the ramifications. As far as she is concerned it is alright to insult others as that is what free speech allows. But legally one cannot slander, we cannot incite hate, nor, under the Human Rights Code, can we offend and it is getting worse. Take for example Professor Jordan Peterson who posted several videos outlining his fears rooted in Bill C-16 (http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=8280564), an act to amend the Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code currently in front of Parliament. No, when it comes to speech we really are not all that free.

Yes, free speech should allow us to criticise and question. In an ideal world there should be no limits but ironically it is those who cite this freedom insist on denying it to others which is why C-16 is attempting to extend further the current limits to free speech. They say the road to hell is paved in good intentions and the proposed amendments in Bill C-16 are exactly that; good intentions. Never the less one has to be careful of crossing the line but while difficult for me as well as for most others, the best policy is to respect the decisions of others. We have nothing to be smug about. While our US cousins have a long way to go in that department we at least can try to do that here, can't we?

For the latest by Professor Peterson see:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/jordan-peterson-the-right-to-be-politically-incorrect