Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Making Sun Readers Nostalgic for Paul Jackson's Moderation

The Greenpeace folk and their ilk are actually more frightening than a lot of the totalitarian movements -- and this is a totalitarian movement that wants to change every facet of your life, make no mistake -- that have come before them.

If you check out the aims of Greenpeace and then think them through, something becomes clear. Nothing that walks on two legs and talks is going to come out a winner.

At least Stalin wanted his people to be able to buy cheap bread.

And even Hitler thought ordinary Aryans should be able to own and operate a car.


  • There's no doubt that the green movement has gotten down right creepy.

    Want proof?

    The leader of Canada's greatest political party has convinced himself (and many of his followers) that in a time when skyrocketing fuel prices are causing every day Canadians much pain and anguish,

    that FURTHER RAISING fuel prices is a good idea.

    What's behind this good idea?

    Canadians further suffering will....that's right.....lower the temperature of the planet.

    Now THAT'S insanity.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:32 p.m.  

  • No, no wait, even assuming the AGW theory is immutable, we know with mathematical a scientific certainty that nothing, (I'll repeat that) nothing Canadians can do will lower the temperature of the planet.

    Why then should we suffer?

    Our incredible pain will shame China (the country that drives tanks over political organizers) into wanting to feel the same pain we're feeling,

    and, and THEN the planet's temperature will be lowered (sort of like a guilt - o - thermostat).

    Now that's even more insane.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:37 p.m.  

  • Isn't comparing a columnist to Paul Jackson the equivalent of comparing a person/organization to Hitler?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:55 p.m.  

  • I thought I was reading Werner Patels

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:33 p.m.  

  • Does anyone still read Werner Patels? I think he writes from a padded room at Arkham Asylum.

    Although from the frequency of his blog name changes, one could stumble upon it, and not realize it immediately.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:01 p.m.  

  • He trolls, and writes essays on other's blogs.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:19 p.m.  

  • Meh, there's only so many times you can read "environmentalists are worse than Hitler" without getting bored.

    Granted, it's not as boring as robotic trolls like josh there trotting out copy-pasted talking points, but still pretty damned dull.

    (Gotta hand it to 'em, even American conservatives aren't this robotic. Maybe australians, but without that hint of militant xenophobia that makes australian conservatism so exciting.)

    By Blogger Demosthenes, at 2:10 a.m.  

  • Sorry, but Mr. Harper has no traction with the electorate. He is partly saddled with a weak caucus (the top performers are Liberal-elect David Emerson and senate appointee Micheal Fortier), his flip flops have been extremely damaging ($35 billion evaporated on income trusts and he has not collected the $5 billion from the Americans for softwood) and the in and out scandal.

    Harper has not delivered his own Conservative base. We still have a gun registry, abortion and Calgary is nott the capital of Canada yet.

    He is running a DEFICIT.

    He is a control freak.

    People remember he wanted to invade and occupy Iraq. Thank God he was not PM then. Think how much Canadian blood and treasure were saved by Jean Chretien.

    He is a climate change denier but panders with half baked environmental policies.

    His only hope for electoral success is to try to get people to hate Liberals rather than have his own positive policy. Hence, the misleading and childish attack ads. Harper knows and you know that great prime ministers are not made by diminishing every one around him.

    For all those reasons and more we need the integrity of Stefan Dion.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:11 a.m.  

  • The integrity of Stephane Dion. Is that the same integrity that kept the Harper government alive by abstaining from every single important vote? That integrity?

    And what's with all the anonymous posts? Does anyone else find it annoying?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:08 a.m.  

  • Higher prices on fuel, that's what Canadians want.

    You go with that one Dion, we'll see how that'll work out for you at the polls.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:38 a.m.  


    Ian Anderson is obviously a fan of the Hitler comparison.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:17 a.m.  

  • sn't comparing a columnist to Paul Jackson the equivalent of comparing a person/organization to Hitler?


    But seriously...

    I live an extremely low-carbon lifestyle - I'm the man Al Gore wants to be. But I do get tired of extremist-environmentalists - like all extremists, they hurt their movement more than help the world.

    I believe Kody is right - there's absolutely nothing Canada can do to affect AGW. If Dion (and May and Layton) are serious about the issue, they should be talking up R&D and investment into green energy.

    Most conservatives just love oil and carbon, I know. But I do believe the energy revolution is going to sweep the planet, and any country that gets on board early will have the chance to be a world leader in industry. It's too bad, but I believe that all of our leaders, Harper on down to May, are quite happy to sit on the sidelines.

    And I think the USA's dismal failure to lead that energy revolution will change the world forever - America won't be number one any longer if Europe or Asia takes the lead. And that will certainly change our existence - we after all depend on living next door to Numero Uno to hold our place in the world. Clinton sure fucked up on that one, but no one bears more blame and scorn than Bush.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 10:07 a.m.  

  • Bush messed up the USofEh?

    Texas is getting on the windmill treadmill BIG time, BIG they do in Texas.

    Nellis AFB has the largest installed PV array in the USofEh.

    Germany is the leader of GREEN in Europe and now industry is threatening to move out. Sometimes the GREEN ideals are just stupid, i.e. green roofs, unrealistic goals

    China had to ban cars, close industries to clear the air for the Beijing Olympics. Maybe start the GREEN revolution overthere. Their getting over the RED one.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 11:04 a.m.  

  • as boring as robotic trolls like josh there trotting out copy-pasted talking points

    Dude..almost as boring as you repeating the above ALL THE TIME. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean they are part of the automated global republican cabal. Paranoid much?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:06 a.m.  

  • Sorry Art, I guess I must have missed the part where Bush was instrumental, or even remotely participatory, in the wind revolution in Texas. I'm pretty sure that was that TP Boone fellow, wasn't it? Yeah, I'm fairly certain it was -- you may want to check google or maybe the news for a double-check, though. Just to be safe and all.

    Yes, green ideals can be sometimes stupid -- did you have a larger point, or are you just griping? Face it, the last 2 or 3 (I'd say 5) Administrations have screwed the pooch on energy independence, and your weak protestations don't change that fact. The USA will be for the first time be left behind in new technologies because of White House weakness on this issue.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 11:21 a.m.  

  • I'm with JBG here. This whole "green" thing is going to be big in a few years and there's a lot of money to be made for businesses that get ahead of the curve. Canada should be focusing on green/clean techs as a way of turning a profit down the line.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 2:10 p.m.  

  • which is my point, government is always slow to adopt, especially at the FED level. prov/state/local seem to react quicker.

    meanwhile, wind turbines are going up elec cars are being sold in the USofEh, not so much in Cana-duh.

    and yall missed the point of German industry starting to push back.

    AB is doing the CO2 sequestration right now. McGuinty is still waffling on coal plants and elec cars, why?

    why not force utilities into NET metering to encourage solar PV arrays at the residential level? don't need the FED for that.

    TB Pickens is stating a grand vision, while others are building the wind farms.

    anyway, GWB is on the way out so yall will have a new messiah to follow.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 3:56 p.m.  

  • "Isn't comparing a columnist to Paul Jackson the equivalent of comparing a person/organization to Hitler?"

    Unfair--Paul Jackson's man was Generalissimo Franco. If memory serves, he wrote at least a couple of columns in praise of the now-deceased Spanish strongman, how Franco made the bulls run on time, etc.

    Calgary Grit: I miss him too.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:49 p.m.  

  • “Canadians further suffering will....that's right.....lower the temperature of the planet.

    Now THAT'S insanity.”

    Hmmm! Why don't you review the science of climate warming and the recommendation of scientists?

    Consider this! The biggest beneficiaries of the windfall profits (from a surge in oil prices) are oil producers (Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Exxon Mobile etc). They won't be investing in alternate technologies.

    In the case of the oil companies, they will be looking to drill an oil well in your neighborhood.

    On the other hand, what are the benefits if we had implemented a carbon tax earlier? Some of the price increase would have been revenue neutral. That is, invested in alternate technologies and refunded as tax credits.

    Therefore, a combination of strong energy cum greenhouse gas policies would reduce wastage while preparing us for the future. Under harper, we would merely face more of the same. That is, windfall profits with deteriorating living conditions, and a race for the bottom.

    Please educate yourself and join the sane.

    By Blogger JimTan, at 1:06 a.m.  

  • Jimtan,

    no thank you,

    I fear that orange beverage you're drinking may contain something a little nasty.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:18 a.m.  

  • "no thank you"

    You're not willing to educate yourself?

    By Blogger JimTan, at 4:16 a.m.  

  • How is the government "always slow to adopt"? I mean, it's generally, or often slow to act, but I think the American government was pretty nimble in putting a man on the moon within 10 years. The US was awfully on the ball discovering and then developing the atomic age. Is it really so very difficult to imagine these kinds of focus and determination into a new technological revolution? I guess for you, Art, it is. And that's sad.

    Your "point" about Germany isn't worth discussing: Germany did it wrong - Now we know better from their example. Your "idea" seems to be that we should just call it a day and fold b/c Germany screwed up. Seems to me that Germany has screwed up an awful lot, yet the global show does go on, doesn't it?

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 9:04 a.m.  

  • Under harper, we would merely face more of the same. That is, windfall profits with deteriorating living conditions, and a race for the bottom.

    Dead wrong. On this issue, we're looking at "more of the same" from all three (or four, or five) federal leaders - they don't have any ideas to curb or stop AGW.

    Canada does not contribute to global warming. We could burn more fossil fuels if we wanted - our forests suck up CO2.

    Canada's most effective contribution to fighting pollution (and any AGW) would be leading a revolution in energy technology that the rest of the world wants in on. No one in Ottawa has any such vision or intention, so Canada will have to further languish in mediocrity. The conservatives are too married to oil (like surreal fools in the 40's championing the horse-and-buggy over this new-fangled internal combustion engine) and the liberals are too married to forcible energy usage reductions - which I regard as simply too unlikely to ever be voted in: people want more energy, not less. Technology is the answer, and none of our leaders are interested.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 9:13 a.m.  

  • AB is doing the CO2 sequestration right now.

    Yes, it is - which is fantastic. Is it the entire answer? I wouldn't say so -- but I'd certainly say Alberta is showing more leadership than almost any other province.

    McGuinty is still waffling on coal plants and elec cars, why?

    Because he's a Liberal asshole who has no spine or guts or vision and is vote-pandering to the masses. I'm sure you figured that out already... but there's your answer nonetheless. He's no better than Bush, really -- he just happens to be in charge of a far smaller economy. They could switch offices and on the environment/energy, there would be no discernable difference in the world at all.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 9:17 a.m.  

  • Jimtam,

    oh I'm fully educated. Here, I'll suggest something YOU look into:

    the NASA aqua satellite:

    now showing the INVERSE of the forcing which is supposed to take place with AGW,

    that's just one of the many RECENT research initiatives out there.

    I'm sorry, did I say recent. Wow, that would suggest that there's ongoing research in the AGW model (that in terms of scientific paradigms is a baby toddler), and its not....gulp..."settled".

    My "education" like that of many who choose to look at that which we are not to look at (lest us heretics be proclaimed deniers, for denying it is not "settled"),

    says the opposite of what you are proposing.

    And I'll take recent research over decades old theories that aren't proving true at all,






    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:03 a.m.  

  • Oh,

    and Jimtan,

    if you DO bother to look into that and other recent research,

    you'll have to go beyond the Globe and Mail (with their Green lettering featuring cataclysmic predictions), and others hooked on the old storyline.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:07 a.m.  

  • “And I'll take recent research over decades old theories that aren't proving true at all,






    Dramatic prose. But, its not poetry and it has no substance.

    You guys make me sick. You find some rubbish at a troll forum and you drag it back to the real world. You have the audacity to present 180-degree lies as the truth in order to confuse the issue.

    The fact is that recent analysis has resolved the apparent contradiction between satellite measurements of land and atmospheric temperature. As a result, from wikipedia 'Scientific opinion on climate change',

    “National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate change, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."[1]

    This article documents scientific opinion as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions...

    In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and reaffirming “that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems.” Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to “(t)ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour.”[10]

    The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.”

    Happy reading! I'll trust their education over yours any day.

    By Blogger JimTan, at 12:36 p.m.  

  • “Canada does not contribute to global warming. We could burn more fossil fuels if we wanted - our forests suck up CO2.”

    What kind of argument is that?

    The forests soak up CO2. We cut down the forests and burn fossil fuel. That increases the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

    Of course, Canada contributes to global warming. See a doctor and get your head screwed on the right way.

    By Blogger JimTan, at 12:41 p.m.  

  • "We could burn more fossil fuels if we wanted - our forests suck up CO2."

    Mature forests aren't net CO2 sinks. They are carbon neutral. Do forests keep growing on a net basis forever? No, because trees die and decay (releasing CO2) and new trees grow to take their place (sequestering CO2). Deforestation leads to global warming not because the trees are no longer photosynthesizing, but because all the carbon in the tree is released and no tree replaces it.

    "No one in Ottawa has any such vision or intention, so Canada will have to further languish in mediocrity."

    Umm, we've been moving to subsidize the development of biofuels in this country in a reasonably big way (not as big as America though). We've got new nuclear plants that are going to be built and reduce GHGs. We have subsidies for solar generation and wind projects in various provinces.

    You could move along with directly pricing CO2 which would be more effective in terms of finding the most efficient ways of reducing CO2 but if your trading partners don't move along with you, then you cause major economic competitiveness issues in some sectors. So why would we jump ahead of the States when the States are more likely than not going to regulate in the next five years nationally anyways?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:53 p.m.  

  • Jimtan,

    I'll read the actual research by the scientists,

    and you parrot what the (obviously politically motivated) politicians have to say.

    All the while being accused by you of lacking the ability of independent thought.

    I'm ahead of the curve. You? You're stuck in a decades old mindet, though the mindset is politically right where you want to be I'd imagine, thus the inability to move on even in the face of the obvious.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:43 p.m.  

  • You guys make me sick

    Yes Jim, we know -- everything and everyone makes you sick.

    What kind of argument is that?

    It's the kind of argument that says Canada is not an important contributor to global warming. I didn't say we should do 'nothing'. I'm just saying that Canadians could collectively revert to the Stone Age tomorrow, and it wouldn't change the world. I believe technology can be our greatest contribution, and could boost our economic standing to boot.

    Oh, btw Jim - last year I asked you what actions you'd taken in your personal life to reduce your own carbon footprint, and you coyly refused to answer. Any lifestyle changes you'd like to update us all on since then? Or, is this still an issue that you care passionately about which only other people should tackle?

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 3:58 p.m.  

  • “I'll read the actual research by the scientists,

    and you parrot what the (obviously politically motivated) politicians have to say.”


    You're a troll!

    You read the actual research? I haven't. The IPCC AR4 technical report VI is 193 pages. And, that is the evaluation of the scientific work done by thousands of researchers. This is a report by scientists.

    The National Academies of Science (also scientists and not politicians) back this work. Who are you to ignore this vast amount of scientific credibility?

    Even stephan harper doesn't have the guts to deny climate change. He would surely have led a direct attack against climate change legislation, if there was any substantial scientific doubt.

    Instead, he relies on obstruction and stealth. For example

    “Tories deny burying release of climate-change report
    By Steve Rennie, The Canadian Press

    OTTAWA - The Harper government is dismissing suggestions that it tried to play down the release of a major report warning about serious health effects from climate change.

    Health Minister Tony Clement's communications director conceded Friday that the release could have gone "way differently and way better."

    But Rita Smith denied any attempt to bury the 500-page report by releasing it late Thursday with no fanfare.

    The Conservative government's hand was forced when parts of the report were leaked to the media last week, Smith said.

    "This is not my preferred way to roll out anything," she said.

    Clement's office emailed the report in pieces to journalists late Thursday afternoon and the health minister later held a brief scrum with reporters at the Conservative caucus retreat in Levis, Que.

    Smith said the government planned a major release for the third week of August but claimed those plans were quashed when journalists started poking around.

    The report, titled "Human Health in a Changing Climate: A Canadian Assessment of Vulnerabilities and Adaptive Capacity," was supposed to be released this spring.

    When spring came and went, some of the report's authors worried it would be buried in a quiet corner of Health Canada's website.

    A similar fate befell another major climate-change study released earlier this year by Natural Resources Canada.

    After years of research, input from more than 140 experts and $50,000 paid to a public-relations firm to plan its release, Natural Resources posted the study online after 5 p.m. on a Friday with no flourish.

    Pollution Probe's Quentin Chiotti contributed to both the Health Canada and Natural Resources reports. He says the science shows Ottawa needs to do more to help Canadians adapt to climate change.

    "If this government doesn't have a clear adaptation strategy and is treating these assessments the way that they are, what does that say about this government's understanding of adaptation? I don't know."

    By Blogger JimTan, at 6:11 p.m.  

  • This is not logical. Jason says that we can “burn more fossil fuels if we wanted” and “Canada's most effective contribution to fighting pollution (and any AGW) would be leading a revolution in energy technology that the rest of the world wants in on.”

    We can't have an alternate energy revolution while being careless with fossil fuel. The New Government is the living example of this contradiction.

    “It's the kind of argument that says Canada is not an important contributor to global warming.”


    Greenhouse gas is a global problem. That means everyone has to do their part. Otherwise, there will be no global agreement and climate warming would accelerate.

    It is the responsibility of the rich nations to set the example, because most of the accumulated greenhouse gas was produced by the rich nations. The Kyoto Accord was supposed to be this mechanism. The post-Kyoto Accord would include the developing nations.

    Unfortunately, bush and harper want a freebie. They want a current baseline (not 1990). And, they want long term targets without short term commitments. That is, it means nothing.

    The developing countries like China and India are not stupid. They won't make the big sacrifices until the rich nations get serious. Oddly enough, they are practical enough to ...

    “China's 'rapid renewables surge'
    By Mark Kinver
    Science and nature reporter, BBC News

    China's rapid investment in low carbon technologies has catapulted the nation up the global renewable energy rankings, a report shows.

    The Climate Group study said China invested $12bn (£6bn) in renewables during 2007, second only to Germany.

    However, it was expected to top the table by the end of 2009, it added.

    The findings have been published as China faces criticism over its air quality ahead of the Beijing Olympic Games, which begin on 8 August.

    The report, China's Clean Revolution, brings together the latest data on the country's burgeoning renewables sector in one publication.

    Co-author Changhua Wu, The Climate Group's China director, said the rapid rise in investment was, in part, the result of the government realising that the western model of industrialisation was unsustainable.

    The report said China's $12bn investment in renewables during 2007 was only just behind top-of-the-table Germany, which spent $14bn.

    In order to meet its target of increasing the percentage of energy from low carbon technologies from 8% in 2006 to 15% by 2020, China is expected to invest an average of $33bn annually for the next 12 years.

    This was going to result in China becoming the leading investor by the end of 2009, Ms Wu forecast.”

    By Blogger JimTan, at 12:54 a.m.  

  • I didn't say we should burn more fossil fuels -- I believe we'd be much happier, healthier and richer if we exploited more renewable energy resources. I said we could, if we wanted to. Personally, I don't want to. That's why I bike instead of taking transit, it's why I pay more for renewable-sourced hydro, and it's a significant part of why I gave up eating meat. I'm hardly a proponent of burning more coal and oil.

    If you're actually trying to convince me that Bush has not done enough on renewable energy, I'm afraid you're busy preaching to the choir.

    China? For better or worse, it's a world leader - much moreso than us. And thanks to the lackadaisical leadership on this issue in America, China may become an even more prominent and powerful world leader in the near future.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 10:28 a.m.  

  • “I said we could, if we wanted to. Personally, I don't want to. ...And thanks to the lackadaisical leadership on this issue in America...”


    You don't seem to understand the issue. The 'lackadaisical leadership' does not stem from negligence. The evidence of (and consequences of) global warming is now compelling.

    The obstruction by bush/harper is the result of an ideological viewpoint, to the point of fanaticism. Let there be more highways because this is 'freedom'. Let them take the bus if they can't afford to pay for petrol.

    More public transit? Oh oh! Doesn't that create big government?

    Invest in alternate technologies? The private sector can do it better. Look at Exxon's big profits.

    What we need is a new paradigm that is problem-oriented. It doesn't help to say that 'we could, if we wanted to'. The point is that we shouldn't. We need to focus on low-emission energy and better urban planning, whilst conserving the last of our petroleum for the long haul.

    By Blogger JimTan, at 2:04 p.m.  

  • I guess you're right, I just don't understand the issue. It may not help to say we could if we wanted to, but it's still the truth - and as passionate as I am on the issue, I'm still intellectually honest enough to admit it. I'm not a one-sided, all-or-nothing thinker, like yourself or Mr. Bush. And that's really all I have to say on the matter.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 11:52 p.m.  

  • One last thing -- it's ideologically eager hysteria like yours that best arms climate change deniers.

    I don't know why I waste my breath.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 12:35 a.m.  

  • Please excuse me for being rigorous and logical. I need to learn to compromise my integrity, and to speak with a forked tonque.

    By Blogger JimTan, at 2:39 a.m.  

  • Please excuse me for being rigorous and logical.

    If you were so, you would have dumped the LPC long ago, when they refused to implement the Kyoto protocols they so happily endorsed, in theory.

    By Blogger Möbius, at 4:41 p.m.  

  • "If you were so, you would have dumped the LPC long ago"

    As usual, your grasp of the facts is impeccable.

    I joined the LPC after their defeat. And, supported dion during the leadership campaign.

    Hope this helps.

    By Blogger JimTan, at 6:55 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home