Friday, December 25, 2009
I haven't started it yet, but I'm really excited to consume this little morsel. The back cover lists several venerated scientists who dispute AGW in their own field of relevant expertise including Freeman Dyson. Cool eh? Freeman Dyson! I have new respect for someone I already had great respect for. He's a great thinker. He came up with the concept of a Dyson Sphere you may have seen in an old STNG episode. You know, the one where they find old Scotty preserved in a transporter buffer. He also came up with the Astro-chicken, and the Dyson Tree. We deniers are assembling a mighty flotilla here aren't we?
The second thing I've noticed already is that a contributor to the book, Dr. Edward Wegman, claims responsibility for debunking the "Hockey Stick" graph. I thought it was Stephen McIntyre? I love skeptics. Everything is up for debate. Either way, its widely known that the graph is bunk, and we even have stolen emails from the frauds proving that it was more than an honest mistake. There is no longer any doubt that activist media, activist science, and activist politicians are colluding to disseminate this lie for their own agendas. Why else is there blackout on the news that AGW is a hoax? I'm even beginning to suspect that the preponderance of evidence isn't all that ponderous after all. There needs to be a new accounting of this consensorship of opinion. Once you strip away the bogus science and all its advocates the theory is shaky indeed.
I'm looking forward to reading this book. I hope the new perspectives from the various essays therein lends new ammunition to the real fight against Global Warming Hysteria.
Thanks & Merry Christmas!
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Any gathering of high caliber nut jobs like socialist Chavez, mad Ahmadinijad, and The Goracle needs to be carefully watched. Poor handling of a thing like Hoaxenhagen could end up with us all clapped in chains as Dr. Fruit Fly Suzuki wishes.
The impression I'm getting is that nobody is happy with the agreement-treaty thing. Skeptics aren't happy and Eco-nazis aren't happy. I'd say this is good news, or at least the best news we could have hoped for.
The thing to do now is follow through on our commitments. I'm sure we will be able to meet our objectives with new technology like carbon capture and smart innovations like off grid NG powered housing. I'd like to see the grits toot the eco-horn if we actually make some progress in that direction. Its got to be all carrots and no tax bombs.
Thanks and Merry Christmas to All.
"The preponderance of scientific evidence and opinion is that Climate Change is a very real challenge."And so it is. The preponderance of that evidence however is opinion. The leaked emails out of CRU are the tip of the iceberg. The data is tampered with and then destroyed. The peer review process is faulty and exploited by powerful organizations and people.
Imagine yourself the expert of experts sitting on a grand panel of your peers. Will you support a paper that invalidates your own expertise and more importantly your funding? Of course not. Its not in their interest or the interest of world, they will say to themselves. They won't even look at the data. Look up the resistance Alfred Wegener met with after discovering continental drift. Peer review is garbage. You only get more of the same.
The choice then is either to ensure that skeptical research gets enough funding to undeniably push past the bias in the climate community or to institute an open scientific audit mechanism.
Stephen McIntyre can't do it all himself. He needs students and a budget. No paper in any discipline should get published without being audited by an external entity. We should probably do both, but the second option is the important one.
Over the last two weeks we've seen how bad science can have a huge financial impact. Every financial statement of a publicly traded company is audited so that shareholders are less vulnerable to fraud. It doesn't mean all accountants are crooks. Its just standard practice. The time has come to insist on the same rigor in the scientific process. Science should be objective and impartial. If an auditor would comb the data before any paper would be published then I think Science will drift back to its core pursuit of truth over activism and advocacy.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Here is what the misanthropic mad doctor had to say about me and my industry:
"We can't give up slavery because it'll destroy our economy and slavery gives us jobs and we have to have slave runners and all of that."
What are you talking about? Do you actually believe this are are you just spouting cultural pollution again? Slaves are terrible for an economy you idiot! They don't get paid! They don't contribute to the economy except in base production. They don't even pay taxes! Who are slave runners anyway? Do you actually believe they were a large part of even a backwards slave based economy? You make no sense on so many levels.
Shutting down the tar sands, or slapping us with a carbon tax will reduce intelligent educated Canadians like me to slavery. Not just in Alberta. Everywhere. We cannot support these wonderful social programs without some sort of wealth creation. All industry starts in the ground somewhere somehow. There is treasure in the ground here and all they can think about is taking control of it.
I'll continue this later. I've caught Suzuki lying on television before and spewing nonsense. He's not going to get away with it anymore. He is not a great Canadian. He's an angry old fool with an empire to build and he thinks we are all stupid.
Monday, December 14, 2009
I've got it! A fake press release full of fake promises regarding the fake problem of Global Warming has a very good solution. Lets follow through on these fake promises with fake money. All nations that feel they need climate reparations can simply print this blog as many times as they like. The notes on this page are only redeemable by participating green idiots across the world. In this spirit, I also give myself the Nobel prize for climate BS and having solved Global Warming. Thank You!
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Open Letter to the Honourable Jim Prentice: Candian Environment Minister. (from a constituent, volunteer, and supporter of Jim Prentice)
Climate Change has come to dominate our international policy decisions lately. I respect your opinion that Global Warming is real even when The globe begins cooling. Many Canadians share that opinion and you must represent them as well as you represent Canadians who do not believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming.
I only ask for a fair and unbiased exploration of the facts around general trends in average global temperature. Are the causes of Climate Change, up or down, really blamed on CO2? Can we really trust the gate keepers of the scientific community after the revelations of the Climategate scandal? I'm afraid that Climate science has been over politicized and abused to create a sense of urgency and impending doom. Skeptical scientists within the IPCC and climate science in general are muzzled or discredited if their expert opinions conflict with the status quo.
Important policy decisions should be based on the absolute truth. It is imperative that public money and encouragement be directed towards Scientists skeptical of Global Warming. The campaign to discredit skeptics who had industry funding or experience highlights the need for an unbiased approach to the study of the earths climate. Only public funds can be considered unbiased. The Canadian Government should support Climate Change Skeptics monetarily and with any other means they can provide.
Without fair and objective research into AGW theory we cannot make correct decisions. Please support skeptical scientists in their efforts. They do not take the easy road to fame and glory by making rash announcements and fixing data like other Scientists. They battle on seeking truth in the face of alarmist activism while abandoned by industry and government.
Skeptics will only help us all be sure that our investments in the future are smart and worth the high costs. I can only hope that the truth is sufficient motivation for equal investigation into causes of trends in global average temperature. With your considerable influence we can rest assured that all sides have been impartially heard before committing to the drastic measures called for by your opponents. I know you want to do the right thing, and I'm sure you'll do it right.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
I googled Stephane Dion and the top news is about a facebook tiff he and Iggy had recently. Oh boo hoo to those two. The next article was about his wife's letter extolling the virtues of the Coalition and the Green Shift.
What a laugh! No matter what you believe about AGW the whole world is humming and hawing over Copenhagen. I suppose Dion's usurper Micheal Ignatieff has him tightly leashed. Iggy astonishingly polls below Dion on a consistent basis. Where does Iggy get the authority to keep Dion quiet? Dennis Coderre wasn't under the same spell.
With some in the media already moving to anoint a new Bob Rae as the new Liberal leader, I don't know why Iggy doesn't let Dion loose for a little while. (I say new Bob Rae because that is a different person from the old Bob Rae who was Premier of Ontario.) Seriously, Dion can only hurt himself, and Iggy would look good in comparison. It would even give old Bob Rae pause on the next palace coup since it would be obvious that having a new leader does not a prime minister make.
Free Dion! I miss the bumbling professor.
Monday, December 7, 2009
AbstractGlobal Warming may be occurring at this point in history, but anthropogenic carbon dioxide is not to blame. Sudden major shifts in temperature have occurred in the recent and deep past through natural means. The present warming could be a natural shift, unaided by CO2. The Greenhouse Effect theorizes that Global Warming will occur if there is an increase in CO2 gas in the atmosphere. Research has shown that CO2 has not had an influence on certain long-term paleoclimates. This questions the validity of current climate models that base their predictions on CO2 climate forcing.
Ripples in the SurfAlexander Fernandes
Our planet Earth has existed for roughly 4 billion years (Davidson, pp. 444). Though devoid of any life, young Earth was far from boring. A searing atmosphere blanketed seas of tumultuous molten rock (pp. 43). While Venus today resembles the early Earth, a wondrous change took place that separated the two planets ever since (Bullock, pp. 203). Our beloved Earth cooled.
For the very first time it rained. Entire oceans literally fell out of the sky (Davidson, pp. 43). During the next 500 million years, life miraculously appeared (Campbell, pp. 458). Besides some slimy pools of anaerobic bacteria the earth was still a desolate lonely place (pp. 487). It’s uncertain exactly when it happened but at about 2.5 billion years ago the atmosphere began accumulating oxygen (pp. 458). Some of the bacteria on our planet had apparently evolved the ability to feed directly off the sun. We call this ability photosynthesis and it releases oxygen as a waste product (pp. 487). These new photosynthetic bacteria are ancestors of all the plants on earth (pp. 519).
A lot has changed since photosynthesis transformed the earth (pp. 508). Billions of years have come and gone with plants and anthropods colonizing land only 500 million years ago (pp. 458). 245 million years later, Dinosaurs evolved and perished time and again spanning just 180 million years (pp. 458). Life continues to flourish for another 65 million years (pp. 458). Ice caps grow, contract, melt altogether, and overflow for millions of years at a time (Davidson, pp. 371). Humans appeared at least 1.8 million years ago during an ice age when great glaciers covered Canada and the northern U.S (pp.371).
Thankfully the ice has receded, and we have all benefited from it. In fact there is some alarming evidence that this warming trend will continue. Much debate and speculation is occurring as to what causes this global warming. Some scientists have hypothesized that the greenhouse effect is being aggravated by anthropogenic or human causes (Karl, online). Over the past 50 years temperatures have increased by 0.5° Celsius (Karl, online). Coincidentally this has been a period of major industrial growth around the world. The waste products of humanity, the bulk of which is Carbon Dioxide (CO2) (Karl, online), have been released into the atmosphere at a rate of 5.5 Gigatons (Gt) per year (Robinson, online). This huge amount pales in comparison with the 750 Gt of CO2 present in the atmosphere (Robinson, online), 600 Gt of which is produced naturally. Since some of the 150 Gt of carbon transferred from the atmosphere to the plants and oceans of the world include anthropogenic (human-made) CO2, there is only a net increase of 3 Gt per year globally (Robinson, online). Yet this minuscule amount is thought to be enough to change the climate of the world.
What is popularly called “Global Warming” or the “Greenhouse Effect” actually denotes Anthropogenic Climate Change. The Greenhouse effect explains why the earth has warmth and space does not. The atmosphere acts as a blanket around the earth, allowing the sun’s heat in, and spreading it around relatively evenly (Karl, online). This seems very simple but it can be very complex. The earth follows the basic laws of physics like everything else in the universe, but we know that meteorologists have a very tough time deciphering exactly how those laws work together to give us the weather we will have tomorrow or next week. There are too many variables to count. The weather is in fact a disorganized jumble of overlapping systems whose properties change in relation to each other (Davidson, pp. 148). Climatologists attempt to make sense of the jumble by feeding models of these weather systems into supercomputers (Karl, online). The predictions of these models vary greatly, but some models give rise to the notion of anthropogenic global warming (Karl, online).
The most troubling models predict that the slight increase in CO2 from human sources will effectively increase the heat intake from the sun (Barron, pp. 189-190). It is believed and virtually proven that CO2 re-emits radiation back into space less than normal air does, causing a slight rise in heating (pp. 189-190). This increase in heating is supposed to create a feedback loop in which more heat in turn releases more and more greenhouse gas again causing further heating (Lindzen, online). Through evaporation heat releases more greenhouse gases because H2O is a very effective greenhouse agent (Lindzen, online). Water vapor is far worse than CO2 gas, causing over 98% of all the greenhouse effect (Lindzen, online). CO2 after all only comprises 0.037 % of the atmosphere (Davidson, pp. 370). If every bit of CO2 were removed from the atmosphere, anthropogenic or natural, there would be less than a 2% loss in the total greenhouse effect. Of this 2%, just 0.6% is the total human contribution since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
In this model of the runaway greenhouse effect, any form of heat increase should have the exact same effects as a slight increase in CO2 (Lindzen, online). If for instance the sun were to get brighter just slightly, we would see Global Warming and all the catastrophic consequences that are foretold by the same models. This is because greenhouse theory is dependent on the idea that H2O will do most of the heating after the initial kick (Lindzen, online).
This may seem like an extraneous hypothetical situation but parts of the Phanerezoic Eon are known to have experienced a brighter sun (Davidson, pp. 405). In fact minor fluctuations in the sun’s magnetic cycle length are in keeping with observations of other stars of similar age and size (Robinson, online). Yellow Dwarfs like our star have random fluctuations in their brightness (Robinson, online). We can’t tell by eye or memory of course, but measurements of the magnetic cycle length (brightness) in recent history have shown some very interesting results. When a graph of temperature versus time is imposed on a graph of solar magnetic cycle length verses time as depicted in Graph 1 of Appendix B, an astounding correlation can be drawn from the two (Davidson, pp. 405). It logically follows that a brighter sun would increase temperature and here we have the expected results (pp. 405).
The same style of evidence can also be applied to the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. Graph 2 in Appendix B depicts a plot of CO2 and temperature versus time (pp. 404). It can also be inferred that as CO2 has gone up, so has temperature (pp. 404). This statement is the core evidence of the entire anthropogenic global warming theory. It should be pointed out that while the two plots follow each other closely, ruling out coincidence, it is equally correct to infer that temperature drives CO2 levels. In fact it has been shown that the CO2 concentrations seem to follow temperature change, while solar activity tends to lead it (Robinson, online). Furthermore, temperature changes in history have not required an industrial revolution.
About 1000 years ago a temperature fluctuation called the Medieval Climate Optimum saw average temperatures as high as 1° C above the 3000 year mean (Robinson, online). The Little Ice Age 300 years ago was at least 1° C colder than the mean (Robinson, online). Today we are still below the 3000-year mean, but temperatures are expected to rise steadily (Robinson, online). It is important to note that there are no records of any sort of weather disasters or extinctions during the medieval climate optimum (Robinson, online). The cause of these fluctuations strongly points solar activity, since it couldn’t have been anthropogenic (Robinson, online).
Besides astronomical forces that shape climate such as orbital eccentricity, axial procession, and solar activity, there are also geological climate factors (Davidson, pp. 371). The positions of the continents affect how ocean currents transport water and therefore heat around the globe (pp. 148). Mountain ranges have a similar effect on air circulation and the patterns of the Hydrological cycle (pp. 5-7). The Glaciers themselves exert a cooling influence over the air around them (pp. 371). In fact an Ice Age can be thought of as a period of overgrown glaciers, where the rate of melting is smaller that the rate of growth for a prolonged period of time (pp. 371). We are in fact in an Ice Age right now (pp. 371). Many Ice Ages and Warm Ages have punctuated history (pp. 371). The Eocene Epoch is one notable Warm Age where Global temperatures were so warm that not a single place on earth averaged below 0° C (pp 404). I for one would welcome a return to these balmy conditions, but unfortunately, substantial geologic change must occur before this can happen. That is unless the sun or CO2 forcing changes the climate.
Renowned geologist Jan Veizner has increased the doubt that CO2 levels in the atmosphere can actually force climate change (pp. 698-701). During two major Ice Ages, the Ordivician/Sulurian and the Jurassic/Cretaceous ice ages, CO2 levels were 10 times higher than they are now (pp. 698-701). This discovery does not agree with today’s climate models specifically the energy-balanced climate model (pp. 698-701). Even when this model is corrected for paleogeography and given a 5 % increase for enhanced solar radiation, the models still predict temperatures from 4° C to 6° C hotter than today’s climate (pp. 698-701). The actually temperature at those times was 2.5° C colder than the Phanerozoic standard (pp. 698-701). This means that the models are incorrect, especially concerning CO2’s influence on the greenhouse effect (pp. 698-701).
The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies heavily on the results of climate models to predict future weather and their consequences (Lindzen, online). As mentioned earlier, a climate model is basically a model of the earth and all those overlapping systems that control the weather. Equations are derived that approximate these systems and then tuned (Lindzen, online). Models that give results outside the expectations of the researchers are discarded while models that confirm theory are kept (Lindzen, online). This is not so strange since a model is just a moving expression of a theory. Models are not proof.
Since the 1990’s these climate models have constantly been adjusted to fit reality. Initially the IPCC predicted 4.5° to 6° C warming by 2050 (Burnett, online). The prediction has changed however to 0.8° to 3.5° C (Burnett, online). These very same models do not agree with recent history or ancient history. This situation is made much worse when the most serious and catastrophic of these predictions are presented to the public as truth (Lindzen, online). There are reports that all the coastal cities in the world will be flooded, there will be increased precipitation, droughts, the gulf stream will stop and hurricanes will increase (Karl, online). These predictions are completely unfounded and in some cases contradictory to each other. The truth is that unfortunately these disasters are bound to happen no matter what temperature it is. No amount of CO2 is going to prevent or cause these terrible incidents. Meteorologists can’t even predict with any accuracy what the temperature will be next week, yet climatologists presume to know what the weather will be like in 2050.
Greenpeace calls Global Warming the number one threat to the planet (Greenpeace, online). They have decreed that a 1° C rise in temperature is an acceptable limit (Greenpeace, online). Any more would lead to extinctions, as most species will not evolve quickly enough to cope with anthropogenic climate change (Greenpeace, online). This makes a certain amount of sense. Many Ice Ages, and Warm ages, are caused and perpetuated by geologic factors (Davidson, pp. 148). Geologic factors, like mountain ranges and continents, take millions of years to change (pp.148). There would then be plenty of time for evolution to generate new adaptations.
A salient point missing here is that the process of evolution is not clean and pretty. This process is constant and brutally uncaring (Campbell, pp. 392-569). Unfit species will in fact die out no matter what the rate of change is (pp. 392-569). We don’t even know what a good rate of change is supposed to be. Past glaciation transitions have come very suddenly, the most dramatic of which are recorded at less than 10 years (Davidson, pp. 371)! Most of the transitions from mild climates to cold have occurred in less than 100 years (pp. 371). Rapid climate change is not limited to cooling events either. A relatively recent global warming episode, 12,500 years ago, experienced a warming of about 10° C in approximately 50 years (Burnette, online). These major climactic changes happened completely naturally and must have been deadly to the life of that age.
Though it is reasonable to surmise that geography is a major influence on the global average climate, changes in the climate itself need not follow a gradual rate of change. Weather patterns, once established, may have a tendency to perpetuate themselves until a critical point is reached. The patterns may then shift suddenly to newer patterns with greater stability. Combined with external climate factors like the sun, climate change could be a very random and swift event.
The Earth has had a relatively stable climate for the past 11,000 years, which can be described as a milder period of and Ice Age (Burnette, online). It is only a matter of time before a change in the climate occurs. Though it may seem as if humanity can manipulate the climate of the earth, I remain skeptical. We are on the verge of a natural warming trend. It is only natural that we would want to assign some kind of significance to this fact. It is still only the mindless flow of time.Anthropogenic CO2 does not cause global warming. Nor has CO2 from any source in the deep past influenced climate. Natural processes like solar activity, and the march of the continents, cause global Warming. There is no basis for the claims that humans will cause flooding and droughts and hurricanes. The current rise in temperature and all the subsequent ups and downs in the future are simply normal oscillations of the climate. The scope of geologic history has seen many peaks and troughs of temperature. Any change we might, ever so slightly, accomplish through CO2, will surely be swamped by solar impulse or geologic whim. We might slip into a new Warm Age, then again we might not. This slight increase in temperature that we are experiencing is simply a ripple in the surf.
Barron, E. J. (1995, May, 2). Global Change Researchers Assess Projections of Climate Change. Eos [Online], 76(18), 185 189-90. Retrieved November 17th, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/barron.html
Bullock, M. A., & Grinspoon, D. H. (2000). Global Climate Change on Venus. In D. Levy (Ed.), The Scientific American book of the Cosmos. (pp. 203). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Burnett, S. H. (1999, June, 30). The Collapsing Scientific Cornerstones of Global Warming Theory. Idea House: National Center for Policy Analysis [Online], 299. Retrieved December 4th 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba299.html
Campbell, N. A. (1996). Biology. (4th ed.). New York: The Benjamin Cummings Publishing Company.
Davidson, J., Reed, W. E., Davis, P. M. (1997). Exploring Earth. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gore, P. J. W. Geologic Time Chart. American Geological Institute. Georgia Perimeter Collage website: http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/timechrt.htm
Greenpeace. Greenpeace’s International Campaign to Save the Climate. Greenpeace website. Retrieved December 4th, 2000: http://www.greenpeace.org/~climate/climatemain.shtml
Karl, T. R., Nicholls, N., Gregory, J., (1997, May). The Coming Climate. Scientific American [Online]. Retrieved November 17th, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.sciam.com/0597issue/0597karl.html
Lindzen, R. S. (1999). Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus. Regulation: the Cato Review of Business and government [Online]. Retrieved November 17th, 2000 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
Robinson A. B., Baliunas, A. L., Soon, W., Robinson, Z. W. (2000). Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Petition Project [Online]. Retrieved January 24th, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://sitewave.net/pproject/s33p36.htm
Veizer, J., Godderis, Y., Francois, L. M. (2000, December, 7). Evidence for Decoupling of Atmospheric CO2 and Global Climate during the Phanerozoic Eon. Nature [Online], 408, 698-701. Retrieved December 21st, 2000 from the World Wide Web: www.nature.com [Fee]
Monday, November 23, 2009
Well there is a clue in these leaked emails and other files out of CRU. The same MSM that defamed Catholic priests and made them synonymous with child molesters has elevated climate scientists to sainthood. Their vaunted impartial objectivity is no more. The climate science of AGW is nothing more than PR and now we have the proof. Peer review panels are stacked in favor of AGW. Its a lot like stacking a jury to influence a verdict. Peer reviewed journals are kangaroo courts where only palletable papers are allowed to be published.
I strongly suspect that the reason the MSM keeps pushing AGW is because their editorial boards are as biased as the CRU cranks and possibly worse. If institutions and scientists can be infultrated then what makes the media so impregnable? Nothing! News is not news, its views.
Update: green socialists have been thrown in jail this morning after occupying Environment Minister Jim Prentices office. Terrorists hold lives hostage, while socialists hold property hostage. Thier demands were that Canada sign a treaty that would reduce harmelss CO2 emmissions to 25% below 1990 emmissions.
I've got a better idea. Why don't the green socialists reduce their income to 25% below their collective 1990 average? Oh no that kind of draconian measure only applies to us proles, not to our new lords and masters: the econazis. Hitler started with blackshirts and protests. Stop the green shirts! Time to push back!
Monday, September 7, 2009
We know Liberals like to throw money around. Its their nature. They are like bourgeois Robin Hoods. They take from non-Liberals to give to Liberals. Dion got it backwards. He tried to sell the tax before the spending. This election, be prepared to be dazzled with blinding bright red promises.
The big red promises will be funded in red ink. They believe that we've crossed a threshold in our collective consciousness by running a deficit as a country. Never mind that it was an economic crisis. A little deficit is the same as a big deficit in their eyes.
The lost tax revenue coupled with enormous expenditures like GMs $10 billion bailout, and infrastructure spending across the board is the source of our deficit and it was necessary. Conservatives spend in emergencies. Conservatives spend in times of war and crisis, which in 2008 and 2009 have experienced both. Conservatives basically spend to put out fires. The Police, the Military, the Health system and others all exist to put out their individual fires. This is partly why capital must be conserved from minimum tax revenue. We don't know how many or how large the fires of the future will be. We still don't know exactly how large our current fires are.
Liberals splurge as a matter of course. ADSCAM is a perfect example. They will spend again. An election win would signal to them that no cost is too high for crazy programs like turning EI into the new welfare. Liberal stimulus will be like watering a garden with a fire hose. Sure things will be soaked with cash, but nothing good will survive.
Whats the Big Idea?
Its a subtle and devious question. Its designed to draw us all in in anticipation. To this point, they've said nothing. Iggy's book is empty. They wait for us to call them out and say that they are Big spending, Big taxing, Big government Liberals. Once we've done all the work to label them thus, the election will be called and the great red hope will be revealed. You can bet that it will be Big, and it will have a Big price tag. They won't need us all to buy it, just enough to tip the scales for an NDP coalition. Both parties love nothing more than a good old cash bonfire.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Iggy will sully and shame our democracy at a cost of $350 million. Its chump change to a BIG spending Liberal. They believe the treasury is theirs after all.
How can they claim to be good financial managers? Their own debts are still huge, even after a summer of begging. Now that they have a little cash they just can't wait to spend it.
Any Liberal will tell you that Chretien's Liberals had years of balanced budgets. None of them will tell you that it was thanks to Brian Mulroney. The GST was specifically introduced to pay down the debt. In a classic Liberal lie in their infamous Red Book they promised to eliminate the GST and stole the vote. That's right; stole it. Politicians normally try to buy votes, but when you swindle voters with false promises, its theft.
Now that Conservatives did all the hard work, they are trying to steal the country again. Just 10 months ago, when Liberals were going to slam Canadians with a terrible new tax, the economy crashed. Economists around the world said it was another Great Depression. They still say that it was the worst recession since the Second World War. With Stephen Harper's leadership and Jim Flaherty's expertise, the Conservatives implemented the Economic Action Plan. With deft and swift moves, Conservatives cooperated with Barack Obama and the other G20 nations to avert a decade of disaster.
It worked marvelously. Instead of plunging into the abyss, Canada steered clear of the worst of the dangers. We saved GM. We pumped $50 billion into the economy and now finally we are out of recession.
Of course, Liberal style dictates that they want to be back in power before the lagging indicators like jobs start to show positive numbers. It might be too late for the Liberals as jobs numbers are already starting to look up. Its obvious that they want to claim the Conservative Recovery.
Thankfully Canadians are smarter than condescending Liberal politics. Iggy's election gamble, a hail marry play, will fail utterly. If we must force another $350 million out of our overdrawn budget for Iggy's reckless oppourtinism than Canadians should vote Conservatives into majority. No more wasteful, unnessessary, elections. Let the Conservatives finish what it started. Let Canada soar the way only Conservatives can fly it.
I'm the type of person who can watch my team lose and still think it was a good game if it was played well. I'd rather see a good game than any other kind. I want to see good Government.
The outcome of a game is pretty meaningless, while the outcome of an election means everything (we could have been hit with the Green Shaft!).
I'm sure that an election would end up with the same results more or less, except that everyone loses because we can't afford it, and we'll have to repeat it again and again and again.
Could we just skip all that? Could we find something useful for the Liberal party to do on our behalf?
Sadly I just don't think so. The Liberals are bent on one-up-manship. With the likes of Kinsella on the payroll, Liberals work tirelessly at sabotaging their partners and nothing else. The Liberal war machine itself prevents cooperation. The media eats it all up.
Lets stop with the war drums. Nobody wants an election, which is really: everybody wants cooperation. A coalition that represents most Canadians might be as impossible as Mideast peace or as long coming.
I'm calling for a truce Liberals. Fire Kinsella. Close the War room. Keep your new money and pay down your own debts. Lose your silly EI requests and behave reasonably for once. Do you Liberals wonder why we can't trust you to help out?
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Nobody looks over your shoulder as you vote. Nobody holds the pencil and marks the X. Your vote is your property. Democracy only works when this is true. Blind subservience to a party or a leader removes accountability of the party or politician to you, the voter and taxpayer.
The PC party and Brian Mulroney learned this hard lesson at a terrible cost to Canadians. When Conservatives turned away from the PC’s in favour of the Reform party and Liberals, they demonstrated their ultimate belief in democracy.
The price however, was a decade of Liberal darkness and constitutional despair. The Conservative Party of Canada eventually emerged from the Liberal darkness and stubbornness of the old guard. Today we have a Conservative Party that is well aware of the supremacy and the voter and the strength it gives to democracy.
The Liberals know no such truth. The party of entitlement appoints leaders faster than previous leaders could disappoint. Iggy couldn’t even beat Dion in a party election, yet he was somehow elevated to arch duke of the Liberal party. The guy claims to be American to Americans, but denies that living for 32 years in the US (longer than I have been alive!) makes him an American. Now he is seriously claiming to be more Canadian than the rest of us, and more suited to being PM by virtue of not being in Canada for half of his life. I could maybe see him writing a white paper or some academic piece, but Prime Minister?
It doesn’t look as though my faith in Conservatism or Democracy will be in conflict any time soon. Thoughtful, soft-liberal voters would do well to use some tough love democracy on their old-boys-club party. It’s the only way to convince the Liberal elites to actually listen and stop the false promises and gimmicks they are famous for.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Then I had a look around and thought 'heck, why not'.
So here I am, warts and all. I'll learn as I go, so I'll ask for your kind patience as you review my humble blog.