David Suzuki's Canada ...

... As expressed in his Canada Day message [plus by my comments]:

... Canada, ... to me meant Tommy Douglas and Medicare, Quebec, the National Film Board and CBC. [Who'd a thunk? But 'Quebec'? What about BC, Manitoba, PEI ...?]


... an inclusive and caring society, where education, public health, social programs and enlightened laws provide numerous opportunities. [Perhaps not realizing that it takes great wealth to afford all these things.]

... Canada is nature. And nature is life. [Well, not quite. Canadians may appreciate nature (from a safe distance in most cases), but Canada is really a nation of  free, wealthy, healthy people who got that way by taming nature, building towns and cities, developing resources, building roads, railways and pipelines, drilling oil wells, fracking,  mining minerals ...]

 But there's always a 'but') ...

... our leaders are rushing to scar the landscape with mines, roads and pipelines to sell our resources as quickly as possible to global markets. From tar sands expansion to fracking, federal and provincial governments are blindly proceeding with little thought about long-term consequences. [And David Suzuki, funded by foreigners (including Vladimir Putin?), is doing everything he can to halt Canadian resource development, the long term consequences of which will be to destroy Canadian jobs and wealth.]

...  [Stephen Harper is evil] ... our prime minister called climate change "perhaps the greatest threat to the future of humanity." Now he says, "No matter what they say, no country is going to take actions that are going to deliberately destroy jobs and growth in their country." [a realistic message recently echoed by India] ...  we can't hope for abundant jobs and a thriving economy on a planet suffering the ever-worsening consequences of global warming. [Except that, to the chagrin (or denial) of alarmists, the evidence all shows that the globe has not warmed in the last two decades] 

Now, the big question ...

What kind of Canada do you want? Do you treasure our spectacular natural landscapes, clean water and air and abundant natural resources? Do you value our commitment to fairness, enlightened social programs, education and public health? Do you believe we should do all we can to protect the things that make this country great?

[That's easy.  Yes to all of the above.  Plus the development of all those "abundant natural resources" so that we can continue to afford all the other good things. We can have it all.  But if we chose not to develop those resources, we'll have less of the other good things, much less.  What will Suzuki's beloved Quebec do without those massive transfers from Alberta, for example?]

Happy Canada Day!
 

Fudged data - Is global warming the fraud of the century?

Bill Whittle with PJTV's Trifecta:

Recent evidence calls into question the accuracy of climate data, and every day, natural gas looks like a cleaner domestic alternative to Middle East oil. So why is the left promoting global warming and resisting the use of natural gas?

Vancouver School Board's idiotic gender policy

Kelly McParland:

... B.C., it is clear, does not view schools as a place in which children are taught the basic tools necessary to navigate life – math, science, geography – but as petri dishes for social experimentation in which teachers are lab technicians with unwitting children as their mice.

... On Monday, the Vancouver School Board approved a policy change aimed at accommodating gender identity and sexual orientation.

... Parents who questioned the change argued, quite reasonably, that six-year-olds aren’t qualified to understand all the intricacies of identity issues. ... Nonetheless, the school board forged ahead, even deciding to adopt new pronouns

... A last-minute amendment mandated that “xe, xem and xyr” may be used in place of “he/she” or “him/her”.

... B.C. teachers will presumably be the ones to add this social minefield to the other developmental issues they are already expected to shoulder ... In this case it appears they may be expected to actively keep parents in the dark about a critical element of their child’s growth.  ...

Sun News' Anthony Furey and Ada Slivinsky:


Such idiocy follows naturally from the decades of indoctrination in radical social theory that many of these VSB members received in their UBC Women's Studies and Gender Studies courses.

Renowned Canadian historian, Margaret MacMillan, suckered by junk science

Terence Corcoran on the opening of the 16th annual Junk Science Week:

... Modern science seems less about science and more about working up consensus, agitating for social agreement, shaping opinion and aligning political decision-making, from climate to smog to chemicals. Science becomes the backdrop to an exercise in marketing and propaganda.

... A sidelight to the science of climate change is the willingness of even our most learned academics to fall into line behind the idea of climate “consensus.”  Margaret MacMillan, one of the world’s most celebrated historians, told a Toronto audience recently that a consensus will likely never form around the origins of World War One. “The past is not settled,” she said. “We should not be trying to find a single settled version of the past. We should be arguing about it because these are important questions.”

About 15 minutes before saying that a war fought 100 years ago was ultimately unknowable, Ms. MacMillan saw no need to argue or debate over climate change issues. We have, she said, something like 90% agreement among scientists.  As a result, she was more than willing to accept that climate change would bring a crisis 100 years from now. We can have no consensus on the past, but the future is settled.

Ouch! Ms. MacMillan would do well to avoid embarrassing contradictions brought on by pontificating on subjects she clearly knows little about.  And to improve her understanding of climate science the least she could do is take the time to read Ross McKitrick's excellent update.

Radically pro-abortion Canadian press too extreme even for an American liberal

Melinda Gates' reaction to obsessively pro-abortion Canadian journalists ..."the Gates Foundation has decided not to fund abortion."  

Ezra Levant discusses:


Interesting! Canadian pro-abortion media jackals are so extreme that they drove an American liberal philanthropist to adopt Stephen Harper's position on not funding abortion.  I wonder if this will be mentioned anywhere in the Samestream Media.

Global bureaucrats with climate agenda like "a pack of hunting animals ... no conspiracy is necessary."

Peter Foster praises Aussie PM Tony Abbott and PM Harper for their "resistance to the economically destructive global climate agenda":

... Mr. Harper pointed out that economically-damaging solutions were not supported by any government; it was just that Canada dared to be a little more “frank” about the issue. So, now, is Australia under Prime Minister Abbott.

... more good news in the proposal from Mr. Abbott, who has scrapped his country’s planned carbon tax, to try to put together a coalition of “centre right” governments that might turn the tide against climate hysteria.  

... At every turn, nimble activists have outmanoeuvred the allegedly all-powerful oil companies, who have appeared both sluggish and defensive. Part of the ENGO success comes from framing themselves as David vs. the industrial Goliath (despite that big money lurking in the background). In fact, little David is a front for a power-seeking agenda which is supported by those global bureaucracies, such as the International Energy Agency and the International Monetary Fund.

... For anybody who suggests that this represents some paranoid view of a global conspiracy, no conspiracy is necessary.  Bureaucrats do not need literally to conspire, that is, plot, any more than a pack of hunting animals needs to sit down and discuss tactics before descending on its prey.

"Universities are islands of repression in a sea of freedom"

So said Dr. Arnold Aberman in an excellent convocation speech in which he cited several recent instances of prominent people, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Condoleezza Rice, being prevented from speaking at convocations because of their "controversial" views.  Dr. Aberman went on to cite four examples from science and medicine in which proponents of "controversial" new ideas that ran counter to prevailing "settled science" were ridiculed and shunned but were eventually vindicated and honoured.  Dr. Aberman's conclusions and advice:

... claiming “settled science” is a statement, not an argument. Truth is not discovered by voting. What is “settled science” today may be labelled a mistaken belief tomorrow.

You can’t learn in an echo chamber, welcoming only your ideas. Listen to those who you do not agree with – in fact, I urge, seek them out. 

Oppose their theories with facts, not with censorship.  

Be very suspicious of those who want to cut off debate with “this is against settled science.” Appealing to authority is a sign of weakness, not strength.

A modern-day death cult

I always assumed that assisted suicide would be included in any down-hill slide towards euthanasia (and beyond).  But leave it to the "progressive" Quebecois to skip that step, making Quebec a North American "leader".  Several US states have legalized assisted suicide but none have, so far, managed to legalize euthanasia. 

 Progressivism, a modern-day death cult - pro-abortion, pro-Hamas, pro-suicide, pro-euthanasia.

Some people shouldn't vote

Lawrence Solomon:

“You owe your fellow citizens your counsel,” Andrew Coyne wrote last month, in arguing that voting should be mandatory, like jury duty or paying taxes.

On the other hand:

David Moscrop, another PhD candidate in political science in another rebuttal oped. “While you may lead a voter to the booth, you can’t make him think.”  ... “any increase in turnout that fails to generate better votes — votes that more accurately represent a good choice for the voter — is probably counter-productive.” 

... I prefer a corollary to his view, i.e., any decrease in votes that generates better votes is probably productive. Some people shouldn’t be able to cast their vote, even if they do bother to show up after being shamed or coerced.

... Let’s not continue to cheapen the vote by giving it away wholesale under the conceit that the judgment of the thoughtless is as valuable in selecting those who will guide our country as is that of the thoughtful.

Mark Carney - overrated hypocrite

William Watson:

IMF head Christine Lagarde and Bank of England Governor Mark Carney both spoke last week in London on the subject of “inclusive capitalism” at a highly exclusive conference organized by Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild ...

... [both] made very literate and interesting speeches arguing that rising inequality ...  fundamentally threatens capitalism ...

Strangely, in view of their concern about inequality, neither ... offered to do their bit by taking a pay cut. ... Carney ... total compensation ...reported to be in the neighbourhood of £1 million per annum. ... If people at the top end making too much money is the dangerous social problem they both think it is, why don’t they help out by taking a pay cut?

Peter Foster:

... Canadian rock star Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney ...  was hypocritically flailing away at a straw man. [He] wittered on last week about how fundamentalist capitalism was increasing inequality and hurting the poor ... It is pretty much a rule that anybody who attaches a qualifier to the word “capitalism” is seeking to undermine it.

Carney may be among the most overrated men in recent history. It’s not that he lacks raw intelligence. It’s that the feats attributed to him ... are within the capacity of no man.

An explanation for this dangerous state of mind is contained in a must-read paper by an academic named Slavisa Tasic: “Are Regulators Rational?” Mr. Tasic concludes that they suffer from “illusions of competence” and are entirely blind to the power and subtlety of markets.