Dhimmi Senators can't accept truths about Islamism in Canada

... especially, it seems, when those truths come from truly moderate Muslims.

First it was Tarek Fatah'a testimony,

now it's Salim Mansur's:

“I know many wonderful and amazing remarkable Muslim people, Canadians and otherwise,” said Liberal committee member Sen. Grant Mitchell. “When you say that mosques are the incubators of Islamism, surely you’re not saying that they all are?”

Mansur didn’t back down. ...

[via]

Tarek Fatah hammers smug Liberal Senator

Liberal Senator Grant Mitchell, a smug, arrogant, self-righteous, finger-waving tool ("pr*ck" for short), met more than his match at a recent Senate hearing, when he tried to lecture Tarek Fatah on Islam:


[via]

It's good to see that this video is receiving such wide attention.

Here's Tarek with Michael Coren. And here's Tarek's Sun column on 'de-radicalization' of Islamic radicals.

Mitchell has a reputation for smug, self-righteous arrogance.  Here are two posts from three years ago when the topic was climate change.

Liberal Senator calls skeptical scientists conspiracy flakes

See the previous post re the Senate Energy and Environment committee hearings (video at the 1hr 50min mark) for the remarks of committee Deputy Chair, Senator Grant Mitchell (Liberal, Alberta). Note that earlier he had declined to ask the first question (as is his normal routine) stating he preferred to go last. From his remarks it's easy to see why.  The man is a complete asshole!

Senator Mitchell (a political 'scientist' and smirking full time), said that while he didn't doubt the sincerity of the four contrarian scientists, there was an "overwhelming concensus" [there we go again!] of equally sincere scientists who subscribe wholeheartedly to AGW as a serious problem requiring action. He referred to the IPCC as "the strawman that's been raised here") [Uh oh!] adding that many scientists who hold the opposing view are not IPCC scientists but "independent scientists all over the world". To believe these (skeptical) arguments is "to believe some kind of strange conspiracy theory" and to believe that "the Harper government is clamping down on scientists to enforce elite climate science concensus" ... "it's the last government that would enforce concensus". Before ending Mitchell claims that "there is devastating science that confronts and overwhelms what you are saying" and it's "the same as saying that vaccines are dangerous ... that cell phones cause cancer or that evolution is not true.... If humans aren't causing this we have to be very, very afraid ... then we can't fix it." 
[Wow! Just wow! Them's fighting words! Mitchell is a closed minded twit and an asshat!! Is he alone on the committee in this line of thinking? Perhaps not but he's the only one to show his true colours here.  And note that he gave a speech with no intention of asking questions and getting a response he clearly isn't interested in hearing.  He pretty much ran out the clock.]  Prof Veizer asked whether he could speak off the record to address Mitchell's remarks.  I think given the chance Veizer would have clocked the pr*ck (verbally of course).  

Now we're getting to the nub of the problem. That there is "scientific concensus" is widely accepted dogma.  Senator Mitchell certainly has no doubts.

Climate realists testify before the Canadian Senate

Excellent presentations by very credible people - Ross McKitrick, Ian Clark, Jan Veizer and Tim Patterson. There was a goofy event during Ian Clark's (U of Ottawa) briefing on CO2 and the paleoclimate record in which he used several graphs which unfortunately were not being displayed.  The chair, Senator Angus interrupted Prof Clark (at about the 27 min mark) to explain that the graphs were not being broadcast to TV and web audiences because they were not bilingual.  Idiotic but, hey, this is Canada.  Happily, this lead to a good discussion by Clark of greenhouse gases and the dishonesty exposed by the Climategate emails.

Professor Patterson hit one of my favourite contentions - that global cooling is a much greater threat than warming, especially to Canada.  If we were properly looking out for our own interests we'd be promoting anything that might lead to warming not trying to suppress it.

Senator Paul Massicotte (Liberal) brought up the "concensus" issue.  He asked why should he, a non-technical political decision maker, believe the skeptics when the vast majority of scientists including government scientists believe in AGW?  Tim Patterson attempted an answer but Massicotte wasn't impressed.

Senator Banks (Liberal) believes that we should be following the precautionary principle.  Gaaakk! He laid out four extreme but uncertain scenarios and asked: Where should we place our bet? McKitrick responded that Banks had set up an impossibly difficult decision-making problem and suggested that rather than betting on one of a set of bad options a carbon tax based on global temperature could be set up (McKitrick's T3 Tax).

Senator Richard Neufeld (Conservative) said he agreed with Massicotte.  They hear from scientists on one side that it that it's so simple, AGW is happening [probably that's all that they've heard until this session] and from the other side not so or not necessarily so. He said he's not sold either way and asked how many scientists would be "on the same wave length" as the four presenters.  "Are there a lot of them? Are they just quiet? Why are they quiet? Because the other side is very loud."  [Good point! Thank you Senator!] The chair, Sen Angus, then spoke up to confirm that the committee had heard much, much more from AGW true-believers (not his words) than from skeptics.  Good answer from Prof. Veiser starting with a bandwagon analogy and his experience with bandwagon thinking in communist Czekoslovakia.  He moved on to the corruption in the UN IPCC process, including suppression of contrary views and intimidation tactics.

Senator Robert Peterson (Liberal) brought up the tipping point ("break point" or catastrophic AGW) scare. Clark said these "break points" are based on speculation about the predictability of how climate will behave. Climate is too complex to reliably predict. He referred to such talk as "alarmist" and "wild speculation" (giving as an example the prediction by the scientific advisor to the British government that "in 100 years the only habitable place on the planet will be Antartica").

More to follow (next post) re idiot Senator Grant Mitchell's disgraceful, insulting remarks (see video at 1hr 50 min mark).