Welcome to Kate's readers!

More from the Friends of Science

Update on scientists who disagree with Kyoto-video via LGF

Since there is heavy demand for this, you may have to bookmark and come back to it later. According to the Canada Free Press, Canadian media weren't interested in broadcasting it for some strange reason.


Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What you're not being told about the science of climate change

At a news conference held in Ottawa, some of North America’s foremost climate experts provided evidence demonstrating that the science underlying the Kyoto Protocol is seriously flawed; a problem that continues to be ignored by the Canadian government. Scientists called on the Canadian government to delay implementation of the Kyoto Protocol until a thorough, public review of the current state of climate science has been conducted by climate experts. Such an analysis has never been organized in Canada despite repeated requests from independent, non-governmental climate scientists.

Carleton University Professor Tim Patterson (Paleoclimatologist) explains the crucial importance of properly evaluating the merit of Canada's climate change plans: “It is no exaggeration to say that in the eight years since the Kyoto Protocol was introduced there has been a revolution in climate science. If, back in the mid-nineties, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would not exist because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”

Contrary to claims that the science of climate change has been settled, the causes of the past century’s modest warming is highly contested in the climate science community. The climate experts presenting in the video demonstrate that science is quickly diverging away from the hypothesis that the human release of greenhouse gases, specifically carbon dioxide, is having a significant impact on global climate. “There is absolutely no convincing scientific evidence that human-produced greenhouse gases are driving global climate change”, stated climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball. He added that the Canadian government’s plan to designate carbon dioxide as a “toxic” under CEPA is irresponsible and without scientific merit. “Carbon dioxide is a staff of life, plain and simple. It makes up less than 4% of greenhouse gases and it is not a toxic.”

IPCC assertions about the unprecedented nature of the past century's warming, or the widespread beliefs that we are experiencing an increase in extreme weather, accelerated sea level rise and unusual warming in polar regions are also shown in the video to be wholly without merit.

The idea for the video was initiated by the Friends of Science Society, a registered not-for-profit group of geologists, environmental scientists and concerned citizens, “in an effort to make the science of climate change available and understandable to the general public”, stated Dr. Doug Leahey, President of Friends of Science Society. Commenting on his decision to get involved with the video project, University of Calgary’s Professor Barry Cooper stated, “Universities are in the education business. In a democracy like Canada, education and informed discussion of public policy are tightly linked. The public, media and government would benefit by hearing from all sides on this important issue in order to make as informed a decision as is possible.”



For further information:

Professor Barry Cooper, University of Calgary, 403-874-8314, bcooper@ucalgary.ca

Dr. Doug Leahey, Friends of Science Society, 403-620-4793, dmleahey@shaw.ca

Sheila Roy, Media Relations, 613-863-0127, sheilaroy@rogers.com

To book one-on-one interviews with climate science experts please contact Sheila Roy.

WELCOME INSTAPUNDIT READERS!

Grab a coffee and look around

Thanks GLENN!!!

Guess a lot of people in the Canadian government must be sleeping with these

Damage control 101- and when all else fails, bury the problem with money.

Question period May 6/05 - hansard

Excerpts.........

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday there was more sworn evidence that the Liberals bought elections with illegal cash. Money was skimmed from the pockets of honest, hard-working Canadians and used to corrupt our once proud democracy.

Vote buying is now ingrained in the Liberal culture, as we see the government's daily backroom deals costing billions. Is it not true that the elastic Liberal budget is just another dishonest ploy to cling to power?

Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the budget of the Government of Canada is in very strong shape. I am very pleased to tell the House that since we balanced the books for the first time in 1997, after 27 years of deficit financing, we have in fact risen to the very top of the G-7 in terms of growth rates in standard of living, job creation and employment, and debt reduction.

We are the only country in all of the G-7 that in fact has a balanced budget, has had one for the last seven years and will have one for the next five in the fiscal framework. This is not an elastic budget. It is a very strong budget.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, these are people who cannot be believed because of evidence from other Liberals.

Now the Liberals know that they no longer have a legitimate budget. It has disintegrated into a sting operation, putting some showy lures in the shop window to hide the dangerous dishonesty within.

Is it not true--

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker: We will move on to the next question.

The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, after the testimony given by Michel Béliveau, the former president of the Quebec wing of the Liberal Party of Canada, we learn that the meter is still ticking and that the amount of dirty, illegal Liberal money used for election purposes has now reached over $2 million.

Given the mounting revelations, what is the government waiting for to create this trust fund, which the House voted overwhelmingly in favour of on April 19?

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the party has been clear: if it has received inappropriate funds, it will reimburse taxpayers. However, this cannot be done until all the facts are known. Therefore, we must wait for Justice Gomery's report.

Ms. Monique Guay (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with that kind of attitude, the Liberals will lose their confidence vote on May 18.

Michel Béliveau has said that he obtained, at the very least, $300,000 in dirty money from Jacques Corriveau and another $121,000 from Alain Renaud. This money was used for partisan purposes in complete violation of the Canada Elections Act. And the meter is still ticking.

Does the government intend to respect the will of the House and immediately create a trust fund for the dirty sponsorship funds?

[English]

Hon. Anne McLellan (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been absolutely clear that if any money has flowed to the Liberal Party inappropriately, that money will be paid back in full.

In addition to that, we have been absolutely clear that if anyone is found to have done anything wrong in this situation, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and take full responsibility for their wrongdoing. Let me be absolutely clear about where we stand on that issue.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Michel Béliveau added that Jacques Corriveau was not the only source of secret funding from the Liberal Party of Canada. In 1997, Alain Renaud also transferred $50,000 through Groupaction to the Liberal Party. As we can see, the meter is still ticking.

Does the government not think that it should pay particular attention to these admissions from its own ranks and that it is time to put all this dirty, illegal Liberal money into a trust fund?

Á (1125)

[English]

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there have also been allegations that the Parti Québécois received this kind of inappropriate funding. The fact is that at the Gomery inquiry there have been allegations against the Conservative Party, there have been allegations against the Parti Québécois and the separatist parties, and yes, there have been allegations against the Liberal Party.

But it is only this Liberal Prime Minister who is getting to the bottom of this issue, because the separatists and the Conservatives are denying any responsibility for this kind of thing within their own parties. We are getting to the bottom of this issue because we are standing with Canadians, who want the truth.

[Translation]

Ms. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with such an attitude, it is clear the Liberals will lose the confidence vote on May 18.

That is not all. We learn from Michel Béliveau's testimony that another $63,500 was received in 1998 from Alain Renaud's private company, in addition to $8,000 received in cash.

Does the government not think it is high time to deposit all this dirty money into a trust fund?

[English]

Hon. Scott Brison (Minister of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again, the Prime Minister has been clear, the government has been clear and the party has been clear that any funds received inappropriately will be returned to the Canadian taxpayers.

Let us remember that there is only one leader in this House who is standing up for justice, who is willing to put country before party, who is willing to put principle before partisan strategy and do the right thing and get to the truth, and that is our Prime Minister, who stands by Justice Gomery and with Canadians.....

Justice

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as revealed in a recent W-Five program, there are 15,000 Canadians serving conditional sentences. When W-Five asked to speak about house arrest with the justice minister, it was told it was a matter that was under study. What is new? And that he was too busy with other issues like same sex marriage and the decriminalization of marijuana.

Since these serious crimes, like killing and raping, do not warrant jail time, has jail time simply become unfashionable for the Liberal government?

Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly, since conditional sentences were introduced in 1996, they have become a very important part of our sentencing regime. There are examples that get media attention that maybe do not get fully reported and in fact give conditional sentences a bad name. However, they are a vital part of our sentencing. We are looking at those areas which have caused concern to see if there should be improvements made.

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the victims in this country have already given it a bad name. Since so many Liberals might be going to jail in the near future, is house arrest in order for them? Or will they actually go to jail for stealing Canadian money?

 (1200)

Hon. Paul Harold Macklin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to conditional sentences, I just mentioned that they are a vital part of our sentencing regime. At the recent federal, provincial and territorial first ministers meeting with justice ministers, this matter was discussed. They have set up a special committee and will be reporting back to this House in June.

* * *

The media need to be more forthcoming about the poll stats they use

Who did the poll, when , any conflict of interest, any past or present federal government contracts,methodology? Just giving a headline can be misleading. MK Braaten weighs in.......


Friday, May 06, 2005
Many of todays papers are saying that the Liberals are bouncing back from a their low points in public perception based on this SES research poll that was released yesterday. In my opinion, this is a seriously misleading question. And using elementary econometrics theorem I will attempt to explain why its misleading.

Firstly, the question is an indirect, stated preference type of question and it could produce a wide array of opinions. Stated preference data can be flawed because it produces a moral hazard to the person responding to the question.

For example, if I asked you:

"How much would you be willing to pay to save kids in war torn countries?"
a) 100
b)50
c)0

Most likely you, as a moral person, would choose the highest amount you could possibly think of and choose 100$.

However if the question asked:

"How much would you pay right now to save the kids in war torn countries?"
a) 100
b)50
c)0

What would you choose? Well, this decision is more complicated, in that you actually have to pay right now. Therefore, in this decision there will several factors that will influence your decision such as if you just got paid, is your rent due, etc; these moral hazards directly affect your decision, wheras in the previous question, they dont, because its more hypothetical then practical. As a result, your true preference is revealed, because the factors affecting your decision are calculated into your response. However your stated preference is in your answer to the first question.

Stated preference responses are based mainly on what you would like to do, or what currently is going on in a particular instance (ie what current political party is in power).

So, getting back to the SES question. This is what they asked the respondents:

For those parties you would consider voting for federally could you please rank your top two current local preferences?

Like in the aforementioned example, the natural response to the question of helping war torn children was $100 because it is the most obvious choice; its a stated preference. However, in this SES question, on average, what do you figure the 'natural' and obvious choice would be? Most likely to the average person it would be the governing party. People's true natural preference, wouldn’t be the Conservatives because they aren’t in power. They are the opposition, the un-natural variable in this question. Therefore, in a stated preference question, they are the losers, because in current reality, they are not the governing party.

The question doesn’t directly tell the person reading/answering the question to rank them one and two, just for them to rank their top two parties. This is where their natural preference causes them to likely choose the Liberal party as #1 and the Tories as #2, this is also their realistic ranking in the current power structure in Ottawa so again, it’s a natural choice to choose the Liberals and Tories as 1 and 2, respectively.

A better question would be: As of today, which political party would you vote for?

However, this SES poll is an another example of misleading statistics. What is even more stupid, is that all the newspapers picked this poll up and are now using it to prop of the Liberal party of Canada.

M.K. Braaten

Read more!

Adscam- are we to believe a couple of flunkies in the basement laundromat at PWGS were the only ones involved?

Canadian taxpayers' money was laundered to keep the Liberals in power in perpetuity.That's the story. The rest is window dressing.Canadians only need to keep these in mind

Dictionary.com

laun·der Audio pronunciation of "laundering" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lôndr, län-)
v. laun·dered, laun·der·ing, laun·ders
v. tr.

1.
1. To wash (clothes, for example).
2. To wash, fold, and iron: shirts that were neatly laundered by the hotel staff.
2. To disguise the source or nature of (illegal funds, for example) by channeling through an intermediate agent.
3. To make more acceptable or presentable, sanitize: “The transcripts are, of course, laundered... unidentified larger chunks of conversation are reported missing throughout” (Eliot Fremont-Smith).

http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=1586&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C


preponderance of the evidence

n. the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Thus, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnesses with hazy testimony, or a signed agreement with definite terms may outweigh opinions or speculation about what the parties intended. Preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case and is contrasted with "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial. No matter what the definition stated in various legal opinions, the meaning is somewhat subjective.

From the Edmonton Journal.........

But what makes Beliveau's testimony particularly significant is that he is the first Liberal party official to confirm under oath that scads of cash were given to the party, apparently from bogus Adscam contracts. He is the first Liberal to admit the party benefited from sponsorship funds, and very likely broke federal election spending laws.

Knowingly.

Beliveau not only corroborated the testimony of Jean Brault -- an ad exec, not a party insider -- who last month first directly implicated the Liberals, Beliveau also put the lie to the insistence by Martin, Brison and other Liberals that management of the program was limited to a handful of nefarious bureaucrats and that if Liberals were involved, they were acting without the party's consent or awareness.

HAPPY MOTHER's DAY!

The American Poets Society.......



Mother's Day You Are…

© By Samantha L. Winkler

You are the sweet angel that watches over me,
You are the sunshine that glitters over the sea.
You are the colors that shine after the rain,
You are the band-aid to heal all of my pain.
You are the winter's snow that makes nature look bright,
You are the moon's rays and a cool, crisp night.
You are the candle that shows in to the darkness,
You are the reason for my care and helpfulness.
You are the lovely scent of a flower perfume,
You are the brisk wind that fills a room.
You are the marvelous voice that I love to hear sing,
You are nothing short of my everything.
This person I speak of is no other,
Than my cherished, understanding, passionate mother!

Surely not suppression of News in Canada

The numbers of scientists staggered me--17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two thirds with advanced degrees, are against the Kyoto Agreement. The Heidelberg Appeal--which states that there is no scientific evidence for man-made global warming, has been signed by over 4,000 scientists from around the world since the petition’s inception. I strongly questioned these high numbers, since I’ve had benefit of the Canadian government’s public relations machine on this issue. Dr. Leahey has since sent documentation to back his figures up.

All those scientists were in total agreement: the Kyoto Protocol was complete fiction.

....................................................................................

Canadians will soon be deciding who was telling the truth at the Gomery Commission

Justice John Gomery's two reports next fall will bring perspective to the massive amount of information gathered by the commission, and make recommendations on how to fix the obviously broken and corrupt system that spawned Adscam in the first place.

But if it is blame Canadians are after, they will have to tune into the final weeks of Gomery and make their own judgments.

The commission's mandate is specifically not to assign fault with any individual, nor can it deal with anyone or anything connected to various AdScam fraud trials.

Bottom line: By the time Canadian voters will have to pass judgment on Adscam and the Liberals, what they've heard will be what they'll need.