Insurgents attack Canada from abroad…
Well, actually, they’re Al Gore detractors from Chicago, sending information that should be taught in our schools instead of Al Gore rhetoric.
OTTAWA — An American think tank has sent out more than 11,000 brochures and DVDs to Canadian schools urging them to teach their students that scientists are exaggerating how human activity is the driving force behind global warming.
The Chicago-based group, the Heartland Institute, said its goal is to ensure that students are provided with a “balanced” education about “an important and controversial issue,” but critics, including a leading climate scientist, described it as a campaign of misinformation.
The mail out, sent in February, included results from international surveys of climate scientists conducted in 1996 and 2003 along with a 10-minute DVD called Unstoppable Solar Cycles, The Real Story of Greenland.
“It took me a while to figure out what they were up to,” said Eric Betteridge, who teaches at Hillcrest High School in Ottawa.
The Heartland Institute says that it purchased a database list of addresses of 11,250 schools from across the country, including about 10,000 private or faith-based schools, for a massive mail campaign aimed at Canadian children in all provinces.
“All the kids in our schools are being taught that climate change is a serious crisis and that we’ve got to reduce our CO2 and they’re being taught (that) quite falsely,” said Jay Lehr, the science director at the Heartland Institute who sent the package. “We would like to educate people and basically give them the other side of the issue, so we send out materials only in hope of a little balance.”
The Sierra Club of Canada said that the Heartland Institute’s information was far from being balanced.
Gee, you think?
“It’s alarming that an American think tank is distributing misinformation on the most important issue of our time in Canadian schools, to actually create an illusion that there is a scientific debate,” said Emilie Moorhouse, a spokeswoman for the environmental group.
There IS, you stupid cow!
The brochure and DVD said that scientists were “deeply divided” about “the notion that climate change is mostly the result of human activities.” It also suggested that the sun was the main factor behind recent warming recorded on the planet.
The sun heating up the EARTH?! BLASPHEMY!!! Most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard!
The package does not make reference to the conclusions reached by governments and scientists 1from around the world in their 2007 assessment of the latest 2peer-reviewed research on climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrote in its summary of a 3Nobel Peace Prize-winning report that global warming is unequivocal and that there is a 90-per-cent chance it is being caused by humans.
After reviewing the Heartland Institute package, Betteridge said he was left feeling both amused and distressed that someone would try to promote this material to children in the classroom.
“I think I would be concerned because it was well written, and if somebody hadn’t been aware of what the 4general consensus is among climatologists about global warming, you would begin to think, ‘Wow, somebody’s giving me the wrong story here.”
Actually, this constitutes all the key elements to receive my “Full Speed Award”.
So be it.
Dear Emilie Moorhouse and Eric Betteridge and all of you associated with the Sierra Club of Canada, you have been awarded the “Full Speed Ahead” award. Congratulations. You’ve earned it. Now either shut up or start telling the truth to our children.
1-There are also many morons around the world, that doesn’t inspire confidence as such.
2-Nazis reviewing a pro-nazi report would also constitute a peer-reviewed report, not exactly what I would call “evidence”.
3- Nobel Prize? Jimmy Carter has one of those. So do Yasser Arafat and Al Gore. What does that prove? Shit, Adolph Hitler had one too. If anything, having one of those ensures me of detecting a threat to society. Go down that list and tell me if they’re models of “acceptable behavior”? A report that is associated with Nobel’s prize in any way won’t convince me at all.
4- CONCENSUS IS NOT SCIENTIFIC PROOF. Once upon a time, there was a concensus that the earth was flat, and anyone who disagreed ended up in jail. That’s why we’ll keep debating you morons until we’re blue in the face, no matter how hard you want to shut us up. (add tirade of cursing here)!
May 5th, 2008 at 1:08
[...] Insurgents attack Canada from abroad…The Sierra Club of Canada said that the Heartland Institute’s information was far from being balanced. Gee, you think? Actually, this constitutes all the key elements to receive my “Full Speed Award”. So be it. … [...]
May 5th, 2008 at 2:17
There is no consensus on the climate science field about the causes of recent climate change - da Souza must know this.
Thanks very much!
Tom Harris
Executive Director
International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)
P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario
K2A 4E2
Canada
Http:///www.climatescienceinternational.org
613-728-9200
Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change
We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,
Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;
Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;
Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;
Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;
Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:
Hereby declare:
That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.
That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.
That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.
That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.
That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.
Now, therefore, we recommend –
That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth”.
That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.
Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008
May 5th, 2008 at 19:02
I engaged a nine year old in a discussion on AGW last week. The schools are brainwashing the kids into accepting it as a given I offered a contrary view and he thought I was preaching sedition! Tragic. I hope there are some schools with the open-minded attitude to embrace debate and not the new dogma.
May 5th, 2008 at 23:01
Geoff, I know how you feel.
Mr. Harris, welcome to my blog. You’re invited to spam the hell out of my posts any time you want.
Facts will set us free. Sophisms won’t work on me.
May 6th, 2008 at 19:35
I don’t know much about science but I’m not completely ignorant. I experience that the climate is changing. In Toronto, we had the coldest winter in 60 years. I complained everyday about too much snow, too much wind. It was hard to believe that the earth was getting warmer.
It’s also hard to believe that it would be my fault if it did. Or that I would be responsible for climatic changes. As compared to everything BIG that happens around my planet, the Earth population is too small to have the enormous impact attributed to it.
This planet has been tilting and orbiting around the sun, without my participation, for a long time. I have very little influence (if any?) on the solar reflectivity and on the heat retention. Landmass distribution and undersea activity have been going on for thousand of years.
Our technology, which is supposed to be so disastrous, has been going on for only 100 years at the most. And those prophets of doom tell me that I’m the guilty party for cold/warm/whatever we’re experiencing? NUTS! NUTS! NUTS again. Gore and his gang must think I’m stupid…
May 7th, 2008 at 7:09
You’re not stupid.
I don’t know much about science either, Claude. I’m not out in the field making measurements.
But we got as much snow as you did, we broke the record that dated back to 1971, 37 years ago. So this had been seen in the past, but rarely.
I noticed the absence of cold spells of -20 C for weeks on end. We did have a mild winter this year.
And if our forefathers were right, bees and wasps did settle very high off the ground, predicting lots of snow. The one hive I saw last fall was up on the second floor of a building which…turned out to be a good idea.
The first thing that hits me when I watch weather reports is this: Humid air masses coming from Florida which affect the weather up here. HUMID. Not CO2 filled air masses. Water is key. An air masse loaded with water holds the heat even when it hits cold air.
So you tell me. What’s the best greenhouse gas around: Water or CO2?
Maybe we should get rid of water, huh? All 80% of earth’s surface…
May 7th, 2008 at 12:32
You know, I think we confuse the entire issue too much. Western civilization has always had two fundamental beliefs and core values. One is, that man has dominion over all other things. Translation? “all other things don’t really matter, they’re just accessories.”
And two, a belief that everything on Earth, with minor exception, is independent of everything else. This belief inherently makes you incapable of seeing that every organism on the planet has a symbiotic relationship with one or more other organisms. Thus, we are all connected, everything matters, everything affects everything else.
The Native North Americans always considered themselves tenants and custodians of the Earth, or at least their part of it. It was their philosophy to take only what they needed, to respect where it came from, and to nurture and replenish the source. Somehow, they knew that was the right thing to do.
On the contrary, Western civilization sees themselves as owners, accountable to no one, and who enjoy among other distinctions, tacit permission to piss on and/or destroy anything they so desire if it will advance their position economically, politically, idealogically, etc. And of course the end, always justifies the means.
The fact is, the planet doesn’t really need us in order for it to function. If anything ever was an “accessory,” it was us.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:25
CFC’s, PCB’s, DEET, arsonic, lead… All products used in the past and we noticed the health risks.
We have unleaded fuel now.
Humans do have a conscience and some efforts are made.
You’re correct, Jim, I do see myself as “owner” rather then “tennant”. But I’ve also been taught since Grade School about not littering, about recycling and about pollution.
One of the key things that differenciates humans from other animals is that we modify our enviromnent to fit our needs. We can’t NOT. We have no fur to live in cold weather, we get pneumonia if we stay in the rain long enough. We have to stuggle to survive, and then we get creative and also complacent to some extent.
I wish we could look to native values and priorities, but I also like Western values and priorities. Asperine, peneseline and morphine weren’t created to help the planet, they were discovered by humans to save humans.
We look at industry and western values as bad, but frankly, natives didn’t come up with socialised healthcare. We did.
That’s not a bad thing.
May 8th, 2008 at 14:14
Every organism, to one degree or another, modifies its environment to fit its need. We’re just the only organism that seems to think the resources are bottomless and don’t require replenishing. I’m not suggesting we begin wearing fur and loincloths again, or start living in tepees. But you have to wonder why North Americans only comprise a tiny percent of the world’s population, yet they consume 98% of the pharmaceuticals. And it’s not just a matter of having access. It’s a matter of overuse. Penicillin has been so over-prescribed that for most things today, it’s not even effective anymore and other permutations have to be used. And we’re even running out of permutations that work too.
Native Americans didn’t have socialized medicine because they didn’t need it - access to whatever form of health care they had was available to anyone. Your only qualification for entry into their system was a pulse.
Look what we did to the buffalo herds. Look what we did to the cod fishery. Or what we’re doing to the populations of every species on this planet that is not us.
And we’re about to face a water crisis that many experts believe is going to make global warming look like a cakewalk. Read Maude Barlow’s latest book, Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming Battle for the Right to Water. Trust me, it’ll blow you away. It’s another case of us being incapable at looking at the long-term ramifications of our actions.
May 8th, 2008 at 19:42
Life expectancy today in Canada, unless I’m mistaken, is 78 y/o for women and tad lower for men.
With all the junk food and anti-biotic addictions we have, that’s still pretty good.
What was the life expectancy for natives before Columbus? You tell me.
May 8th, 2008 at 21:16
This discussion is a bit unreal. The fact is that Columbus came. The lifestyle of the native people was forever changed. What was good then is no longer possible. Go and ask the autochtones if they want to live like their ancestors?I was in charge of Rupert’s House Nursing Station (James Bay) in 1955. I can assure you that the Crees were very happy that I could save their babies with penicillin. Many had been dying for years with pneumonia. The beavers were becoming extinct. The only way to survive financially was welfare or EDUCATION. You think that the educated Indian will still live in a tent to save the environment? I’m just giving you a couple of facts. I could give you a dozen.
Let me speak about the Inuits. In 1962, I worked in Pangnirtung, Baffin Island. The only person with a dogteam in the village was the RCMP. FOR LOCAL COLOUR. All the Inuits had skidoos. They were experts in mecanics. Much better than the white men. Do you think that they wanted to train dogs and feed them? None of them lived in igloos either. They were still in tents until 1965. Then they got houses like us. Ask them if they want to give up their electrical appliances to save the environment?
To bring the lifestyle of the long-ago native people as a possible alternative doesn’t make sense. Of course they used just what they needed. Where could they put the extras? Sometimes they did not even have what was needed. Other times, other ways of life…
May 9th, 2008 at 21:57
Sorry Claude. One of you heartfelt comments was deleted.
This is our house, but I’m the only one who makes the calls.
Jim doesn’t manage this place: I do.