Tuesday, July 27, 2021

Sunday, July 25, 2021

Become a Patron!

 To document a beautiful site

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CQbgQQCLN4r/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Tuesday, July 13, 2021

Become a Patron!

The year was 1989.  I was a subscriber of Scientific America.  I recalled an article by Britta, on tree ring temperature data.   It was interesting.  I read the information of his article with scientific interest and detatchment.  

2 months later, Michael Man's paper was published.  I had questions regarding the use of 2 data sets with the climate rise data that was thermometer based--supposedly, super-imposed at the end of tree-ring data.  Futhermore there were many details going on that didn't feel right.  There was an appeal to political forces for validation and an explicit reference to funding sources that would open up due to global alarm.  It wasn't science if it was made with a motive to open "funding" sources.  In other words, it was an explicit reference that scientific reference was to be bought out!

I wrote several letters to the editor and ended my subscription.  I didn't realize how everything was to sort out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=https://youtu.be/K_8xd0LCeRQ

Subsequently, my personal reputation (I know I didn't have standing) has been trashed and even this opinion on "The Third Way" is doubtful.  However, I wanted to record it here for posterity.


  

Saturday, July 3, 2021

Become a Patron!


A Third Way of thinking about the discoveries of mass graves of children on old residential school sites.


Clearly, the death of a child is always a tragedy.  Who would fault that?  The death of children always brings up the gall in any human being with a shred of humanity.  To get some clarity and perspective it may be good to employ the perspective of Archaeology.    Excaviting or examining historical remains is in the purview of this science.  It is done routinely.  If we were examining remains of the Picts in the UK, or the Franks in France, or the Romans in Rome, or Greeks and Persians in those battles, or the village of Pompei where children were entombed in ash, we would be doing so with this science of Archaeology.

One of the most important things in Archaeology is understanding the time of deposition of remains, and then understanding the context.  What happened at this time?  And when there is a number of remains, why were they together?  And what would be normal within this context.  And how did they die?  So the studies of the various cultures along with context helps to bring into focus the phenomenon being studied.

Over the 150 years residential schools existed, it would be extraordinary *not* to find buried remains would it not?  What was the child mortality rate 150 years ago?  Did the child mortality rate differ in residential schools vs those of setters?  Vs villages racked with small pox?  Was a child more likely to live or die being cared for by nuns or medicine men?  Those would be interesting studies.  Perhaps we would find it was worse with children living together.  What history and archaeology does teach us is that disease from the Europeans devastated populations of first nations people.  In the time of John A, there was no vaccine for small pox, polio, measles, tuberculosis, no cures for water-born disease that still plague first nations reserves.  What was survivability like on reserves in the 1700s?  Part of the difficulty is finding places where children were buried around villages, if they were buried.  Some tribes used cremation.  Others "buried" elders on raised beds.  But children, children burial rituals are far more difficult to discover.

Residential shools, did employ burials rather than cremation for religious reasons, and the burials were common for practical reasons.  Common burials were normal at the time for poor people.  Only people of stature or people with money were afforded headstones.  Is that what is bothering us?  Did that fact escape us?  A thousand years from now, the question might be asked of white society, why are there no records of the millions of people who lived in our day.  Since now cremation is very common, there are far fewer headstones percapita than 2 or 3 generations ago.  

People live, people die.  Important information lie with their bones.  It is good these discoveries have been made.  Most certainly a nun's letter of condolence to illiterate families in villages would not likely survive.  It is good that now attention can be given to these poor children who died, so that funerals and memorials can be made.  But to point the finger of hatred at people who's intentions were benign at least, if not well meaning, to assume there was evil intent in some way, without evidence is a big mistake.  The Wokeness of society to hate without thoughtfulness is the bigger tragedy.  It besmudges the lives of the innocent who did not hate, and of those who tried to save them.

In the final analysis will anything be redemptive here?  Will the burning of churches do it?  Will hatred be the vestiges of this story?  Or will sanity have a hope?

Wednesday, June 30, 2021

The Lord is My Shepherd and Michelangelo's David



Are you aware of the famous sculpture of David?
Have a look...  David looms large in the history of the west.  He was a shepherd boy who became King of Israel.  He was a musician.  He was anointed to be king while the evil King Saul was ruling.  Annointed, means at an old prophet of God came to him, took out a horn of oil, and poured it over him, and declared him to be chosen by God.  This is a mystical part of the bible that points to a deep and hidden tradition.  The oil was a symbol of God's Spirit.  It is an intensely spiritual image.  (in the English Language, a word that refers to God is always capitalized.)  The external image of olive oil, pouring down on someone's head.  Many people in the middle east who are guests, have a little bit of oil poured on their heads.  It is a sign of blessing that goes back to this event.  When people were anointed by God.  Things moved, they were changed.  Seers and prophets and kings were anointed.  They changed the world.  Today they still change it...
Sometimes when I tell a story, I think it says one thing, but once it is let loose in the world.  To others it may say something else and accomplish something yet unseen. Lol.
I started this story to compare penis sizes Lol...  Michaelangelo was not generous to poor David lol.
Yet even in his lack of generosity, this statue and its beauty has changed the world.  It is quite a striking thing given that we are talking about the one thing that all men worry about the most.  Will it be big enough for her?  Pretending that Michaelangelo was right, a man with a small penis was critical to the rise of 2 world religions that stil rock this world.  David wrote a profound poem, that begins with: The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want. (be hungry, starve, or be in great need) (Psalm 23).  It has comforted many people in very hard situations.  If David hadn't been anointed, he would not have penned those words.  
Become a Patron!
To Erin O'Toole.

Erin, 

I have been conservative since a boy putting up signs for Robert Stanfield.
But I am not a happy one.
I am not a happy Canadian.
I have no money.  I am trying to survive a disability pension of 970.00 a month.  You can't rent a place for that in BC.  So I despair of being able to put any funds up for this election.  
I have ideas that are worth more than money.  I didn't bother with the conference call, because the last one was a carefully scripted joke.
In my opinion we need to nail Justin for the joke he was around our COVID vaccine.
2 months late.  2 months of going around hat in hand--very humiliating for the country.  How many people died of covid the past 2 months?  Those are on him.  He, and his ineptitude killed Canadians by the hand of Covid 19.  He should hang for that.  Make him hang.
Wheeling Covid patients into old folks homes, is unforgivable.  How many old folks died because of this?  Get a number.
Trillions of dollars is too abstract a number.  Canadians will think it takes what it takes to survive a pandemic.  The media will compare the Canadian deficit to the US printing mill and think we got off lucky.
To conservatives, despite the local heat wave, an anecdotal weather event, many many of us believe Global Warming is a Farce.
Temperatures have been declining for the past 6 years.  I remind you Al Gore said the arctic would be clear of ice in 2012.  And predictions have been every year since.  But you don't want to fight an election on that.  But if you capitulate to the Global Warming doctrine, you will be a sell out to your base and we will not vote for you.  Please take the time to talk to a few Canadian skeptics that are becoming rather famous.  Talk TO them, face to face.  Dr. John Robson, a Canadian scientist, https://climatediscussioinnexus.com, who is very moderate, steers a middle ground that is not a denialist but points out some valid points.  Meet with him.  One on one.  Face to Face.  If you want to steer a middle course, you need to talk to him.  Meanwhile, point out Justin's hypocrisy in his "wokness" promising the moon on Canada's commitment when we have never met on climate change goal since Japan.  
Plenty of TV ads featuring Justin dancing in India and a quote of India's PM about the whole thing.  Never let us forget it.
He has made us the laughing stock of the world.

Well, I doubt you will ever read these suggestions, but at least I put it out there.

Monday, June 28, 2021

 What the World Needs Now is Real Wealth

Not another Bill Gates or Jackie Ma, or Elon Musk or other titan on global financial fields, but a wealth that begins in the minds and spirits of all of us  Would it be good to have enough to eat and enough to wear and a home to own without worrying about tomorrow?  There has been a lot said about cryptocurrencies in 2021.  The reader will have the advantage of hindsight, but his is what I see.

There will be a squeeze on cryptocurrencies.  There is so much at stake with the invested power centers of national banks to tolerate them much longer.  However, if they survive and thrive I think they possess some amazing opportunities for creating wealth, particularly in the third world and among the poor.  The wealthy have realized the wealth potentials and have quickly run in to pluck the low-hanging fruit, but over the long run if a poor man can learn how, this offers an amazingly efficient way to create wealth that could break the back of poverty.

If I could have my way in government, I would institute a 4 day a month training for everyone who collects social welfare benefits.  It would start on a voluntary basis, and maybe move into a requirement.  In this place, I would set up a way of inculcating a wealth mentality in the minds of the poor.  Everyone would learn to balance a cheque book, to start a business, create income streams, and learn to be satisfied by the income they earn.  People with this training could earn income on top of their welfare checks tax free to 150,000.00.  With no cutbacks until income exceeds 100k, and then reduced by degree to 150k.  Similar training could be offered to the working poor, who earn under 75k per annum.

Some worry, wouldn't this create inflation by putting too much disposable income in the hands of the poor?  Not if the program is able to establish investment guidelines where money is set aside in relatively untouchable accounts like RRSPs,  TFSAs. REITS and other investment vehicles as opposed to being funneled into consumption exclusively.

Currently with Government spending in trillions of dollars, runaway inflation is coming like a freight train at full speed.  When its far away you can see it coming, as it approaches you can hear the horn blasting, but when it passing you and the ground is rumbling and terror of the noise is discomfiting--then you know it is upon ou without doubt.  



Friday, June 25, 2021

Unlimited Societies

 A story is told, and many of us have heard it before:

A little boy with great glee runs across a field collecting grasshoppers.

He bends down to cup on in his hands and it leaps and flies away.  He chases it but as he does there in front of him two more fly away in opposite directions.  After seemingly hours of fun and frivolity, he has several.  He has put them in a box and collected grasses and dandelions for them to eat.  He learns quickly has to be very careful as he lifts the flaps of his box to make sure they have everything they need before going to bed.  The next day, after lunch he remembers his treasures and the fun he had, so he decides to release them, maybe to play tag again.  Only he finds they don't fly out as soon as he lifts the lid, he has to dump them on the ground.  And those grasshoppers don't fly away and leap dozens of feet with a single bound, but rather they crawl around and he has to coax them to jump at all.

So it is with human societies.  Made to leap and climb and joy over every gift, we have found ourselves living in a box.  Most of us are as unaware of our confines as an insect, but we learn early there are limits we are born to.  We learn them inately.  We learn them without thinking.  The grasshoppers learned that they could not jump and fly--it only took a few attempts.  And so, although they were free they continued to live in a box.

This can be seen everywhere in the world.  So often it is obvious when we look abroad and see other's prejudice and hatred.  We see other's hypocrisy.  Others oppressions--others ineptitude and malaise, but we are oblivious to our own. 

I believe in the human spirit is a desire to live limitless lives.  Where does it come from?  God, the unlimited Spirit?  Do we have the minds of our Maker, as GK Chesterton suggested?  Do we have Eternity in our hearts?  Maybe, but are we open even to the possibility?

Wednesday, June 23, 2021

 The Mystery of Virtual Economies and Online Social Networks.


In the disclaimer on a social network, it is stated, that credits purchased have no monetary value.  So what that is saying is that a customer gives money and gets nothing in return.  And with nothing purchases a right to read and write a letter, view a picture or a video.  Which have no value.  It costs the company nothing more to give a customer 100 credits or 1000.  What it buys is customer satisfaction.  A satisfied customer give the enterprise money for nothing.  An unhappy customer does not.  Make customers happy, make money for nothing.

 1/2 of Bitcoin Miners move to Kazakhstan from China    


So Bitcoin faces a real test.  A major economy moves against in on several levels.  China has announced it is going to produce its own digital currency.  Fine, that makes sense.  Sovereign fiats face a real threat.  A totalitarian society can't risk losing control so it offers a competing product then outlaws the competition.  The world is reminded that China is not really a capitalist system, lo and behold are we surprised it moves to further establish its close-fisted approach to the markets.  Surely not.  

It will be interesting.  No doubt China will be dumping any crypto reserves or will have done so already.  So there is downward pressure on the Currency... JPM and others announce Bitcoin in a portfolio is rat poison.  No doubt they have been playing the squeeze taking short positions as well.  In a depressed market the smart money is going short--surprise surprise.  What is their real risk?  That they can't dump their shorts and go long when the next buying opportunity  presents?  No, they will be the first out.  The first to flip thier positons  Then instead of crying "Rat Poison", they will just pat themselves on the back for their brilliant marketing strategy.

But now all these BitCoin Miners will be in Kazakhstan.  Hardly tthe bastion of the freemarket, no doubt Kaz has made some deal to provide power at very competitive rates.  Congratulations.  I do sympathize with the citizens of Kaz.  No doubt they will be subsidizing the crypto industry--already in a squeeze.  Without having a significant portion of its citizenry prepared to take advantage of sophisticated opportunity to profit from the upheaval.  

Would that there were.  Would that there were many educated investors in the 3rd world, because cryptocurrency offers real hope to peasant and king alike.



 Personal information posted for a limited time for my foreign friends.     


My Name is Owen Abrey

820 31st Ave. S. 

Cranbrook, BC

Canada

V1C 5J9

(250) 464-5673 

WeChat Id: wxid_cwc8kvqq495d12

Facebook;  Owenn Abrey

Telegram:
OwenAbrey

2504645673 

@Owentheo

 

 

Monday, June 21, 2021

The comment was made in refuting my assertions:


"You have it here reliable source from NASA climate about sea level rise, it is not 1mm but 3.3 mm. 1mm was before 1900 year. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ Also you have huge fossil fuel lobby interest and funding for faking climate science and to saw distrust and denial into climate science and climate scientists. Just put it on paper how much you pay every month for heating in winter, transportation and electricity, almost all comes from burning coal, oil and gas, 85% of it."


 It is a common accusation the fuel lobby is behind the rise of skepticism of "Climate science." It is tempting to believe that. However, quite frankly there is no evidence of this. The fuel lobby won't touch this with a 10 foot pole. There is no money trail, there is no convictions, in fact there is no accusation because it isn't happening. Examine the lives of the skeptics. They aren't multimillionaires like Al Gore or Michael Mann. They typically are poor threadbare scientists who are calling for a return to the data, and a return to skepticism. The money is entirely on the side of the AGW. For you to suggest the money is anywhere else discloses just how deluded you really are by this movement. If power and money corrupts absolutely, follow the money. There you will find the corruption. There is no money on the side of the skeptics. To be a skeptic means repudiation. To be a skeptic means you will never get a whiff of any grant money. No, compare the sides of this debate. If you want a lucrative career, become a climate scientist. No other field of science is more lucrative. Repeat the words "Climate Change" and become instantly credible. There is virtually no critical analysis of this. Al Gore uses those magic words and proclaims the polar ice caps will melt by 2012 and he is forgiven, no he is heralded as a popular hero. Others use those magic words, and the supposedly the all the glaciers have vanished. Others use those magic words and half of Florida is gone by now. Others use those magic words and the snowfall on the northern hemisphere has vanished for the winter. It might as well be Abracadabra in the days of Shakespear, Copernicus, Galileo, Michelangelo, Pascal, and Newton. All the money, all the power, and all the corruption was on the side of the status quo, not on the side of the true scientists that have changed the world by their integrity and skepticism and truth.


Also, to be precise, and in full disclosure, 100% of my electricity comes from a hydro dam about 20 minutes of my house. I heat my house with natural gas: Supposedly one of the least carbon intensive footprints. However, to engage in this presupposes that climate data for the past 10 years hasn't radically departed from the exponential increases of CO2 in the atmosphere. In 10 years, when the world is in the grips of a mini-ice age, and this foolishness is fully exposed. They will ask, where were you when they said CO2 caused global warming? My answer will be that I was saying show me the unadulterated data!

Saturday, June 19, 2021

I am a critic of Anthropogenic warming. Here are some comments I have recently made on Youtube.

 

 

 

A Skeptical Look at Climate Science  On YouTube.

 First of all thank you for saying somethings heretofore unsaid. I feel your argument was weak for the following reasons: First of all, you criticize empiricim because it lacked imagination. That is certainly falsifiable. Are we to say the work of Isaac Newton for example, lacked imagination? That is simply ridiculous. We call Newton's theories on motion "Laws" for good reason. Not because they have no problems, but because there has probably been no theory more rigorously tested and confirmed in all of science. There are hosts of scientists and their theories that have been profoundly tested and found to be true. Einstein, a 20th century scientist if there ever was one, produced the most profound and rigorously tested theories. Did either Einstein or Newton lack imagination? No. Imagination wasn't injected into science in the 1900s as you assume. It has been at the heart of it since Plato. So it is a fundamentally flawed assumption to accept imagination was spawned in the 1900s. No, as you present it, it became an excuse for accepting the extremes of the uncertainties of AGW. What needs to be discussed are the prejudices that are accepted by certain quarters of science to be true. Criticism today needs to include the vast streams of research dollars that are only awarded to "science" that tows the line. Imaginative science needs to include the research that is suggesting a Milankovitch cycle that has us trending cooler until at least 2050. Why isn't that included in your graph? Because your prejudice precludes it even though it supposedly has a weight of uncertainty to it. I reflect the weight of "science" that existed in Pascal's day. The abiogenists were definitely the accepted group. They definitely had the funding. But it was the relatively lone voice of one obscure scientist who paved the way to heart transplants today. Similar phenomena existed in the days of Copernicus. The weight of science in his day, was not heliocentric. Vast sums were paid to scientist to produce tomes predicting the position of the planets, which were used for political horoscopes, the timing of wars and battles all paid huge sums of money to those "scientists" who could write those predictions based on the earth as the center of the universe. With vast sums of money at stake Copernicus' simple maths were a huge threat so much so after losing debate, they appealed to the pope and the church to weigh in on the argument. So it is today that when for example a skeptic points out, according the IPCC committee on sea level rise, the chair declares the rise to be a steady 1mm a year, and that his committee was stacked with non-scienctists (at least without sea-level expertise) we see an appeal to non-science "consensus" for validation instead of a frank look at the data. Without this new criticism, without demanding funding for science that does not agree with consensus, I am very concerned for our future. We have abandoned empiricism now in our school system, and as you conclude your piece, you refer to the need for worry to sharpen our need for change, you conclude with what is most worrisome about the direction of science: The implementation of emotion to guide our conclusions.

 

 https://youtu.be/_fQZfFy9cFs

Wednesday, June 16, 2021

 My wife and I have separated.  Its been over a year and a half.  We have determined to remain friends.  I have nothing but admiration for her.  She is as close to a saint as a saint can be.  She loves God, she has been a fantastic mother to our kids who are now all grown up.  I honor her.  

I don't want to excuse my own failings for the work of God.  However, it is true I have found that God does more through our brokenness than He does when we are unbroken.  This truth leads the scriptures to say:  "What then, shall we sin that grace may it abound?  May it never be!"  Still there is a mystery indeed the whole of the bible is about God working through human brokenness.  In a peculiar way the fall was necessary for salvation to occur.  It would be hard to refute that it would have been better had there never been a fall, but God planned for it nonetheless.

So in this place of brokenness, I sense the hand of God moving in such a way that the end becomes greater than the beginning.  I am 60 now.  I estimate I have 10 years to change the world.  Ann Kimmel's book: "I am out to Change my World" still calls to me.  I feel I am yet to change the world.

I have made acquaintances with some phenomenal people around the world recently.  The web site we have been involved in employs a form of tyranny and extorts me of way too much money.  So I am posting here my address: 820 31st Ave. S., Cranbrook, BC, V1C5J9.  And my phone is (250)464-5673.  My WeChat is: wxid_cwc8kvqq495d12.  My email is oabrey@gmail.com.


Tuesday, July 28, 2015

An indepth look at the F35 from a technical point of view.


To understand this is to understand why it would be criminal to put our pilots in anything else.
The F-35 is a crucial strategic move for Canada.

 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/don-t-think-the-f-35-can-fight-it-does-in-this-realistic-war-game-fc10706ba9f4

Monday, July 20, 2015

Knowledge of Spill clean up.

@common denominator As a matter of fact I have. I live in western Canada. I have read the government spill protocols. I have been on remediation projects where spills were made into microbes from biological degradation techniques. My front yard has the results of a bio remediation project underneath my feet. Approved by the Ministry of Environment, my children have played on the grass that is happily growing on top of it. There are a few people from time to time that actually know something. So I say to you go back to school and actually learn something,

Monday, June 22, 2015

A recent opinion on the boards of the Globe and Mail:  Sorry folks apparently they have figured out how to stop copy and paste.  Regrettable.

The Harper government’s campaign to get the Keystone XL pipeline built received a boost from two American sources this week.
Joe Dick 25 minutes ago
The Harper government’s campaign to get the Keystone XL pipeline built received a boost from two American sources this week.

First, billionaire Barack Obama supporter Warren Buffet said the Keystone XL pipeline delivering bitumen from Alberta’s oilsands to the Gulf Coast should have been approved by now and the U.S. refusal to do so risks damaging relations with Canada.

Second the Washington Post gave the U.S. president its worst possible “Four Pinocchios” rating for refusing to approve Keystone for almost six years.

“Four Pinocchios,” as explained by Glenn Kessler who writes the Post’s regular “Fact Checker” feature, means the individual being scrutinized is telling “whoppers.”

Or, if you prefer, lies.

As the Canadian Press noted, Buffet’s support of Keystone is significant since his investments in the U.S. rail industry and his friendship with Obama previously resulted in the widely held perception he was opposed to Keystone XL and in favour of transporting bitumen by rail.

But in an interview with CNBC, Buffet -- who says his shares of Berkshire Hathaway stock have gone up almost 2,000,000% over the last 50 years -- was unequivocal.

He said Canada has been “a terrific partner to the United States over the decades” and “to thumb our nose” at it is wrong.

“I would have passed Keystone,” Buffet said. “I think that we have an enormous interest in working with Canada, as they have in working with us. That oil is going to get sold. If we make it more difficult for them, who knows how they’ll feel about making things more difficult for us some day?”

The Post’s Fact Checker criticized Obama for claiming Keystone only benefits Canada because the oil it delivers will simply pass through the United States before being exported abroad.

It noted that’s untrue and ignores the findings of Obama’s own State Department, which has the lead role in reviewing Keystone and has concluded much of the oil it delivers will be used in the United States.

The completion of Keystone will also benefit U.S. oil producers in North Dakota and Montana in getting their oil to the Gulf Coast, as well as American companies operating in the oilsands, where they control about 30% of production.

All of these facts undermine Obama’s contention that only Canadians will benefit from the pipeline, according to the Post.

The Fact Checker feature doesn’t take a position for or against Keystone and has been critical of all sides in the debate for spreading inaccuracies.

For example, it recently awarded Three Pinocchios to pipeline developer TransCanada Corp. -- meaning a significant factual error or obvious contradiction -- for arguing Keystone will reduce America’s reliance on foreign oil, since Canadian oil is, in fact, foreign oil.

But what it does indicate is a growing awareness in the United States that Obama is simply making up excuses as he goes along for not approving Keystone that don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Monday, June 1, 2015


Creationism once and for All





There is a third way: A way that is cogent and appreciative of science, allows for people to have an unharrassed approach to their faith, and allows for an environment to be appreciative and cooperative instead of antagonistic and caustic.


It involves first of all a different approach to scripture, appreciates faith on the one hand, and a robust and embracing of science in all its various forms on the other. It is an approach that has no problem with the 13-14 Billion old age of the universe, the standard model and special model, the fossilized evidences of life back to 3 billion years or so and even the arrival of various pre-anthropic forms, climate change and pretty much all of accepted science.


It starts with not trying to make the bible into a science text. It never was intended to be interpreted that way by the original audience so who are we to make that different. This is the fundamental problem of the shall we say classical Creationist. And for those bible believing Christians out there, hermeneutics, interpretation 101 says the interpreter must ask the question: What did this mean to the original audience? An honest approach on this level should reveal that to try to make the bible into a science text book already does violence to the text. No wonder we have embraced foolishness, and to the world it is so readily apparent.


It is past time for Christians to repudiate this error and move on to a more healthy respect for science, with the sense of wonder and awe of how God created the heaven and the earth. Science can't predict purpose, and theology can't predict process--That is the realm of science.

On the cusp of another recession, discussion arose as to whether Canada should maintain a balanced budget....

When I compare Canada to the US, I use a rule of thumb:  They are about 10x larger than us, we are 10% in size compared with them.  This is true when comparing sizes for example.  When it came to deficits  Canada went a different path on the heels of the 2008 recession.  The US opened the taps to public spending, Canada was frugal.  Consequently, the US has 90 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and 18 trillion in direct debt.  That normally would translate into a national debt at 1.8 trillion.  Complain as you may, Mr Harper has demonstrated good stewardship of the Canadian purse that is perhaps the one thing he has done well.  A little recession is normal.  But by far preferable to a recession with 1.8 trillion in debt.

Monday, April 13, 2015

A State of Canadian Politics

Ideals compared to reality on the ground. A few interesting points. The conservative party was constrained by a minority parliament, then after an election and winning a majority, by the senate stacked with Liberals. So, gradually he began appointing senators so that they held a majority in both houses. This is necessary to advance the Government agenda. Because when the opposition holds a majority a bill suddenly becomes needing "extra thought" in a stall tactic that goes back to confederation.  If you want to get anything done, you stack the senate. 

However at this point, Harper's senate reform was to promise to appoint any Senator elected democratically. This was first tried by Brian Mulroney. Who appointed one senator elected in Alberta. Mr. Harper has appointed 4. This could have been an amazing reform had it caught on. It required the cooperation of the provinces. No other PM in history had tried so hard to bring senate reform. 

 To do any more than this requires a constitutional change. Which many Canadians do not appreciate is an enormous nightmare. Once the constitution is opened up, everyone will want to table some change or other to every other part of the constitution. After Meech Lake, no politician wants to spend that much political capital, BC for example would want more seats. (Where PEI has one seat per <35 a="" among="" an="" are="" banished="" bc="" be="" belief="" can="" cannot="" deceived="" deceiving.="" doing="" done="" either="" ever.="" example="" fairytale="" fell="" for="" has="" is="" it="" myriad="" nbsp="" of="" one="" only="" or="" others.="" people="" per="" problem="" realize="" reflection="" seat="" senate="" so="" some="" span="" suggest="" swoop="" that="" the="" there="" they="" this="" those="" while="" who="" with="">

Finally the Duffy thing. Using the old format of making senate positions political appointees, here we see an example of where that can go wrong. At the time of his appointment most pundits thought his appointment was a stroke of genius. Mr Duffy's and Pamela Wallen's status as well educated media personnel, opened perhaps for the first time, senate appointments from the 5th estate. It marked an advance for a perceived stodgy old house to the 21st century. The discovery of his alleged wrong doing left him kicked out of the party. And now he is having his day in court.

It remains to be seen how much goop will stick to the Prime Minister. This is the problem with appointed senators. The prime minister is perpetually tied to the decision. In the Case of the Liberals, there were so many bug bears under their bed, Trudeau dissolved the Liberal caucus all together in the hope non of the goop would stick to him. It remains to be seen how effective a strategy that is. Currently, Mr. Harper has stopped appointing senators. There are 18 vacancies with no indications of any of those seats being filled with an election coming up...

Tuesday, September 23, 2014

An important article probably shouted down:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565?mod=WSJ_article_EditorsPicks


From the Wall Street Journal:  September 19, 2014

Climate Science Is Not Settled

We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy, writes leading scientist Steven E. Koonin


Sept. 19, 2014 12:19 p.m. ET
The crucial scientific question for policy isn't whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Mitch Dobrowner
The idea that "Climate science is settled" runs through today's popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.
My training as a computational physicist—together with a 40-year career of scientific research, advising and management in academia, government and the private sector—has afforded me an extended, up-close perspective on climate science. Detailed technical discussions during the past year with leading climate scientists have given me an even better sense of what we know, and don't know, about climate. I have come to appreciate the daunting scientific challenge of answering the questions that policy makers and the public are asking.
The crucial scientific question for policy isn't whether the climate is changing. That is a settled matter: The climate has always changed and always will. Geological and historical records show the occurrence of major climate shifts, sometimes over only a few decades. We know, for instance, that during the 20th century the Earth's global average surface temperature rose 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Related Video

Tens of thousands of people marched in New York City Sunday to raise awareness and demand action on climate change ahead of Tuesday's United Nations Climate Summit. Photo: AP
Nor is the crucial question whether humans are influencing the climate. That is no hoax: There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. There is also little doubt that the carbon dioxide will persist in the atmosphere for several centuries. The impact today of human activity appears to be comparable to the intrinsic, natural variability of the climate system itself.
Rather, the crucial, unsettled scientific question for policy is, "How will the climate change over the next century under both natural and human influences?" Answers to that question at the global and regional levels, as well as to equally complex questions of how ecosystems and human activities will be affected, should inform our choices about energy and infrastructure.
But—here's the catch—those questions are the hardest ones to answer. They challenge, in a fundamental way, what science can tell us about future climates.
Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.
A second challenge to "knowing" future climate is today's poor understanding of the oceans. The oceans, which change over decades and centuries, hold most of the climate's heat and strongly influence the atmosphere. Unfortunately, precise, comprehensive observations of the oceans are available only for the past few decades; the reliable record is still far too short to adequately understand how the oceans will change and how that will affect climate.
A third fundamental challenge arises from feedbacks that can dramatically amplify or mute the climate's response to human and natural influences. One important feedback, which is thought to approximately double the direct heating effect of carbon dioxide, involves water vapor, clouds and temperature.
Scientists measure the sea level of the Ross Sea in Antarctica. National Geographic/Getty Images
But feedbacks are uncertain. They depend on the details of processes such as evaporation and the flow of radiation through clouds. They cannot be determined confidently from the basic laws of physics and chemistry, so they must be verified by precise, detailed observations that are, in many cases, not yet available.
Beyond these observational challenges are those posed by the complex computer models used to project future climate. These massive programs attempt to describe the dynamics and interactions of the various components of the Earth system—the atmosphere, the oceans, the land, the ice and the biosphere of living things. While some parts of the models rely on well-tested physical laws, other parts involve technically informed estimation. Computer modeling of complex systems is as much an art as a science.
For instance, global climate models describe the Earth on a grid that is currently limited by computer capabilities to a resolution of no finer than 60 miles. (The distance from New York City to Washington, D.C., is thus covered by only four grid cells.) But processes such as cloud formation, turbulence and rain all happen on much smaller scales. These critical processes then appear in the model only through adjustable assumptions that specify, for example, how the average cloud cover depends on a grid box's average temperature and humidity. In a given model, dozens of such assumptions must be adjusted ("tuned," in the jargon of modelers) to reproduce both current observations and imperfectly known historical records.
We often hear that there is a "scientific consensus" about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn't a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences. Since 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has periodically surveyed the state of climate science. Each successive report from that endeavor, with contributions from thousands of scientists around the world, has come to be seen as the definitive assessment of climate science at the time of its issue.
There is little doubt in the scientific community that continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate. Pictured, an estuary in Patgonia. Gallery Stock
For the latest IPCC report (September 2013), its Working Group I, which focuses on physical science, uses an ensemble of some 55 different models. Although most of these models are tuned to reproduce the gross features of the Earth's climate, the marked differences in their details and projections reflect all of the limitations that I have described. For example:
• The models differ in their descriptions of the past century's global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time. Such mismatches are also present in many other basic climate factors, including rainfall, which is fundamental to the atmosphere's energy balance. As a result, the models give widely varying descriptions of the climate's inner workings. Since they disagree so markedly, no more than one of them can be right.   **(in other words it is more probable less than one of them is right.)**
• Although the Earth's average surface temperature rose sharply by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit during the last quarter of the 20th century, it has increased much more slowly for the past 16 years, even as the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen by some 25%. This surprising fact demonstrates directly that natural influences and variability are powerful enough to counteract the present warming influence exerted by human activity.
Yet the models famously fail to capture this slowing in the temperature rise. Several dozen different explanations for this failure have been offered, with ocean variability most likely playing a major role. But the whole episode continues to highlight the limits of our modeling.
• The models roughly describe the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice observed over the past two decades, but they fail to describe the comparable growth of Antarctic sea ice, which is now at a record high.
• The models predict that the lower atmosphere in the tropics will absorb much of the heat of the warming atmosphere. But that "hot spot" has not been confidently observed, casting doubt on our understanding of the crucial feedback of water vapor on temperature.
• Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today—about one foot per century.
• A crucial measure of our knowledge of feedbacks is climate sensitivity—that is, the warming induced by a hypothetical doubling of carbon-dioxide concentration. Today's best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars.
These and many other open questions are in fact described in the IPCC research reports, although a detailed and knowledgeable reading is sometimes required to discern them. They are not "minor" issues to be "cleaned up" by further research. Rather, they are deficiencies that erode confidence in the computer projections. Work to resolve these shortcomings in climate models should be among the top priorities for climate research.
Yet a public official reading only the IPCC's "Summary for Policy Makers" would gain little sense of the extent or implications of these deficiencies. These are fundamental challenges to our understanding of human impacts on the climate, and they should not be dismissed with the mantra that "climate science is settled."
While the past two decades have seen progress in climate science, the field is not yet mature enough to usefully answer the difficult and important questions being asked of it. This decidedly unsettled state highlights what should be obvious: Understanding climate, at the level of detail relevant to human influences, is a very, very difficult problem.
We can and should take steps to make climate projections more useful over time. An international commitment to a sustained global climate observation system would generate an ever-lengthening record of more precise observations. And increasingly powerful computers can allow a better understanding of the uncertainties in our models, finer model grids and more sophisticated descriptions of the processes that occur within them. The science is urgent, since we could be caught flat-footed if our understanding does not improve more rapidly than the climate itself changes.
A transparent rigor would also be a welcome development, especially given the momentous political and policy decisions at stake. That could be supported by regular, independent, "red team" reviews to stress-test and challenge the projections by focusing on their deficiencies and uncertainties; that would certainly be the best practice of the scientific method. But because the natural climate changes over decades, it will take many years to get the data needed to confidently isolate and quantify the effects of human influences.
Policy makers and the public may wish for the comfort of certainty in their climate science. But I fear that rigidly promulgating the idea that climate science is "settled" (or is a "hoax") demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, retarding its progress in these important matters. Uncertainty is a prime mover and motivator of science and must be faced head-on. It should not be confined to hushed sidebar conversations at academic conferences.
Society's choices in the years ahead will necessarily be based on uncertain knowledge of future climates. That uncertainty need not be an excuse for inaction. There is well-justified prudence in accelerating the development of low-emissions technologies and in cost-effective energy-efficiency measures.
But climate strategies beyond such "no regrets" efforts carry costs, risks and questions of effectiveness, so nonscientific factors inevitably enter the decision. These include our tolerance for risk and the priorities that we assign to economic development, poverty reduction, environmental quality, and intergenerational and geographical equity.
Individuals and countries can legitimately disagree about these matters, so the discussion should not be about "believing" or "denying" the science. Despite the statements of numerous scientific societies, the scientific community cannot claim any special expertise in addressing issues related to humanity's deepest goals and values. The political and diplomatic spheres are best suited to debating and resolving such questions, and misrepresenting the current state of climate science does nothing to advance that effort.
Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future. Recognizing those limits, rather than ignoring them, will lead to a more sober and ultimately more productive discussion of climate change and climate policies. To do otherwise is a great disservice to climate science itself.
Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama's first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. His previous positions include professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, as well as chief scientist of BP, BP.LN -0.83% where his work focused on renewable and low-carbon energy

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Oh come on Larry.  Really?  Ever check to see the Liberal senators were lining the nest with?  Ever check back a decade or so when there were more Liberal senators?  The disbanding of the Liberal caucus was pure genius.  Those weren't Liberal senators with their hand in the cookie jar, since there are no Liberal senators any more (sic)

This problem has been systemic.  And it was this government that put an end to it.  They got their hands dirty doing it.  But they did what no other previous governments had the jam to do.  I would shake a working man's hand that has some dirt beneath the fingernails no problem if they got the job done.  It is a pity others don't see it that way.

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

The Canadian Arctic and the Ukraine

I don't know why it seems that no one seems to get the connection between what is happening in the arctic and what is happening in the Ukraine.  If Putin gets away with it, do you think an incursion on Canada's arctic isn't an eventuality?They have planted the Russian flag on Canada's sea bed up there.  They will lay claim to it without a second thought--*If* they go unchecked.

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

The Globe and Mail had a series of derisional comments about heaven.  Here is my comment about it:  Am very disappointed in being unable to cut and paste any more.... 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/science/big-bang-thumbprint-may-unlock-universal-truth/article18475476/comments/?ord=0

Reply to: Where is Heaven? 

Alethia 5 minutes ago
Jesus indicated we all live in the Kingdom of heaven. "Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" While it is a stretch to suggest there is "heaven on earth", for Christians and Islam, God is king of the whole earth. Heaven is His province.
Yet the scriptures also refer to heaven as some place entirely other from here. A place of eternal bliss, in the presence of God. Over the millennia various conjectures have been made about its proximity. Few have estimated that it starts where we are. Science has been good at measuring natural phenomena. But because there was a big bang, then 14 billion years of stellar evolution, billions of years of sediment, the rise of modern science to the point where we put satellites in the sky, does not preclude something entirely other that science can never comment on: The realm that begins with the human spirit and ends with ultimate Spirit. I wish Christians, Muslims and Jews and others would quite trying to strain at a gnat; try to locate spiritual things within a naturalist framework; and swallow the camel by buying into the debate in the first place.

Faith has always been something existential. It was never meant to be defined by only 5 senses.

Friday, January 31, 2014

 A CTV article says Keystone pipleline will support China?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pmo-says-anti-keystone-ad-featuring-harper-distorts-the-facts-1.1659539#commentsForm-479100


Benefits China how I wonder?  The pipeline isn't likely to send China more oil because it is loaded in the Gulf of Mexico.  No,this about return on investment.  Canada has approved investments from all around the world, including China, US, UK, Eurozone, and even Russia.  There are very strict rules in place on foreign ownership, for valid reasons.   The scare mongering that foreign workers will be imported to Canada because China owns a piece of the action in the oil sands, is silly.  Immigration laws also very tough, prohibit some mass importation of Chinese labour.  The key issue with Oil Sands labour is does and will Canada have enough skilled people to do the job?  Currently, we may--although there is a critical shortage looming.   More serious is the population rate in Canada, since it is now not even self-sustaining, we will need to allow foreign immigration.  There is no question, if the boomers want to enjoy retirement, we must have Doctors and Nurses and Physiotherapists, and Engineers and Architects hold up our CPP because we are not raising enough Canadians to fill the looming void.  Most Canadians don't appreciate what a serious this problem is.  Canada must cherry-pick the best, brightest minds from around the world.  At least the current shift in Immigration policy allows for an already skilled worker to stand in a place that would take us 25 years to grow on our own.  The ethical question is really about how we steal the best and are a big part of the Brain Drain of the 3rd world.  For that we ought to be ashamed of ourselves.  However Canada is a pragmatic nation where we have the "anything it works" world view.  Continued expansion of the oilsands project will inevitably need the importation of outside workers: But we have the right to say who comes in when they come in and where they come in. Still in Canada today, we have highly skilled "Drs. and Physio therapists driving taxi-cabs", and scrubbing our toilets, and flipping our burgers as they wait for us to allow them to do what they are already trained to do.  Some have despaired of that. Some now expect the rest of their life no matter how skilled they are, to be a life of drudgery. Some are thankful to work these jobs no one wants, because they get to live in Canada.  After many years of indentured servitude we might even let them be Canadian citizens.

Saturday, June 22, 2013

Canadian Political Foment

 Re: Canadian Political Foment

 Crisis! Polls indicate a rejection of Mr. Mulcair by the majority of Canadians.

The current meta narrative is a fairy tale.  The 5th Estate's story goes like this:  1) Mr. Harper is the devil, and his cronies the demons of hell..  Therefore anything goes to send him back there. 2) Mr. Harper puts out attack ads, but won't give us a story (Because he knows the 5th estate believes point #1).  3)  "The medium is the message."  The story--what ever it is becomes the truth.  Spin be damned so long as it accomplishes the defeat of point #1.  4) Journalists project their own insecurities.  The authority of their written word is undermined by a Prime-minister who won't dance to their tune. Clearly Canadians are having a crisis of faith in the political system of the pundits assertions, so the unconscious reflex is to create a crisis of faith in the government of Canada.  If they can make Canadians believers it would assuage one's guilty conscience.  It is called transference to project one's belief one's anxiety onto others.   This compulsion is indicative of the anxiety of the scribal class.  5) Mr. Mulcair is the saviour of the left: Hearken ye one and all for this man is unblemished and perfect!  He is the man to save us from proposition #1! 

Of this there are believers and sceptics.   

It is disconcerting after all the efforts of the media to convert Canadians into leftists.  The polls show Canadians don't buy the narrative.  So what ever could be the problem? Surely not their glowing reviews of Mr. Mulcair. 

Friday, March 29, 2013

Canada withdraws from UN desertification treaty.

Alethia

12:48 PM on March 29, 2013
Ah the UN, smell the air, breath deeply... Aren't you glad we are a part of the UN?
Don't you love how they spend our money? How accountable they are? Anyone remember how that 14 Billion was spent after Tsunamis wiped out 200,000 people? 'Remember how it was supposed to help the areas devastated rebuild? Nation after nation as they dug out from the disaster reported seeing not one thin dime. Where did the money go? Ah but it is the UN, they are not accountable to its donors...

The story behind the story? Canada read the script of this "scientific meeting" that uses Canada as a bully-pulpit. The sheep in this country forget that China's CO2 input *grows* by more than the entire Canadian Carbon Foot Print. Why should Canada fund this sort of "science"?

Who is behind these attacks? Who is targeting Canada? It certainly wouldn't be the OPEC countries who's taps will be impacted when North America achieves self-sustaining energy dependence. You know that block of 16 or so nations that appointed Portugal to a seat on the security counsel? I am just glad Canada has a memory, and proud it has the gonads to finally say enough is enough.

Saturday, March 23, 2013

On vegetarianism and PETA.:

https://www.facebook.com/bill.graham.98434
Anyone have any favourite, delicious vegetarian recipes?
Like · · 8 hours ago via mobile ·
  • Antoinette Louw Is this the man who always tease me about PETA? Wonderful! If you find easy ones, please share. I usually only omit the meat out of other recipes. Look at Allrecipes.com
  • Bill Graham I'm still not a PETA supporter! However, I *am* seeing the wisdom of a plant based diet...
  • Dixie Jones I just sent you a family favourite recipe for zucchini pie!
  • Roxane Boardman Side dish or main?
  • Antoinette Louw PETA means well. We may not always agree with their ways, but at least they try.
  • Kent Watson Sure that's easy but first you start with some beef and then......
  • Emmett Koch No, mine all have some kind of meat in them,,,
  • John G. Hartung The secret: discover dishes that originally were vegetarian so you don't have the problem of simulating the meat flavor.

    John's Basic Ratatouille

    Olive oil
    ...See More
  • Trisha Rutter Reimer A chili with lots of different beans and yams or sweet potatoes chopped in! Soooo yum!
  • Trisha Rutter Reimer How about a chick pea "salad"? About a can of rinsed chick peas, a couple of beets boiled and diced on top, some feta cheese sprinkled over, some greek spice mix (you can buy a bottle of "Greek seasoning") sprinkled over, maybe some slivered almonds, too.
  • Bill Graham Emmett, watch "Food,Inc" and "Forks over Knives" and you may start rethinking what you eat...I'm not totally there yet - and I still have fast food too often (but aiming to eliminate that AND Pop); I am, however, seeking to change my intake for health's sake...
  • Steve Winkler Chocolate Cheesecake .. I am sure that this qualifies somehow as vegetarian
  • Trisha Rutter Reimer Bill Graham you still gotta get your hands on "Fresh". You will see how you still can eat a "reasonable" amount of meat that is raised well (when animal husbandry is done right, it will benefit the soil and the animal the way God intended. And then as a result, benefitting humankind on many different levels!).
  • Bill Graham If you've a copy of it Trish, we'll gladly watch it.
  • Allan Brouwer you want favourite and delicious! That's asking a lot!
  • Trisha Rutter Reimer Don't have it. Did I ask you if you have netflix?
  • Owen Abrey May I jump in? Let vegetables and vegetable eating have their place. However, no matter how we might want to deny it, man was not made a herbivore, man is an omnivore. To think we can make the world a better place by denying what we are at a scientific and biological level is displaying the unreal self if there ever was one: A vain and futile pursuit that wastes energy that might otherwise really make the world a better place. So many substitutes for the primary cause.