@tominvictoria: Sorry for breaking into your habitual rant, but this is a story maybe you should pay attention to.
The DND is dysfunctional on several levels, and that needs to change. So... an investigation is being lauched to see if there are others in this predicament. If there is a policy issue, it as got to change.
In no way demeaning this particular story and I speak no ill of the dead, I really think the minister should have met her on say remembrance day or something. An then there is the bribe of a medal or may be two of them.
When things get politically overcharged like what typically happens in minority governments, I don't like policy based one circumstance. So if there are other similar stories, the apology should apply to all. To me MOD acted u knee-jerk reaction before appropriate decisions could be made. I am sure we could find stories like this all over Canada, will Peter be flying in to be speaking personally with every one? Is that being "ministerial?"
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
The Man the Boy and A Donkey in 1000 Charactures
The Man the Boy and the Donkey.
Once upon a time there was a man and his son who owned a donkey. The man and his son decided it was best to sell the donkey at the market.
The man and the boy led the donkey along. Then some people laughed and said, look at those stupid people walking when they have a Donkey to ride! So the man thought maybe they were right and put his son on the donkey. Soon after they heard other people laughing a ridiculing the son:
"Look at that lazy boy, riding while making his father walk!" So they thought maybe they were right, so the boy got down, the father mounted on the donkey--led by the boy. Not too long after they encountered more people who laughed and said "Look at that big fat man riding whilst his son has to walk!" Well that prompted a quandary. The man and the boy scratched their head and decided the only other option left was to carry the Donkey!
Well the donkey brayed and he kicked until over the bridge he went and drowned.
Once upon a time there was a man and his son who owned a donkey. The man and his son decided it was best to sell the donkey at the market.
The man and the boy led the donkey along. Then some people laughed and said, look at those stupid people walking when they have a Donkey to ride! So the man thought maybe they were right and put his son on the donkey. Soon after they heard other people laughing a ridiculing the son:
"Look at that lazy boy, riding while making his father walk!" So they thought maybe they were right, so the boy got down, the father mounted on the donkey--led by the boy. Not too long after they encountered more people who laughed and said "Look at that big fat man riding whilst his son has to walk!" Well that prompted a quandary. The man and the boy scratched their head and decided the only other option left was to carry the Donkey!
Well the donkey brayed and he kicked until over the bridge he went and drowned.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
On the Liberals Vow to Cancel the F-35 upon Election.
What a pile of poo. There is no other class 5 plane in the world. The Russians have 2 they claim in the same class, and that is dubious, but if they did we could not buy it anyhow. So this competitive bid nonsense is so disingenuous I can't believe Ignatieff is saying it with a straight face. Military procurement is hard to do and easy to have cost over-runs with. I don't know the modifications Canada ordered that put off delivery 5 years, but this is typical especially for competitive bids. For example, consider how quickly options add up in the price of a new car. The dealership is competing for your business with every other dealership in town, and sometimes province. So to get you to sign on the dotted line the price lure is extraordinarily low. They make their money not selling you the car, but rather on the accessories and extended warranties. It looks like Boeing patted us down by increasing the price of those choppers by more that 70%. I think a review of those costs are in order.
However, the f-35 is our plane, never since the Arrow have we had an opportunity like this.
Yes the Arrow program was expensive in its day. Canada would buy them, but on the global scale, we are head to head with the US for sales. This is the first supersonic plane since then that we actually had a hand in building. Over 100 Canadian companies have earned Canada 1/2 a billion dollars, compared to the 380 million of "investment".
The 14-16b number includes maintenance for 30 years for pity sake. Do you think maintenance was added to the sticker price of our CF-18s? Give me a break! Canada just ponied up for over a 1/2 billion for maintenance on those old girls until our new planes can be delivered. So lets be clear, the EXAGGERATED number--inflated by the ministry of defense to allow for cost over-runs was 8.9 billion.
However, LHM has gone on record that it thinks it will spend 12 billion dollars in Canada.
What you say? 8.9 purchase price but we get 12 back. Ah yeah there are 3000 of these planes we will be supplying parts for! We are freaking being given these planes. We are being refunded more than we are paying for them!
Just give this a whiff, that horse pucky you smell is the spin-doctors and politicians who know all of this but think the Canadian public is too stupid to do the math & catch on.
Come on Canada, give this a real good sniff. Iggy is looking down his nose at these ignorant unwashed Canadians, thinking he can get away with murder!
However, the f-35 is our plane, never since the Arrow have we had an opportunity like this.
Yes the Arrow program was expensive in its day. Canada would buy them, but on the global scale, we are head to head with the US for sales. This is the first supersonic plane since then that we actually had a hand in building. Over 100 Canadian companies have earned Canada 1/2 a billion dollars, compared to the 380 million of "investment".
The 14-16b number includes maintenance for 30 years for pity sake. Do you think maintenance was added to the sticker price of our CF-18s? Give me a break! Canada just ponied up for over a 1/2 billion for maintenance on those old girls until our new planes can be delivered. So lets be clear, the EXAGGERATED number--inflated by the ministry of defense to allow for cost over-runs was 8.9 billion.
However, LHM has gone on record that it thinks it will spend 12 billion dollars in Canada.
What you say? 8.9 purchase price but we get 12 back. Ah yeah there are 3000 of these planes we will be supplying parts for! We are freaking being given these planes. We are being refunded more than we are paying for them!
Just give this a whiff, that horse pucky you smell is the spin-doctors and politicians who know all of this but think the Canadian public is too stupid to do the math & catch on.
Come on Canada, give this a real good sniff. Iggy is looking down his nose at these ignorant unwashed Canadians, thinking he can get away with murder!
On Mr. Campbell's Income Tax Cut.
Bill Bennet is our MLA and we like our politicians plains speaking-just eloquent enough to call a spade a spade.
I don't agree with the gist of this article. 2013 is a coon's age from now. Political fares could flip before then. I am pretty mad at the Liberals, but in this province what choice will we have?
Every NDP government has ended in disaster, with governmental departments all seized up by the ton of new regulations and restrictions and taxes--never again for this voter.
My problem is that I have a long memory. I am still mad about the carbon taxes. The HST kick-off was a disaster but made no impact on my cost of living. I thought the world was intentionally moving to consumption taxes over income taxes as a means to restrict global warming. That is what has happened. Consumption taxes rose on a few things, maybe 1% of my budget. It is nothing compared to the carbon taxes that gore me every time I have to fill up. I could really applaud this if I were to read that this number didn't only apply to the highest income taxes. If it didn't, if it were across the board a lot of poor folk could put some bread on the table. Perhaps I am hoping too much. But a shift in the tax-ability of the bottom of the tax roster, not only would cost less but do the people struggling in poverty a lot of good.
I don't agree with the gist of this article. 2013 is a coon's age from now. Political fares could flip before then. I am pretty mad at the Liberals, but in this province what choice will we have?
Every NDP government has ended in disaster, with governmental departments all seized up by the ton of new regulations and restrictions and taxes--never again for this voter.
My problem is that I have a long memory. I am still mad about the carbon taxes. The HST kick-off was a disaster but made no impact on my cost of living. I thought the world was intentionally moving to consumption taxes over income taxes as a means to restrict global warming. That is what has happened. Consumption taxes rose on a few things, maybe 1% of my budget. It is nothing compared to the carbon taxes that gore me every time I have to fill up. I could really applaud this if I were to read that this number didn't only apply to the highest income taxes. If it didn't, if it were across the board a lot of poor folk could put some bread on the table. Perhaps I am hoping too much. But a shift in the tax-ability of the bottom of the tax roster, not only would cost less but do the people struggling in poverty a lot of good.
Banter about Peter McKay, the Widow and her Military Son's Suicide.
I am trying to imagine the one or two things I would have to give my attention to the morning after I became the Minister of Defense. I am trying to imagine the centuries of tradition, protocol and regulation that are the Canadian Armed Forces. The hierarchy and bureaucracy I am sure would be straight forward. I would probably memorize all those manuals before you know it. Forget the military law, that is something everyone is born knowing.
And the day after long enough I would know of every injustice, error, bureaucratic snafu that ever existed from the dawn of time. And when I knew of any of them, I would rise and take responsibility, and apologize then repair the injustice. Then of course, every Canadian would understand and not villainize me in the Global Mail, no... I would be a god.
And the day after long enough I would know of every injustice, error, bureaucratic snafu that ever existed from the dawn of time. And when I knew of any of them, I would rise and take responsibility, and apologize then repair the injustice. Then of course, every Canadian would understand and not villainize me in the Global Mail, no... I would be a god.
Margaret Wente's article on a Retrospective of the Iraqi wars.
Well, if only to be a contrarian today, it isn't hard to find speeches by the Liberals in the lead up to the gulf war. For this group of people hard on the heels of 9/11, to have maintained their Liberalism held before 9/11 was to risk charges of treason, or worse for academics, risk their income earned by giving speeches.
___I say that giving Mr. Ignatieff the benefit of any doubt as to his political orientation in those pre-Afghanistan/Iraq war speeches. Otherwise the only definer that fits would be that he was a neo-con. And we can't have that now can we?
___I say that giving Mr. Ignatieff the benefit of any doubt as to his political orientation in those pre-Afghanistan/Iraq war speeches. Otherwise the only definer that fits would be that he was a neo-con. And we can't have that now can we?
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Auditor General Assesses Good and Bad
So it turns out the 56 billion dollar deficit was accrued in appropriate prudent fair and honest way.
Wow that is saying a lot. A dark cloud for Iggy who was hoping for dirt. That would mean the the CPCs can actually say we have delivered: Promised gst cut--Delivered -2%; Promised reduced taxes from personal income tax to corporate tax.--Delivered. Promised to manage Canada's finances with transparency and integrity--delivered... Ms Fraser made that clear.
The F-35 issue is hard to see clearly because of all the mud being thrown. I insist the purchase number is 8.9 instead of 16 because the maintenance has never been a cost in buying planes or you name it--before.
Lockheed is on the record that it will spend 12 billion in Canada.
Wow that is saying a lot. A dark cloud for Iggy who was hoping for dirt. That would mean the the CPCs can actually say we have delivered: Promised gst cut--Delivered -2%; Promised reduced taxes from personal income tax to corporate tax.--Delivered. Promised to manage Canada's finances with transparency and integrity--delivered... Ms Fraser made that clear.
The F-35 issue is hard to see clearly because of all the mud being thrown. I insist the purchase number is 8.9 instead of 16 because the maintenance has never been a cost in buying planes or you name it--before.
Lockheed is on the record that it will spend 12 billion in Canada.
Monday, October 25, 2010
On mayoralty successs and the Right Wing
Has anyone else noticed the Right understands the plans of the left: More government, more "services" More regulations, and the general idea they know what we all need.
That said despite dispersions and vehemence directed at the "Right" Have you noticed they don't have a clue as to what the Right really is, and the absolute stench the Left has become to the population in general. We want fiscal discipline, which has shown to not only enhance a city but also stops profligacy. We want the left to know we have figured out that agenda to tax and tax and tax--as though there is no end to our dollars. We know that taxation is a form of slavery which has reached the tipping point.
Torontonians only have to look over at Hamilton, where the long-est lived and elected mayor reigns. The last I heard, they had NO debt, and 700,000,000 in the bank. THAT'S what will get any mayor reelected ad infinitum.
That said despite dispersions and vehemence directed at the "Right" Have you noticed they don't have a clue as to what the Right really is, and the absolute stench the Left has become to the population in general. We want fiscal discipline, which has shown to not only enhance a city but also stops profligacy. We want the left to know we have figured out that agenda to tax and tax and tax--as though there is no end to our dollars. We know that taxation is a form of slavery which has reached the tipping point.
Torontonians only have to look over at Hamilton, where the long-est lived and elected mayor reigns. The last I heard, they had NO debt, and 700,000,000 in the bank. THAT'S what will get any mayor reelected ad infinitum.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
China and Sovereignty
- Alethia Report Comment
- October 24th 2010, 3:01pm
- Zambia crisis arises out its loss of sovereignty over its resources. In Canada the real owners are the Crown. We don't actually buy the land to build our houses on we buy the rights to the surface area. The single most good part about that is that we always retain sovereignty to the land via the Crown. So for example, should China buy into the oil-sands, they will never own them. So it is with Western companies building in China. The state could take them any time without recourse. We must be very certain China doesn't mistake us for Zambia. And shame on you China rising not to the defense of the worker, but the capitalists.
Friday, October 22, 2010
H1N1 Review, the Implications of the Vaccine Strategy.
The point that is missed in all this, is that Canada has a socialized medical care for all its citizens. A lot of us are pretty proud of it.
--The problem that arises from the first point is that not only do all Canadians have access to medicare, all Canadians pay for it. People who pay higher taxes pay more proportionally than people who don't. Nevertheless, there is a sort of accountability citizens have to the rest of us. This is why there are seat-belt laws. Society pays for your stupidity.
-- If you are in a bad accident with seat belts and air bags, you stand a greater probability to survive, and to survive with less injury. So I pay more for the person who crashes without a seat belt than I do if he has it on.
--Tobacco and Alcohol taxes are supposed to support the social costs that users inflict on the rest of us, for similar reasons.
--This brings into focus the problem of the vaccine last year. A lot of people elected to pass, which basically is their right. BUT, the rest of us pay if you end up in the hospital with H1N1, because you chose to believe a conspiracy theory rather than your own scientists. Even people who were inoculated suffer if, during the time of epidemic, they required medical care other than H1N1 as all the resources were otherwise occupied. Pity you if you had heart-attack at that time for example.
--The problem that arises from the first point is that not only do all Canadians have access to medicare, all Canadians pay for it. People who pay higher taxes pay more proportionally than people who don't. Nevertheless, there is a sort of accountability citizens have to the rest of us. This is why there are seat-belt laws. Society pays for your stupidity.
-- If you are in a bad accident with seat belts and air bags, you stand a greater probability to survive, and to survive with less injury. So I pay more for the person who crashes without a seat belt than I do if he has it on.
--Tobacco and Alcohol taxes are supposed to support the social costs that users inflict on the rest of us, for similar reasons.
--This brings into focus the problem of the vaccine last year. A lot of people elected to pass, which basically is their right. BUT, the rest of us pay if you end up in the hospital with H1N1, because you chose to believe a conspiracy theory rather than your own scientists. Even people who were inoculated suffer if, during the time of epidemic, they required medical care other than H1N1 as all the resources were otherwise occupied. Pity you if you had heart-attack at that time for example.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
It is interesting the process of global realignment continues to evolve. It is interesting that it is terrorism that has been the catalyst. Former enemies become friends, and friends become enemies. I would rather Russia was our friend instead of an enemy. Why can't they be? Sure the process will take time to build trust, but that is not in itself insurmountable. Canadians fought shoulder to shoulder with the US in the first world war--not much more than a century after we fought against them.
On the other hand, it is hard not to conjecture that the Dubai acton was not a more sophisticated form of Islamic extremism. Considering the fact that Canadians use that base in the interests of Dubai, to wit, the fight over terror, it seems they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. We have poured out blood out on the sands of Afghanistan so bring peace and stability to them, as well as other countries in the region.
This action is beyond being rash. We are at war. We will scramble successfully to reroute our flights. In any of the major world wars, this sort petulance would be seen as an act of war. It affects our way of continuing to execute this war. Dubai is now become another front of it.
On the other hand, it is hard not to conjecture that the Dubai acton was not a more sophisticated form of Islamic extremism. Considering the fact that Canadians use that base in the interests of Dubai, to wit, the fight over terror, it seems they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. We have poured out blood out on the sands of Afghanistan so bring peace and stability to them, as well as other countries in the region.
This action is beyond being rash. We are at war. We will scramble successfully to reroute our flights. In any of the major world wars, this sort petulance would be seen as an act of war. It affects our way of continuing to execute this war. Dubai is now become another front of it.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
A stab at philosophical truth
The paragraph is:
Either truth is absolute or relative. If it is absolute, then a true sentence is true for all persons, at all times, at all places. If it is relative, then a true sentence is only true for certain persons, times, and places. But it makes no sense to claim that all truth is relative, as the following will demonstrate. If all truth really is relative, then it may be, relative to some persons, times, or places, that the following sentence is true: "Truth is absolute." But if all truth is relative, then this same sentencce cannot possibley be true.
What I have to do is decide if the passage contains an argument and if it does, standardize it by picking out the premises and the conclusion.
So far this is what I have, but it doesn't feel right to me.
A) Question C contains an argument and can be standardized as such:
i) Either truth is absolute or relative.
ii) If absolute, a true sentence is true for all persons, at all times, at all places.
iii) If relative, then a true sentence is only true for certain persons, times, or places.
iv) However, if claimed that all truth is relative, the sentence “Truth is absolute” may be relative to some persons, times, or places. But if all truth is relative, then this same sentence cannot possibly be true.
Therefore, it makes no sense to claim that all truth is relative.
i, ii, iii, iv are what seem to be the premises and "Therefore, it makes no sense to claim that all truth is relative" seems to be the conclusion. Does this make sense to you, or am I way off course?Thanks so much for looking at this. If it is not something you are familiar with...no worries!
Premises that I see:
1) The question is phrased as a polemic. The states are assumed to be one or the other, but not a 3rd, 4th or 5th. For example, is it possible for a state to exist where Truth could be both relative and absolute? Why must these concepts be considered in opposition to each other? This is the initial premise.
2) Everything that relates to Truth, must be a true statement. All Truth is true. , makes the assumption that Truth (big T) is equivalent in some way, or derives from truisms. If this were not the case, there is no way to argue Truth as an absolute, because the inconsistency of Truth being absolute or being flawed and therefore out of the argument. So Everything must relate to truth as something that is true and not false. Falsehood and Absolute Truth are really what should be in polemic.
4) No quarter is given for different kinds of Truth, they aren't considered. For example, there is Historical truth and Empirical truth. Historical truth might correctly relay a lie that some character speaks or purports to be true. So the assumption that Truth can have no falsehoods is a problem. Empirical truth assumes that all that is true can be identified by the 5 senses. But there are things that are true that lie outside the empirical boundary like: I love my kids. This statement of fact is true, but there is no satisfying extrinsic ways to assess its validity, although some have tried.
5) There is some sort of universality of Truth implied here that makes no room for Truth that changes. Can Truth evolve? Consider a stop light. It is true the light is green, but not all the time.
6) Truth could be states, that obeys quantum laws, especially in ways like Schrodinger cat. Schrodinger proved that two opposite states could exist at one time, and that the state collapses to one of the two upon observation. Each state is as true as the other simultaneously.
7) ________________________________________
Those were some problematic assumptions.
Now the argument: . If it is absolute, then a true sentence is true for all persons, at all times, at all places. If it is relative, then a true sentence is only true for certain persons, times, and places. But it makes no sense to claim that all truth is relative, as the following will demonstrate. If all truth really is relative, then it may be, relative to some persons, times, or places, that the following sentence is true: "Truth is absolute." But if all truth is relative, then this same sentence cannot possibly be true. I am not convinced that this is proven: “relative to some persons the following sentence is true: “Truth is Absolute”, is what this is stating:
It assumes that Truth Can be true to some people as relatively absolute. In other words, how can it be that for some people truth is absolute, if by way of opening definition Absolute Truth is in polemic with “Relative Truth”. The premise assumes that each excludes the other. So then it could not be possible for the statement Truth is Absolute in a Relative way to some person since they are mutually exclusive to each other by way of a priori. It is excluded by the premise.
Another logical flaw includes the idea that Truth is on some sort of continuum from Absolute to Relative, when the a priori precludes it. If truth is Absolute, then it exists off the continuum of relativity. If this is true, then from the onset, from the first given, this shows that we are talking about entirely different concepts, but calling them both truth.
In my opinion the argument and conclusion does not remain true to the premise, or at least the alluded premises, which see Truth: Absolute and Relative--in opposition on a polemic, or affixed upon a continuum. One assumes knowing relative truth in the most pure way causes one to know Absolute truth, when all the evidence shows that is unsubstantial. It puts Truth on a continuum. A continuum refutes the opening sentence, the first a priori—from the outset. Because a continuum conflicts with the statement Truth is either absolute or relative. I think Absolute truth and Relative truth are across an event horizon from each other. Otherwise there would be something in the argument that allows Absolute truth to exist as a quasi-relative truth across a sliding scale, instead of across an event horizon: Allowing for relativity to approach it but never arrive.
In my mind this is resolved if we understand that Truth may be Absolute. But our perceptions of Truth will always be relative.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Israel, Canada and the Rebuff at the UN.
In the long trajectory that is the direction of Canada, a government of what ever political stripe can change its trajectory but not it's direction. In BC, the Fraser River arrows for the coast. Intersecting it west of Kamloops flows the crystal clear waters of the Thompson. For a time, as the two streams flow, the clear water flows still independent of the Fraser, but after a while, there is no distinguishing the two. The Fraser river continues on its rush to the Pacific looking the same muddy brown it was before.
So it is that parties and Prime-ministers are elected. Each contributes its unique flow to the nation of Canada. But we appear to the world much the same as we always have been, for the nation is of hundreds and thousands and millions of streams.
Canada has always stood for freedom & democracy.
It was that principle that was behind our support of the creation of the UN. Just as it was for the creation of the state of Israel: Both Democracies...
So if we are to pay for this fundamental direction so foundational to our nationhood and our reason 'detere, then we should take it with honor when that is attacked by despots and Islamists. It reminds me of the Biblical Sermon on the Mount where Jesus said "blessed are you when men shall revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you..."
For Canada to suffer standing for Freedom and Democracy and do do it with such grace & dignity should make us all proud.
So it is that parties and Prime-ministers are elected. Each contributes its unique flow to the nation of Canada. But we appear to the world much the same as we always have been, for the nation is of hundreds and thousands and millions of streams.
Canada has always stood for freedom & democracy.
It was that principle that was behind our support of the creation of the UN. Just as it was for the creation of the state of Israel: Both Democracies...
So if we are to pay for this fundamental direction so foundational to our nationhood and our reason 'detere, then we should take it with honor when that is attacked by despots and Islamists. It reminds me of the Biblical Sermon on the Mount where Jesus said "blessed are you when men shall revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you..."
For Canada to suffer standing for Freedom and Democracy and do do it with such grace & dignity should make us all proud.
Canada needs a new national sport: solo boxing. What could be more Canadian than beating yourself up?Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Comment to a sensical comment in the NP
Amen Stepp, so the new bully on the playground of the UN, the 57 vote block: Organization of Islamic Conference gave Canada a black eye. Its pretty hard to win a vote with almost a 50% handi-cap. Canada recused itself after the 2nd ballot, graciously giving the seat to Portugal. Canada holds its head high. We will not cow-tow to bullies. Canada never has, and hopefully never will.
I am ok with not being the lap dog of an organization whose purpose is the infiltration and conversion of the free world. I am ok with standing up to the most ruthless and dispicable group of people in the world.
Thank you Canada for standing tall on this one.
I am ok with not being the lap dog of an organization whose purpose is the infiltration and conversion of the free world. I am ok with standing up to the most ruthless and dispicable group of people in the world.
Thank you Canada for standing tall on this one.
Chris Selly makes some good points in his article
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/13/chris-selleys-full-pundit-now-the-un-cant-come-to-our-birthday-party/
Good point Mr. Selley. We need to keep everything in perspective. The Organization of Islamic Conference wielded 57 votes. They voted as a block against us, and persuaded others to as well. Its hard starting out with nearly a 50% handi-cap at the best of times. This group of despots and tyrants does wield power in the world, but it isn't something we should congratulate ourselves for winning over. Since their overt reason d'être is to promote Islam, its dissemination and ultimate conquest of the world, I am ok with not being its toady.
Canada's rejection by the UN
Does anyone have the breakdown of the vote? Which countries voted for whom? It might be interesting to look at that. It has been reported that the Islamist conference voted against Canada. Canadians should take note of that.
Canada's neutrality when it comes to Israel is a myth. Canada has always supported Israel--at least until recent years. I was there in 1967, 1971, 1973. I remember. Am I the only one?
Or is it that reason? Could Afghanistan factor into their equation? 10 years of war in a Muslim state could be taking its toll on other Islamic countries, notably Pakistan recently.
Speaking of which did Pakistan vote with that bloc? After the 10s of millions of dollars we sent for flood relief?
Or how about Brazil? Why would Brazil oppose Canada? Just because Portugal is the mother country, would that be the reason? Or could it be that Canada stood up and agreed that Nuclear-swap deal was an Iranian scam. I know it hurt the president's feelings.
I don't know for sure if those are relevant factors. They might be. Admittedly it is conjecture. But when I look at the list, I think I am pretty certain of 4 out of 5. And I can't see Canadians wanting us to compromise on them, So stay principled Canada--"good things come to them that wait."
Canada's neutrality when it comes to Israel is a myth. Canada has always supported Israel--at least until recent years. I was there in 1967, 1971, 1973. I remember. Am I the only one?
Or is it that reason? Could Afghanistan factor into their equation? 10 years of war in a Muslim state could be taking its toll on other Islamic countries, notably Pakistan recently.
Speaking of which did Pakistan vote with that bloc? After the 10s of millions of dollars we sent for flood relief?
Or how about Brazil? Why would Brazil oppose Canada? Just because Portugal is the mother country, would that be the reason? Or could it be that Canada stood up and agreed that Nuclear-swap deal was an Iranian scam. I know it hurt the president's feelings.
I don't know for sure if those are relevant factors. They might be. Admittedly it is conjecture. But when I look at the list, I think I am pretty certain of 4 out of 5. And I can't see Canadians wanting us to compromise on them, So stay principled Canada--"good things come to them that wait."
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
US physics professor: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life'
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.
Anthony Watts describes it thus:
This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science.It’s so utterly damning that I’m going to run it in full without further comment. (H/T GWPF, Richard Brearley).
Dear Curt:Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)
_________________________________________________________
Joblob...you have forgotten what I taught you again. Try to keep up, there's a good troll.....Reminder form your last tutorial:
The Earth has been warming up since the last Ice Age and has reached circa 15 to 15.5 deg C today.
However, it should be noted that the temperature of the Earth has been as high as 25 Deg C and as low as 10 Deg C. Hence today's temperatures are closer to the lower end of the geological reconstructions than the higher end. Scotese also shows the long term cycles of warm through cold and so on.
Ref Scotese Paleoclimate:
http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpg
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The State of the CAGW Hypothesis in Summary (last updated 20.00 hrs 3rd October 2010)
There is no empirical evidence of CAGW just a laboratory hypothesis that does not fit the highly complex nature of climate. The AGW cabal groupthink has turned (by stealth) a weak hypothesis based on a very old theory (Svante Arrhenius in 1896) into an urban legend (Dr Roy Spencer, climatologist, describes on his website what an urban legend is in this situation).
Statistical Facts on Global Temperatures etc:
If you use the HADCRUT or GISS data set (scatter grams), and use a best fit straight line then, of course, about 0.6 deg C increase in temperature is apparent over the entire 20th century – hardly alarming and few climate scientists consider it is all due to human emissions anyway. Because of the recent lack of warming this drops to 0.5 deg C if the last 100 years are considered.
However, a closer look reveals that as in any coupled non-linear complex (verging on chaotic?) system, we have to seek changes in trend. Linear Regression (best fit straight line) is insensitive to changes in trend i.e. recent stasis or cooling will do no more than reduce the slope of the regression line BUT for decades it will go on to show a fake warming trend. Any statistician knows this.
Let’s now analyse the multiple temperature trends since 1937 (the period attracting the heaviest accusations of man-made warming):
a) Statistically negative i.e. Cooling 1937 to 1970 (33 yrs)
b) Statistically positive i.e. Warming 1970 to 1995 (25 years)
c) Statistical Stasis 1995 to 2010 (15 years)
- ref Prof Phil Jones UEA CRU
Throughout the entire 73 years, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 increased smoothly year on year. FYI it was 310 ppmv in 1937 and had steadily risen to 390 ppmv by 2010. That’s about a 26% increase.
For only 25 years of the 73 year time frame above (period b) did warming correlate in any way, shape or form to increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Even then the erratic temperature profile showed little resemblance to the smooth steady rise in CO2.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Added following Dr Richard Courtney’s visit on 27th September 2010
Using the same mean global temperature datasets but going a little further back to 1910, we see the following:
1) An overall warming trend (slope on the graph) from 1910 to 1940 with a negligible rise in CO2 levels of 10 ppmv
2) Virtually the same overall warming trend (slope on the graph) repeated from 1970 to 2000 but with a rise in CO2 levels of 43 ppmv
IF CO2 were the primary temperature driver then how could a 43 ppmv increase only produce the same rate of warming as was observed with a mere 10 ppmv rise?
Note: This does not prove the rise in atmospheric CO2 has had no effect; it does prove that the rise in atmospheric CO2 has had no discernible effect.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In simple terms for you, the observations do not fit the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis.
The General Circulation models produce “pseudo-scary” scenarios for the future from poor assumptions based on exaggerating the weak relationship between temp and CO2 and also on highly inflated CO2 estimates. As Dr Freeman Dyson said, the models do not even get close to simulating reality (not verbatim).
You see, we know the science of aeronautics works because planes fly. The weak AGW hypothesis has created so much challenge and dissention because it can’t get off the ground; it falsifies itself time and again against the empirical data. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible (ref. UN-IPCC 2001 report).
Monday, October 4, 2010
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)