Jan. 29, 2007: Climate, IPCC, CBC, Film

The Preaching, the Politics and the Science ... and the Hockey Stick Graph

Preaching the climate catechism , Lorne Gunter, National Post, January 29, 2007

www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.ht
ml?id=34b2c4eb-1788-4242-a04d-eaa286afa9c7

You've no doubt heard there is an international scientific consensus that the planet is warming, that the warming will likely be catastrophic and it is being caused by human-produced emissions. The IPCC shows how this vaunted consensus is reached, not by getting all scientists to agree, but by defaming or ignoring those with opinions and research cast doubt on the dogma.

That's not science, it's shunning, the ancient religious punishment for heretics.

On Friday, the United Nations' global warming spin factory will switch into high gear with the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) latest report.

Actually, the spin will come mostly in the Summary for Policy Makers. The report itself, running to several hundred pages, will consist mostly of dry scientific papers that are usually far less definitive about the causes and effects of climate change. [....]

Remember headlines late last year such as "Greenhouse gases help make 2006 warmest year ever"? What didn't get reported was the fact those doom-laden records were based on only the first 11 months of last year. When the temperatures for December were added to the mix last week, 2006 turned out to be the coolest year in the past five.

[.... details, details ....]

These inconvenient truths would be bad for the cause of international central planning.

Worth reading.


Politics first, science second , Terence Corcoran, Financial Post, January 27, 2007

www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/archives/story.ht
ml?id=41b3dfe3-89ca-4683-b967-d79ea381ea84

If you've been lifting intellectual weights and taking extra runs around the science track to build mental stamina for next Friday's release of the much-hyped 1,600-page science report on climate change, you can now take it easy. There will be no report. You will not need to know about or read any science, because there will be no science. Instead, we are going to get a few ginned-up pages of generalized political scaremongering. [The summary]

[....] Steve McIntyre, the Canadian statistics expert who blew the whistle on the IPCC's junk-science creation -- the 1,000-year-old climate record, the infamous hockey stick -- reads those words to mean the IPCC will go through the science to get the science to back up the summary. "IPCC insiders should not be allowed to change a comma of the [final] report after Feb. 2," he says.

We have, therefore, an extraordinary operating scheme in which brief sensational summary statements are produced, while the basis for the summary is kept confidential so they can get the science to correspond to the summary. [....]

Today, the IPCC says the 1,000-year graph, the focal point of the February, 2001, summary, was a very minor part of the climate-science effort. The hockey stick, they say, played no big scientific role. But it played a major political role as part of the IPCC's campaign, which will be the sole purpose of next Friday's over-hyped event.

CBC is worried about attack ads ... if they harm Stephane Dion, CBC's environmental wunderkind or their Liberal Party.



CBC has a trust problem. I have caught them in lies but sometimes, there is so much going on, I don't have the time to post the details.



CBC "apology" wasn't really an apology , Arthur Weinreb, Canada Free Press, Thursday, August 24, 2006 , posted on CBC Watch, August 24, 2006 -- More here also

www.cbcwatch.ca/?q=node/view/2024

[....] After Stephen Taylor and others exposed what had happened, many outraged Canadians sent letters of complaint to the CBC. This led to a so-called "apology" earlier this week. At the conclusion of the news, Diana Swain talked about the two clips being juxtaposed and expressed "regret" that the CBC did not make it clear that Stephen Harper’s comments were not in answer to the woman’s statements about burning children and killing innocent people.

There was a glaring omission in Swain’s recounting of the original CBC segment. The two clips were not merely shown one after the other without comment. After the woman’s comments but before the Harper clip was shown, reporter Christina Lawand said, "Stephen Harper clearly wasn’t swayed". What wasn’t he swayed about — his wife wanting to have a dog at 24 Sussex? The only logical interpretation of Lawand’s voiceover was that Harper clearly wasn’t swayed about what the woman had said about stopping the killing of innocent civilians.

Swain’s statement at the conclusion of the news was not an apology. Swain, on behalf of the CBC expressed regrets that they did not make it clear (that Harper’s statement was not in answer to the woman’s statement). There was no acknowledgement of any error, especially when it came to Lawand’s role in linking the two video clips. By expressing regrets that the CBC did not make it clear was in effect saying that the network feels sorry that their viewers were just so dumb that they automatically assumed that Harper was responding to the woman’s statement instead of something completely different. The mainstream media is the only business in the world where the customer is always wrong. [....]

This is the kind of despicable politicized reporting that I have noted more than once on CBC. You'd have to live with a Blackberry and be ready to type to record all their dirty little ruses ... but, CBC, we know and we pass the word around.



All Canadian taxpayers should be interested in the National Film Board response, in this one.

Quebec film hits socialiste nerve -- Targets unions, state monopolies , Graeme Hamilton, January 27, 2007, National Post

www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.ht
ml?id=eb2120a5-2513-40e8-b236-77bf958fe685&k=
99482&p=3

MONTREAL - A new disaster movie is playing in Quebec theatres, but this one features no tidal waves or nuclear Armageddon. The nightmare scenario in L'illusion tranquille involves an ageing society living beyond its means, unable to shake the grip of meddlesome government and powerful trade unions. The place is Quebec, and the year is 2007.

The low-budget documentary, made by two novice filmmakers and financed from their own savings, is fuelling debate on a topic considered taboo until recently. Has the so-called "Quebec model" for development, with its emphasis on government intervention in the economy and sweeping social programs, run its course?

"What I concluded is very simple," the film's director, Joanne Marcotte, says through the voice of a narrator as the film opens.

"Quebec is suffocating under the weight of state monopolies and a new union clergy. Our system for redistributing wealth is obsolete. Universality is an illusion, and the glory years of Quebec's union movement are well behind us." [....]

Search: Quebec media were largely ignoring , At the Montreal headquarters of the National Film Board , more important to be different than , daycare at just $7 a day , university tuition fees , DVD

Worth reading.