Mark Thompson submits this story:
Now that we have a majority Conserviative government in Canada and the past history of Liberal obfuscation is being erased, the Canadian and the broader world public is now getting a chance to hear the truth on climate issues.
The video link provided is two hours of testimony before a Canadian Senate Committee from December 15, 2011. Most who have a skeptical viewpoint will have already heard of some or all of the four presenters.
The presentations and follow-up questions are both excellent! Interesting to note the avoidance of some of the alarmist bullying seen in some of the U.S. Senate hearings from the likes of Clinton and Boxer. Of course, you’ll see the odd Liberal senator make the typical noxious commentary around thousands of scientists and ‘consensus’ but it doesn’t matter, they are only looking increasingly foolish.
View it all here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMQk-q8SpBU&feature=related
A model proceedure for such a committee – should be emulated globally. I assume that Senator Mitchell was the ‘court jester’, as he was allowed his little joke speech and then put back in his box. Interesting that he was prepared to throw the IPCC to the wolves though.
I always admired Ross for his work in busting the hockey stick graph and just being a thorn in the side of the alarmists over the years.
His performance here was very good and there were plenty of times where I would have erupted from my seat and flew over the table at some of the crap spewed by the liberal senators. In reality, he did plenty of damage by remaining calm, on topic and communicating clearly.
Most Canadians will never know what is happening here, but Harper seems to be a very patient man when it comes to this issue. If he is as skeptical as many (myself included) are hoping, than Canada might be in for a good few years.
As a Canadian, I thought this video was highly informative. Not only for the discussion, but also the liberal’s POV.
That Senator Mitchell – the quintessential warmist.
A big thank you to Ross and his mates for a little pure light shone on the subject.
This is a suggestion for Canadians. One of the issues raised was why is there so much reported on the side of CAGW, and so little reported against CAGW. I believe one of the reasons for this is bias on the part of the MSM in Canada. There is little one can do about such bias, where the MSM is privately funded.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corportaion (CBC) is publicly funded, and ought to conform to the 1991 Broadcasting Act. This Act specifies that when the CBC broadcasts anything on radio or television (not the internet), then it is required to give both sides of any issue that is of public importance. CAGW is of public importance, yet the recent radio broadcast by Bob MacDonald on Quirks of Quarks was hopelessly biased pro CAGW; and this bias has been present for years. I would like to suggest to Canadians that they contact the Senate Committee on Energy and Environment, and point out to them that the reason one only hears only one side of the CAGW debate in Canada, is at least in part due to the CBC flagrantly violating the provisions of the 1991 Broadcasting Act. If a lot of us do it independently, then maybe someone will listen.
To coin a phrase, “The Climates Changing”.
Al Baby :The “fool on the hill….watching the world COOLING DOWN” 🙂
Jim Cripwell says:
January 2, 2012 at 12:39 pm
This is a suggestion for Canadians. One of the issues raised was why is there so much reported on the side of CAGW, and so little reported against CAGW. I believe one of the reasons for this is bias on the part of the MSM in Canada. There is little one can do about such bias, where the MSM is privately funded.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corportaion (CBC) is publicly funded, and ought to conform to the 1991 Broadcasting Act. This Act specifies that when the CBC broadcasts anything on radio or television (not the internet), then it is required to give both sides of any issue that is of public importance. CAGW is of public importance, yet the recent radio broadcast by Bob MacDonald on Quirks of Quarks was hopelessly biased pro CAGW; and this bias has been present for years. I would like to suggest to Canadians that they contact the Senate Committee on Energy and Environment, and point out to them that the reason one only hears only one side of the CAGW debate in Canada, is at least in part due to the CBC flagrantly violating the provisions of the 1991 Broadcasting Act. If a lot of us do it independently, then maybe someone will listen.
I rarely watch the CBC. Too socialist for my liking. One day they had a documentary on the Arctic, I think it was. The first words of the commentator’s mouth that something along the lines of
“Ever since humans left Africa 30,000 years ago, we have changed the planet…”
I turned it off. Our $1.1 BILLION per year at work.
Sun News is all over the CBC for it’s blatant political biases.
The following was posted over a year ago on WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/17/canadian-senate-kills-climate-change-bill/
Canadian Senate kills climate change bill
Posted on November 17, 2010 by Anthony Watts
“Senate kills climate change bill
Last Updated: Wednesday, November 17, 2010
The Canadian Press
Senators have voted down an opposition bill to tackle climate change with just days to go before another round of United Nations talks in Mexico.”
DJ says:
January 2, 2012 at 8:59 am
Seems like an appropriate time to share, once again, the blame…
Blame Canada!
Robin Williams agrees! Via CTV no less!
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5JX4gWcWRAo&w=420&h=315%5D
Senator Grant Mitchell acted more like an AGW witness (not to be confused with an AGW witless) than a senator. But, given his firm conviction that man creates climate change, what would you expect? This is from a May 2010 speech ( http://senatorgrantmitchell.ca/speeches/9515.aspx ) of his:
“…That is exactly the kind of obligation that climate change involves — we create climate change today to impact someone who may not even be born yet. That concept makes the precise link to climate change being a human rights issue.
I know all honourable senators in this house agree with the assertion that we are causing climate change. Is there any honourable senator who would raise his or her hand to tell us people are not causing climate change?
All scientific evidence suggests that people are causing climate change. To those who say climate change is occurring, but people are not causing it, I repeat that we had better hope people are causing climate change because if we are not, we cannot fix it. We will have no chance to do so. We are not capable of moving sun spots to keep the temperature right. Some will then say that it has been happening for a million years. I will say it has been happening for a billion years, but the world has been uninhabitable for most of that time.
If honourable senators do not think we are causing climate change, they should drop to their knees and pray we are so we have a chance to fix it. The science is powerful; there is a great deal of scientific consensus. All those skeptics who argue against climate change can never demonstrate science that defends what they say. They can pick something apart from a room full of scientific data and taint it, and say that, because that piece is tainted, it is all wrong. That is like saying one line of the National Post is wrong; ergo every National Post article ever published is without credibility.
My point is that there is irrevocable science. We are causing global warming. It is within our grasp to fix it and that finishes the link for me. Human rights are affected by climate change today. Human rights will continue to be affected, unfortunately, with greater intensity in the future and with even greater intensity still if we do not start to act in a way that we should, and provide leadership in a way that a country like Canada can provide….”
I think these excerpts sum up his professed conclusions at the senate hearing nicely…he has evidently discovered something called “irrevocable science” which explains how climate causes human rights violations. Someone should alert the media….
ferd berple says: January 2, 2012 at 8:03 am
I liked Jan Veizer’s analogy. That under the IPCC model of positive feedback, Puerto Rico drives the world economy. That an increase in economic activity in Puerto Rico increases economic activity in the US, which increase economic activity worldwide. That a decrease in economic activity in Puerto Rico decreases economic activity in the US which decreases economic activity in the US which reduces economic activity worldwide. Thus Puerto Rico drives the world economy.
————————————————
Heh. This reminds me of the statement that everyone alive today has two parents, and four grandparents. Therefore, it must have been really crowded back then! Some logical arguments supporting AGW seem to be just as coherent as this.
saltspringson says:
January 2, 2012 at 1:41 pm
And to think I was feeling a bit sorry at the tragic decimation of the Federal Liberals in the last election. At the time I wanted them to be merely chastised for arrogance, not massacred. But if Senator Mitchell represents typical Liberal values and views, then I now celebrate the Liberal humiliation at the polls and wish electoral death upon their party. His rude dismissal of these scientists is simply disgusting.
I used to be a Liberal supporter all my life of 50 years, but when Stephan Dion pushed climate change and carbon taxes, that was it for me. I voted Tory in the next election.
One of Senator Grant Mitchell’s pet projects.
http://senatorgrantmitchell.ca/news/14487.aspx
http://www.councilofchurches.ca/communications/canadian_interfaith_call_for_action_on_climate_justice.pdf
It’s ALL about income/resource/wealth redistribution.
My problem with all this is that it’s dishonest to use scare tactics and an imaginary problem to try to achieve a goal that is probably unattainable. ie. material equality for all human beings.
Next time they should invite Donna!
Chris B says:
January 2, 2012 at 2:58 pm
One of Senator Grant Mitchell’s pet projects.
http://senatorgrantmitchell.ca/news/14487.aspx
[facepalm] wind turbines on his banner, Geeze, no he has no dog in this fight does he. He must have stocks in “green” companies.
He must have stocks in “green” companies….
Hello…..
Ya think? I have know idea, but I would look into it. See if he has any ties to Tata, the firm from India that just bought all of BP’s Solar interests in December…(terms not disclosed)
The Energy and Resources Institute, commonly known as TERI (formerly Tata Energy Research Institute), is headed by…Rajendra Kumar Pachauri…
…hey Al Gore…want me to continue?
You Canadians have been making a lot of common sense lately. If you guys create a free market health care system, my family will move to Winnipeg.
Oops, I forgot to mention…
Pachauri is such a busy man, I am suprised he had time to write his novel…what was it about again?
Anyway, Pachauri also heads Teri University:
From Wikipedia…
“TERI University was established on 19 August 1998 and recognized by the University Grants Commission (UGC) as a deemed to be University in 1999.[1][2] Set-up as the TERI School of Advanced Studies in 1998, the institution was subsequently renamed the TERI University.[3] In the period since its inception, the University has developed and evolved as a research university exploring the frontiers of knowledge in areas of major significance to human endeavour.[4][citation needed] TERI University is the first of its kind in India to dedicate itself to the study of environment, energy and natural sciences for sustainable development.[5]”
“TERI University signed memoranda of understanding (MoU) with several institutions with the aim of facilitating a mutually-beneficial exchange of students, faculty, knowledge, resources, and ideas.[14] In February 2002, TERI University entered into a memorandum of understanding with the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies of the Yale University.[15] In February 2003, TERI University signed MoU with Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, USA. In April 2005, the University entered into a MoU with the University of Nottingham, UK. In September 2007, TERI University signed MoU with Michigan State University, USA.[16] In November 2007, TERI University signed MoU with University of New South Wales, Australia.[17] In 2007 itself TERI University signed an agreement of cooperation with Freie University Berlin, Germany.[18] In February 2008, TERI University signed MoUs with University of Iceland, Iceland and North Carolina State University, USA.”
Andrew
A very interesting film. It is good to see that the Canadian government is looking at all sides of the issue. Senator Mitchell is clearly religiously converted to the cause – yet in his whole speech did not mention a single scientific fact to back up his argument. His whole case was based on “huge numbers of scientists” saying the same thing. He would never have accepted Copernicus’s theory, nor that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria.
I have met a lot of UK politicians and I know that privately they do not accept AGW, but they are afraid to speak out as they fear it would leave them isolated. That is one thing that most politicians fear. I was at a lunch where a prominent politician (now retired) was guest speaker. After his speech we were invited to ask questions. I asked him if he thought it was right that we should be spending so much money to prevent global warming. He replied by asking the audience how many of them wre not convinced the theory was right. To my surprise almost the whole audience put up their hand. He then said that he too was of the same opinion.
Salts,
OK. Lets say that you are correct in your emotional diatribe and that catastrophic warming is ongoing and manmade. Lets calculate how much warming could be mitigated by immediately reducing planetary CO2 emissions by 20% and maintaining that level until 2100 (which is impossible politically – but lets do it for fun). Worldwide emissions of CO2 in 2010 were estimated at 33 x 10*9 metric tonnes. The IPCC predicts approximately 0,02 degrees of warming per year on average OR 1 degree of warming per 1650 x 10*9 metric tonnes. Reducing emissions by 20% until 2100 comes out to a reduction of 587 x 10*9 tonnes compared to 2010 levels or approximately a third of a degree.
Are you REALLY willing to throw humanity into abject poverty to prevent 0,33 degrees of warming over 89 years ?
Jeff Wiita: “If you guys create a free market health care system, my family will move to Winnipeg.”
It already is. Only basic coverage is offered by the government. I get most of my coverage from work.
Jim Cripwell;
I like the way you think. I doubt much would change, but has anyone tried filing a formal complaint against the CBC?
Thanks for the vids with graphs. I have a couple of kvetches with Clark’s; he shows the 30s as much cooler than present, yet it had the warmest yr. of the century. And I think the labelling on his parallel CO2/Temp. slide (5:30ff) is reversed, as it clearly shows the CO2 red leading the yellow Temp. Which did not happen.
As for the McKitrick tax proposal, it has a stinger in the tail: It’s conditional. It goes up if the temperature does, and down if the temperature sinks. As he says, that way the politicians can’t go wrong, an amazing prospect.
Quite sneaky how the deputy chair tried to engineer the whole affair to finish with him and his “surely gentlemen you are not saying this is a conspiracy are you?” argument. This was why he did not speak second as is notmal in these types of meetings. He was derailed nicely and as previous posters have said, just looked silly.
No wonder Gore and his ilk do not want to have open debates. They would be slaughtered. There is a very endearing streak of common sense in the Canadian people and it was clearly on display here.