Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


John Baird has priorities..

… and one of them certainly isn’t the Environment. Perhaps he or the PMO figured out his credibility is shot on that file. He’s a rather curious choice though to be the Cabinet Minister in charge of announcing that we’re going to be looking for a couple of lost ships, I suppose since Parks Canada is undertaking the search, it would technically fall under his mandate, and I suppose it’s better then having to listen to his usual blowhard self attacking the Green Shift.

H/T to Life In Moderation on the boat search story.


4 comments to John Baird has priorities..

  • kwittet

    Hey Brian…i agree with you that anything that OLDSCHOOL said about the enviroment is totally irrelevant because he uses a handle instead of his real name. I mean lets not confuse the facts with that petty issue. I dont know about anyone else but my finances are more important to me than Dion picking my pocket to help the poor( Ken Boshcoff Libeal MP says the green shaft is all about helping the poor and nothing to do with the enviroment). All the enviromental whackos will dispute any scientific evidence from this point on that this is anything but a normal cycle and certainly Dion and his Liberal sheep will follow. When you go after the minority vote, the womens vote and the enviroMENTALists votes, lets face it. this has become a huge multi billion dollar business that is aimed at screwing the rich and middle class out of there money!!

  • kyleolsen

    Parks Canada is under Heritage, and under joint Northern Affairs and Heritage in the north if I’m not mistaken.

    Baird must have just been in Ottawa when the government needed a story to deflect attention.

  • Does this guy really think that anyone is going to read that diatribe and conspiracy theories? Pollution is pollution, and no matter what the consequences are, they are bad. We have to get off our fossil fuels and find cleaner ways of living and running energy.

    Now matter what any one can spew out, nothing will convince me that city smog is good for people, and the environment. That all the damage to the tar sands is not good for our country.

    But yet, there are still folks who are oldschool who believe the world is 6000 years old.

    posted by someone who doesn’t have to hide his name.

  • Oldschool

    Like why would we entertain the so-called “Green-Shift” nonsense when . . .

    New ice cores shows that in the six global warmings over the past half a million years, temperature rises and falls occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rises and falls in atmospheric carbon. The carbon rises could not have either started or ended the temperature rises. So there must be natural influences on global temperatures that are more powerful than atmospheric carbon levels.
    With the reversal of the ice core evidence, there is now no evidence that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None.
    Evidence is a set of observations by people of events. The scientific method demands evidenceótheory, politics, and vested interests are all trumped by evidence. The scientific method evolved as our best method for obtaining reliable information, precisely because it was immune from forces such as power and superstition.
    Western governments have spent $50b on global warming since 1990, yet have found no evidence. We are constantly bombarded with evidence that the world has warmed. Donít you think we would have heard all about any evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming, if there was any?
    Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. The satellites go around 24/7, measuring the temperature across broad swathes of the world, everywhere except the poles. Three of the four world temperature records use satellite data partly or exclusively, and they all say that the world stopped warming in 2001 and that temperatures have recently dipped.
    We looked for the greenhouse signature and could not find it. Each possible cause of global warming heats the atmosphere in a different pattern. Increased greenhouse warming causes a hotspot 10 km up over the tropics. The hotspot is central to our understanding: if there is no hotspot then either there is no significant increased greenhouse warming, or we donít understand greenhouse and all our climate models are rubbish anyway
    Decades of measurements with thermometers in weather balloons have been unable to find even a small hotspot. So we now know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the recent global warming. I would switch back to being an alarmist if we had found a strong greenhouse signature. (By the way, our carbon emissions have no doubt caused some underlying warming, but not enough to create a hotspot that we have been able to detect so far.)
    These four changes have rendered our current debate over carbon emissions obsolete. The changes occurred slowly as the science on each item became more settled, so there was no sudden news flash to make us sit up and take notice.

    Policy makers must grapple with the possibility that global temperatures donít rise over the next decade, and that the recent rises were predominately not due to our carbon emissions. Deliberately wrecking the economy for reasons that later turn out to be bogus hardly seems like a recipe for electoral success.
    The UN science body on this matter, the IPCC, is a political body composed mainly of bureaucrats. So far it has resisted acknowledging the new evidence. But as Lord Keynes famously asked, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.