Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Germany today - obey or lose your kids

It happened in Germany. Melissa Busekros was failing math and Latin, and it was suggested by the school authorities that she repeats the seventh grade. Melissa wasn't really a failing student; she was doing well in all other subjects so her parents didn't believe that Melissa must be left back. They started tutoring her at home.

One may think the school authorities would only welcome parents who spend more time with their daughter, helping her with her studies. No way. School authorities were furious. They couldn't accept that someone dares to doubt their wisdom. Parents think they know better? No way! And to think those parents were doing a better job too! A unionized ragtag that runs the public schools nowadays doesn't like competition. Melissa was expelled and her parents started homeschooling her full time.

Home schooling is not allowed in Germany. Compulsory attendance laws, adopted under the Nazi rule in 1938, are still on the books and allow no exception. Families cannot even join together to organize their own small private schools, let alone just teaching their kids at home. The "youth welfare office" (yet another Nazi creation which has survived WW2) accepted no compromise. They took the Busekros family to court and obtained a permission to seize the girl.

On February 1, Melissa was abducted by 15 (fifteen!!!) police officers and moved to a psychiatric ward where she's been diagnosed with a mysterious illness named "school phobia". The officials later admitted that test results were inaccurate but instead of returning Melissa to her parents, they moved her to a foster care at undisclosed location. Then came her siblings' turn. Busekros family was given an ultimatum: if they want the "youth welfare office" to leave them alone, they better give up custody of their other 5 children. Those kids were not homeschooled but that doesn't stop German social workers who apparently believe that ruining the Busekros family would be a perfect lesson to others.

Meanwhile Melissa was moved to yet another foster family. Previous foster parents didn't like the girl's habits to study on her own. Melissa is forced to undergo yet another psychiatric test. Her family tries to bring her back but the laws are against them and few human rights groups have agreed to help.

"This is a precedent that's going to affect not just Germany," Joel Thornton, president of the International Human Rights Group, told WorldNetDaily. "This is an extreme case even for Germany, but it won't be extreme any more if they get away with it."

Joel Thornton is right. What happened in Germany could easily happen in Canada where parents' rights to oversee the education of their children is already being taken away by the governments of Quebec and British Columbia. If we allow German officials to abduct kids from homeschooling families, we may one day the same happening in Canada. So let's act before it's too late. Contact the German Embassy in Ottawa to express your outrage. And next time you go shopping, make sure you don't buy German products.

German Homeschooled 15-year-old Sentenced to Child Psychiatry Unit (Life Site)
German Homeschool Student Placed in Foster Care, Parents Not told Location (Life Site)
Authorities Ask German Homeschooling Family to Give up Custody of Other 5 Children (Life Site)
2007 German Horror Tale (Washington Times)

Income Splitting - last day to speak up

As the budget day nears, the Tories try to distance themselves from income splitting. While the budget estimates include income splitting for seniors, the government signals that is as far as they are ready to go this year. It's believed there's simply no room in the budget for full income splitting which, if implemented, will reduce government revenues by $5 billion.

But what about partial income splitting? What if we start by allowing a limited amount (even as little as $15,000) to be attributed to a spouse? That alone will reduce the tax burden for plenty of families by as much as $1000 a year. That will make income splitting a 'fait accompli' which no opposition party would dare to repeal. The cost will be 3-4 times lower than implementing full income splitting; loss of tax revenue could easily be offset by eliminating wasteful spending. And it will make way for the full income splitting with the transfer limit phased out in the subsequent budgets.

According to the Ipsos-Reid Poll, 77% of Canadians think income splitting is a good idea. Let's make the government aware of that. The online pre-budget consultations end at midnight (Eastern time). That's just a little over 8 hours from now. So let's make our voices heard while the opportunity is still there.

Monday, February 26, 2007

Good intentions yet more abortions

Those who came up with the idea to offer women a generous cash bonus for having another child hoped it would encourage more births, support larger families and reduce the number of abortions. Unfortunately they've achieved just the opposite.

Russia was the first to learn what consequences could such ill-planned proposal bring. The government had announced a proposal to encourage parenthood by paying as much as 250,000 roubles (CAN$11,000) to women if they have another child born in 2007 or later. But as the legislators were debating the proposal, thousands of women who expected their second child to be born in 2006 were lining up in abortion clinics. With fetal rights nearly unheard of, plenty of them considered abortion a small price to pay for the opportunity to break out of poverty thanks to the "baby bonus". Those who hesitated were often pressured by their family members who regarded them as "losers" for "giving birth for free".

One may think that other countries would learn from Russia's mistakes. That if someone comes up with the idea to pay the parents for having another child then at least they don't announce it too early. This didn't happen. When the Cypriot government announced a proposal to pay women £24,000 (CAN$50,000) for a third child, this has resulted in a flood of inquires about abortions. Again, someone's desire to cash in outweighs the baby's right to life. Didn't the Cypriot officials see what happened in Russia? How come nobody thought that such proposal should take effect on the date of the announcement? That excluding babies born before certain date in the future will result in thousands of them being killed before birth?

Hopefully Cypriot authorities find the way to stop their poor planning from causing even more damage. As for Canada - I hope the government comes up with much better proposal. Offering cash bonus for a newborn discriminates against babies that are born day before the bonus kicks in. I'd rather see the government increasing the amount that families with children could earn tax free. A $5000 'child exemption' would save families nearly $14000 in income taxes over 18 years. Supplementary amounts could be made available for families with three or more children to make the tax savings even higher. I think that would be better solution than giving out checks and then clawing back most of the money in taxes.

Saturday, February 24, 2007

When poor-choicers can't argue (Video)

When poor-choicers can't argue, they just try to silence the opponents. Here's a video of some UBC students trashing the fetal rights display. This was filmed sometime last October, most likely using a camera phone or a webcam. The quality is not perfect, but some faces are visible quite clearly.

It's interesting how the UBC poor-choicers feel entitled to deny pro-lifers the freedom of speech. Apparently these guys have never heard of Voltaire and his famous statement "I disagree with what you say but I'll fight until I die for your right to say it" seems to be unknown to them.

(Courtesy of Suzanne from the Big Blue Wave.)

Friday, February 23, 2007

Let them lead by example

Celebrities like to play the "nation's conscience". They enjoy telling others what to do. Too bad they never lead by example. They condemn SUV drivers, flying around the globe in private jets. They call a $1000 tax hike "3 cups of coffee a day", claiming we could live without them and yet they spend thousands like quarters buying luxuries. They claim to care for the poor but their mansions have huge "no soliciting" signs for those who make a living going door to door. Now they're working on organizing seven "Live Earth" concerts around the world to teach us how to care for the environment. They believe it's not just their right but their duty to show us the way.

If so then they should be the first to shape up. Let them live like common people. Without palaces, private jets and luxury cars. Let them drive bicycles to work - just as they want us to do. Let them move to smaller houses, ones that don't require that much fuel for heating. Let them donate all the royalties they receive, leaving nothing but an average worker's wage for themselves. Let all those environment-crazy celebrities sign up on a declaration, which Lorrie Goldstein, a Toronto Sun columnist has prepared for them. Unless they accept the challenge, all their "Live Earth" concerts will have nothing to do with clean air. There will be just plenty of hot air instead.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Oh those guys with two left eyes :)

You must be a liberal if you believe:
  1. That capital punishment is inhumane but abortion on demand is a human right.

  2. That corporations create oppression and governments create prosperity.

  3. That guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists.

  4. That there was no art before government funding.

  5. That gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

  6. That global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.

  7. That AIDS virus is spread by a lack of government funding.

  8. That the same teacher who can't teach 4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

  9. That a violent criminal needs 'help' as much as his victim.

  10. That outdoorsmen don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

  11. That cigarettes and alcohol should be banned but marijuana should be legal.

  12. That self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

  13. That the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

  14. That when a heterosexual suddenly discovers he or she is homosexual, it must be accepted without question, but a homosexual can never, ever, suddenly discover he or she is really heterosexual, and if that individual even thinks of attempting to change, he's going to do irreparable harm to himself and the world.

  15. That Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Edison.

  16. That standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

  17. That scrawling swastikas on the wall of a Yeshiva is a legitimate form of protest against the Israeli policy towards arabs but wearing a t-shirt that says 'Homosexuality is a sin' is a hate crime.

  18. That the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

  19. That no child should ever be told "NO", but slapping hamburgers, cigarettes and other legal products out of the hands of adults is ok.

  20. That conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

  21. That homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

  22. And finally:
  23. That this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy :)

P.S. No, it's not my text, it's something I got in the mail :)

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

A message to Jim Flaherty

As the next budget is being prepared, citizens are welcome to participate in the online consultation process. Up until midnight (EST) on Feb.28, we have the opportunity to indicate our priorities and give a short comment (up to 50 words) on taxes, debt and program spending.
Here are my comments:

Priority 1: Personal tax.
It's time to start phasing in the income splitting. Even if the amount one could attribute to a spouse is limited at first, families will be given a tax break which the opposition parties won't dare to repeal. The limit could then be increased until income splitting is fully implemented.

Priority 2: Debt.
Let's start borrowing from ourselves to consolidate the debt. EI and CPP surpluses could be invested in government bonds, securing higher returns for EI and CPP with lower borrowing costs for the government. Let's start using the Bank of Canada to consolidate public debt and reduce the interest payments.

Priority 3: Corporate tax.
Many provinces have lower tax rate for manufacturing and processing sector. Implementing M&P rate federally will reduce production costs, allowing Canadian industries to remain competitive despite the high dollar.

Priority 4: Spending.
Program spending must be brought under control. Zero-base policy should be implemented, making it mandatory for all government departments to justify all the funds they receive. For the next few years, any new funds for essential services should come from eliminating wasteful spending in other departments.
Note: Program expenses have swollen from $102B in 1996/97 to $187B in 2006/07. That's over 80% increase in 10 years.

Other: The CHP proposal to revive Canada's decaying infrastructure through Bank of Canada loans to provinces and municipalities at little or no interest is worth considering.

Monday, February 19, 2007

Stay away from my body?

Poor-choicers like this argument. They claim that woman's right to make decision over her body outweighs the unborn's right to life. Their favorite example is a minor who is pregnant and wants an abortion. But what if a pregnant teenage girl chooses life?

A judge in Italy decided that pregnant teenagers have no right to choose life if their parents want abortion. A 13 year-old girl, Valentina, was forced to undergo an abortion just because that's what her mother wanted. The judge decided that a minor has no right to decide for herself; that her parents know better...

Better? Abortion left the girl mentally devastated. Valentina blames herself for what she was forced to do. The girl ended up confined to the psychiatric unit for trying to commit suicide. Having her child been brutally murdered is not something she'll soon forget. Valentina's mother believed that having a child would ruin the girl's life. By taking her daughter to court to have her unborn grandchild killed, she's accomplished just that.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

C288 passed, what's next?

Let it go to the Senate. Before Kyoto targets become legally binding, C288 still has to be introduced in the Senate, accepted in the second reading, reviewed and reported by the committee and finally voted on in the third reading. This should still take at least a couple of months since the Senate also has some government bills to deal with. Meanwhile the Parliament is expected to have a budget vote sometime in the last week of March.

If the government loses the budget vote, then the Parliament will be dissolved and C288 will die on the order paper. But what if the government survives the budget vote and the Senate passes C288 later this spring? Kyoto targets become legally binding and the government will be given 60 days to prepare the "climate change plan" which will ensure these targets are met.

Well, if we have no choice, let the government do just that. Let them prepare the Kyoto plan. Let everyone see the cost of this so called "climate change initiative" with all its effects on the economy. Let's see what industries will have to be shut down and whether the number of the unemployed will be measured in millions or if we'll have "only" few hundred thousands losing their jobs. Let the numbers speak for themselves. Let the government show us all the tax revenue that will be lost and all the billions of dollars that Canada will be forced to pay the third world as penalties for not shutting down what will be left of our industries. Let the plan be released. And once released, it will be the Conservative government telling the opposition - repeal C288 or face an election.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

A Valentine tradition that works.

When out-of-wedlock births are nearing 40 percent, when most children will reach age 18 without both of their parents together, celebrating St. Valentine’s Day has less and less the note of joy and romance in it.

Interesting article by Patrick F. Fagan. Shows yet again that the best contribution to a steady relationship is abstinance before marriage and fidelity – after.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Work for two - pay taxes for three

Tax policies are preferential. There's no arguing about that. The rich is taxed at higher rate than the poor. We pay no sales tax on bread but cigarettes and alcohol are overtaxed. Students and seniors receive tax breaks that are unavailable to other taxpayers. Most of the tax rules are quite reasonable. But why should single-income families pay more tax than the dual-income families with the same income?

Unfortunately that's how the income tax works. Spousal exemption is 15% less than personal exemption and tax brackets are not doubled just because one of the spouses is working for two. Thus even the low income families with single income end up paying 15-20% more taxes than dual income familes. Middle-class families often end up paying about 50% more in income taxes than dual-income families where income is evenly split between the partners. Because of higher tax rates as well as various high-income surtaxes charged by the provinces, a family member who chooses to work for two, often ends up paying taxes for three.

That's how it's been for decades. It wasn't until last fall when the government finally announced its plans to put an end to the discrimination by allowing income splitting. If implemented, spouses will be allowed to attribute their income to each other, so they could fully benefit from the same lower rates and tax credits that are available to the dual income families. At first, income splitting will only be allowed to seniors but hopefully the program will eventually be extended to benefit the younger generations as well. This will end the decades-old discrimination against single income families.

Unfortunately the opposition doesn't support the proposal. The NDP claims it will be nothing but a tax cut for the rich. Pardon me? Did any of them bother to do the math? Let's take a family with $50,000 income. A dual-income family where both spouses make $25,000 a year pays $2256 x 2 = $4512 in federal taxes. If however one of the spouses decides to stay home while other takes a full-time job which pays $50,000, their household income won't change but their federal taxes will go up to $5604. If the couple lives in New Brunswick, their provincial taxes will increase from $2952 ($1476 x 2) to $3916. Tax cuts to the rich? A family that makes $50,000 can hardly be considered rich. So why should they pay extra $2056, just so one of the parents could stay at home? We've heard more than enough about how expensive it is to send a child to the daycare. But it turns out that staying at home with the kids can also be quite expensive.

When the Conservative party announced its plans to introduce a $100 per month childcare benefit, many argued it's too little to cover the daycare cost and not enough to reward a stay at home parent. Well, we've just seen how income splitting could nearly triple the amount. Instead of mailing a larger check every month the government could simply let the families keep the money in the first place. Isn't that a far more reasonable approach?

As the government prepares the next budget, it seeks public input through the pre-budget consultations. If we want the discrimination against single-income families to end, we better speak up.

Monday, February 12, 2007

A nation that hasn't lost its mind

While Canada's opposition parties try to enshrine Kyoto in law, Czech president Vaclav Klaus stood up for common sense. He's criticized the UN panel on global warming, stating that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.

If such a statement was made by George Bush, many would probably say that Bush simply doesn't know what he's talking about or that he speaks for the big oil companies. Well, here's a president of the Czech Republic. Intelligent man, who doesn't own shares of the big oil companies, yet who is a leader of a country that has suffered more than enough from socialist schemes. In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses. This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite. Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change. Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...

A: ...I am right...

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't.
I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa. It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago. That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.

[English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos Motl]
Source (Also available here)

Saturday, February 10, 2007

SoCons need not apply?!

It's been just few days since Garth Turner has joined the Liberals. He wasn't the first "Red Tory" to be elected as a Conservative who ended up crossing the floor to the Liberals. Too bad that it seems like the senior officials in the Conservative Riding Associations have learned nothing from the story. Some of them obviously still favor the "Red Tories" over the Social Conservatives.

Same as John Pacheco, a Social Conservative, wasn't allowed to seek Conservative nomination in Ottawa West - Nepean about 2 years ago, Heather Stilwell wasn't allowed to run for nomination in a BC riding of Newton - North Delta. Heather Stilwell is a prominent advocate for the right to life and the traditional family. That's too Conservative for the Riding Association members who seem to believe that Conservatism stands for nothing but lower taxes. Mrs. Stilwell used to lead the Christian Heritage Party for a couple of years. Christian Heritage? For some of the party officials that's like a red rag to a bull. Heather's application was rejected.

Unlike John Pacheco, whose rejection was open, Mrs. Stilwell's application was rejected under cover of technicality. The police didn't mail the original certificate of good conduct on time and the riding association decided that a facsimile copy is not enough. The nomination meeting is still three weeks from now - so what? The deadline has passed, better luck next time.

Those supporting the EDA position claim that Conservative party is looking forward to win majority and therefore we should filter out "controversial" candidates and nominate those that are "electable". But Heather Stilwell is one of the longest currently serving trustees on the Surrey School Board. Somehow Heather's Social Conservative views didn't prevent her from getting elected back in 1990 and winning several reelections since then. Mrs. Stilwell was the founding president of a local Merchants' Association, and ran a small business in Surrey. If the nomination committee was looking for a candidate with name recognition and diverse political experience, Heather would be more than welcome. But it seems like the Conservative EDA in Newton - North Delta had different objectives.

What exactly? Not sure if their goal is just to keep the Social Conservatives out or if they are trying to reserve the riding for yet another veteran "Red Tory". But they better remember that expelling Larry Spencer from the caucus wasn't enough to make Joe Clark support the merger. That attempts to silence outspoken pro-lifers like Cheryl Gallant didn't stop Belinda Stronach from crossing the floor. That denying Conservative nomination to John Pacheco didn't make Garth Turner respect Harper's leadership. That all the most recent backstabbings came from the "Red Tories" and there will be plenty of them to come if the Riding Associations keep nominating Red Tories instead of letting the true Conservatives represent the party.

Update as of Feb.12, 20:45 AST Heather Stilwell is back in the race thanks to the Life Site News raising awareness of the issue and many Social Conservatives who took the time to contact the party and express their outrage. Good luck, Heather! We need you in the House of Commons!

Tuesday, February 6, 2007

Was Garth Turner ever a Conservative?

Garth Turner, MP for Halton has joined the Liberal caucus. Some criticize him for that. They believe Turner should've remained Independent until next election. In my opinion Turner shouldn't have run as a Conservative in the first place since he's never actually been one.

Of course Turner wouldn't agree with me on that. In his blog he blames Stephen Harper for taking away his party. But Turner left politics after the 1993 election and didn't come back until the last election was called in late 2005. By then the old PC party was long gone. Wasn't Turner aware of that?

If Turner opposed the merger, he could join a handful of former PC members which had created their own "Progressive Canadian" party. In that case, Stephen Harper would have no authority over him. Garth Turner could also choose Green Party or he could run as Independent. Yet he choose to run as a Conservative.

He was a Conservative MP in name only. His controversial statements on Christians, his claims that Social Conservatives don't represent the society speak for themselves. What kind of support was he expecting? If Turner thought that Social Conservatives have nowhere to turn so he might as well insult them, trying to attract some Liberal voters then the former PC collapse of 1993 (for which Turner as a cabinet minister was also responsible) taught him nothing. If however he knew that Social Conservatives may end up having a candidate of their own and was trying to secure his re-election by appealing mostly to the Liberal voters then his expulsion from the Conservative party was nothing but a pre-emptive measure as he would've crossed the floor anyway.

Garth Turner claims he didn't really cross the floor since he didn't belong to any party for about 4 months. Well, crossing the floor from Conservatives to the Liberals in two steps is still crossing the floor. By the way, is it a coincidence that Turner decided to join the Liberal caucus on February 6th - on the same day David Emerson joined the Conservatives a year ago?

Some may remember Turner's opposition to David Emerson crossing the floor from the Liberals to the Conservative cabinet. Not sure how vocal he was but Wikipedia only quotes this: "I'm expecting the Whip will be assigning me a renovated washroom somewhere in a forgotten corner of a vermin-infested dank basement in Ottawa. That should go well with my seat in the House of Commons that will be visible only during lunar eclipses." In plain English - Turner joined the Conservatives looking forward for a lucrative cabinet position but that position went to someone else. His investment in the Conservative party didn't pay off (just as the investments of those who bought Nortel shares at his advice), so he was quite upset.

What upsets me however is not the fact that Garth Turner crossed the floor. It's the fact that Turner won the Conservative nomination and was elected as a Conservative (rather than as a Liberal) that makes me feel uncomfortable. What kind of nomination committees do we have in the urban ridings? How come Conservatives in name only like Garth Turner were found eligible to run for Conservative nomination while true Conservatives like John Pacheco were denied that opportunity?

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global warming - proven beyond any doubt?

As many as 161 MPs believe it is. The opposition has passed a motion urging the Parliament "to acknowledge that there is "overwhelming scientific evidence" that global warming has been brought on by human activity". To make things worse, the Liberals have introduced a bill with similar working that would be binding on the Conservative Government if passed. The opposition clearly wants the global warming issue to be "settled" just the way other social issues were. They want their opinion (and only their opinion) to become the undisputable truth on which no debate is allowed.

Before that happens, lets look at the articles which National Post has been publishing for the last couple months. Maybe the scientific evidence of global warming is not that overwhelming after all.

Part 1: Statistics Needed-The Deniers
Part 2: Warming is real - and has benefits
Part 3: The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science
Part 4: Polar scientists on thin ice
Part 5: The original denier: into the cold
Part 6: The Sun moves climate change
Part 7: Will the Sun cool us?
Part 8: The limits of predictability
Part 9: Look to Mars for the truth on global warming
Part 10: Limited role for CO2