Thursday, July 10, 2008

Dion admits his 'green shift' does NOT regulate anything, it's about the tax system!

Here's more of Jim Bradley's environmental bluster when he was in opposition, from the Ontario Legislature, Sept. 23, 2002:

“Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): For years the government of Ontario was an environmental leader, prodding the federal government to take aggressive action to clean up and protect the environment and trying to persuade reluctant provincial governments to tackle tough environmental challenges.Sadly, there's a new axis developing, an axis of environmental regression, with Ralph Klein, the Alberta Premier who has dismissed environmental concerns throughout his career, teaming up with Ernie Eves to torpedo the plan to reduce greenhouse gases and clean the air in Canada.At a time when bold environmental leadership is needed, Ernie Eves and his ministers are toeing the Klein line, fighting every effort to take meaningful action to meet the provisions of the Kyoto accord and trotting out old, discredited arguments that were stale 30 years ago.While scientists around the world warn us of the dire consequences of global warming and Ontario residents choke on dirty air, the Eves Conservatives engage in a war not against environmental degradation but against those who are prepared to move quickly and boldly to deal with air quality problems that, according to the Ontario Medical Association, result in 1,900 premature deaths per year and $9.9 billion in costs to our health system and the economy annually.The last thing Ontario needs is a lecture from a man whose environmental vision can only be described as bizarre and neanderthal and a subservient, whimpering Eves government enthusiastically joining the Klein team.Why is it that we have to put up with Conservatives always telling us why the environment cannot be cleaned up instead of taking aggressive action to do just that? It's time to abandon the Klein crusade and to join the green team.”

Looking back at Bradley’s words it’s unbelievable that this smug MPP can still be taken seriously – Bradley and his government have done nothing about the biggest polluter in Ontario – the Liberal government's own Nanticoke plant! How many thousands of Ontarians have died due to Bradley’s government’s inaction regarding the closing of their coal-generated power plants? Why haven’t scrubbers been installed by the Liberals?

Bradley jibber-jabbered then about “aggressive” and “meaningful action” and “moving quickly” and “boldly”.
Bradley jibber-jabbered then about all the premature deaths.

Yet Bradley and his fear-mongering Liberal government have DONE NOTHING SINCE !

(see: Jim Bradley's Smoggy-Bottom Grits;

see: The Red's green show: into the heart of darkness;

see: A Liberal Pile of Grit;

see: Suzuki 'solution' : start building jails for McGuinty's enviro-crimes?;

see: Liberal Jim Bradley looks like he's got something to hide;

see: The Incredible Liberal Jim Bradley;

see: Liberal Jim Bradley: Greenliness is next to Godliness;

see: Liberal Dalton McGuinty's environmental position of hypocrisy;

see: Millionaire Liberal Jim Bradley: fan claims "He's Elvis" ! )

The last thing we need are Kyodiot Neanderthals, like Liberal MPP Jim Bradley, who enthusiastically align themselves with enviro-fearmongerers and refuse to reveal the costs associated with their so-called urgent green actions to ‘clean up the environment’. Bradley ignores China and India's emerging role in creating the pollution which Bradley claims he is fighting in Ontario.

Bizarrely, Ontario Liberal MPP Bradley still hasn’t even specifically revealed what evidence he used in 2002 to agitate for Kyoto. It is Bradley who is still emitting old, discredited, alarmist, stale arguments, even with his Liberal’s recent do-nothing mini-Kyoto revival with Quebec.

(This reminds me of Lorne Gunter’s column in the National Post, July 28, 2008, titled “Who’s swindling who?”:

“'Ofcom is of the view that the audience of this programme was not materially misled in a manner that would have led to actual or potential harm."

Ofcom is the Office of Communications, the British broadcast regulator --not unlike our CRTC--and the "programme" is a documentary entitled The Great Global Warming Swindle, produced by Britain's independent Channel 4 last year.

Swindle was controversial from the moment it first aired because it dares to suggest a change in solar radiation over the past century is the cause of global warming, not man-made greenhouse gases.

To allow that there is any source other than man is heresy among environmentalists, journalists and many scientists. Their instincts being authoritarian rather than scientific, this group's ultimate goal is greater government regulation of human activities that upset their ideological biases, particularly corporate and consumer activities. If it could be proven that warming is naturally occurring, rather than human-induced, there would be no justification for expanding government power in the name of saving the planet since natural warming would be beyond our ability to control.

And since these green authoritarians are as interested in silencing their opponents are they are in disseminating their own views, they appealed to Ofcom that Swindle was unfair.

When Ofcom ruled last week that Swindle's presentation of the facts on global warming had "caused some concern" and that the show's producers had selectively edited the views of two prominent scientists -- Sir David King, the former chief scientific advisor to the U. K. government, and Professor Carl Wunsch, an MIT oceanographer -- to show one (King) as a wacky eco-extremist and the other as an opponent of the man-made theory (Wunsch is not), it was widely reported that the film had been "deemed unfair, biased and totally misleading."

But the fact is, Ofcom actually ruled that Swindle did "not materially mislead" its audience.

The regulator further ruled that "in dealing with an issue such as the theory of anthropogenic global warming, which is the subject of scientific controversy, those involved in the debate will -- by definition -- disagree over the factual accuracy of each others' claims." Therefore, Ofcom acknowledged "that while there is a broad consensus amongst scientists, governments and the public that global warming is directly related to anthropogenic causes, this is still a topic of debate."

In terms of balance, Swindle was not required to give opposing views equal weight since programs and articles supporting the theory of man-made global warming are widely available in all media. Furthermore, "Ofcom does not believe that … the omission of the views of certain environmentalists was misleading to the viewer."

Ofcom allowed that in discussing public policy solutions to global warming, the film failed to represent both sides equally. But since prominent environmentalists such as David Suzuki and NASA's James Hansen have called for the jailing of those who disagree with the global warming orthodoxy, it can hardly be said that Swindle's opponents are any more even-handed.

"It is to some extent inevitable," Ofcom concluded, "that in a polemical programme such as The Great Global Warming Swindle both sides of the argument will violently disagree about the 'facts'."

None of this, of course, has prevented environmentalists from interpreting Ofcom's ruling to fit their world-view. Indeed, they are past masters at selecting what supports their theories and ignoring everything else.

Therefore I anticipated the deluge of gloating comments that inevitably followed the misreporting of Ofcom's criticisms of Swindle.

Scores of e-mails poured into my inbox following the ruling, most from the "See, see, I told you you were wrong about global warming" school. Many concluded I should now remain silent on the subject (as if a broadcast regulator could provide the final word on the science of global warming).

My favourite--because it is so representative of mainstream environmental thinking -- said my frequent columns on global warming are "not only an insult to our intelligence [sic] but should never have seen print" because they "mislead the readers" so as "to cause harm and offense."

Gee, who's insulting readers now? If columns that attack global warming dogma are so bad, won't readers see through them for themselves? Or are environmentalists the only people in the world to whom discernment has been given?

Calls for views such as those held by the producers of Swindle to be silenced reveal that the caller's own arguments are weak and that their desire to control others is paramount to their belief in free speech and full scientific inquiry.”

When Liberal Bumbledore Stephane Dion stumbled into St. Catharines, Ont. on July 9, 2008 with his Green Shaft '08 Tour, Liberal MPP Jim Bradley was there in the audience cheerfully smiling and clapping like a giddy schoolboy, enamoured with Dion’s every carbon-taxing, and often unintelligible, word.
Sadly, other St. Catharines politicians were there as well, clapping and cheering Dion, such as councillor Greg Washuta and St.Catharines Mayor McFullofit, Brian McMullan.
These are the people who will happily be implementing Dion’s orders.
Yet Stephane Dion said at his invitation-only St. Catharines town hall event, on July 9, 2008:
"We are not through the Green Shift regulating anything, we are just adjusting the federal tax system"!
(Read that again, just so that you can understand and remember Dion's duplicity)

As Gunter writes, the reasoning – the utter alarmist fearmongering, the Liberal-induced panic – about climate change, is certainly man-made, even if climate-change itself is not. Take away the alarmism, and the Dions and the Bradleys suddenly will have less grandiose windmills to tilt at.

It's worth noting Stephane Dion didn’t say a word about health care during his July 9, 2008 St. Catharines appearance; remember when he used to claim it was one of his many hypocritical priorities?!

Bradley’s health system, the NHS, is in a mess, yet the Liberal fan-club merrily claps and cheers for Dion’s tax grabbing strategies.

What are the costs of provincial cap and trade? Why are Ontarians still “choking on dirty air” under Bradley’s Gore-y green-subservient agenda? What are the “dire consequences of global warming” that Bradley fear-mongered about in 2002? Was one of them the subsequent collapse of Ontario’s manufacturing sector under Liberal rule? What exactly has Bradley done about these "dire consequences" – which have been dire for years under Bradley??

Bradley’s own former 1980’s policy advisor, the late Gary Gallon (click here)
noted how Bradley’s environment ministry demanded that Hydro install scrubbers on its coal-fired generators. He noted that Hydro’s response was that nuclear energy was the way to go, not coal, in other words, the policy was “Nukes As Scrubbers”.

Now we see Jim Bradley’s McGuinty Liberals are doing the same thing – pushing for nukes, and doing nothing themselves – for years – about coal-emission remediation.

Hypocrisy, indeed.

No comments: