Wednesday, November 25, 2009

McGuinty Liberals guilty of trafficking health-, economic-, and enviro-fiction

The St.Catharines Standard carries stories, such as the GreenFear-mongering piece above, from May 14, 2009; but where are the challenges to the greenie orthodoxy in the local press?
above - from the National Post, Nov.12, 2009 - the side of the same story which the St.Catharines Standard couldn't be bothered to examine. Sure, why should they!!!!?
*
Dalton McGuinty said during question period in Queen's Park, on Nov.24, 2009, that the opposition was "trafficking fiction" regarding the HST.

Hahhaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And this comes from Liberal McGuinty, the greatest political liar Ontario has ever known!!

McGuinty could have used his insight to describe Al Gore, the kyodiot fellow windbag of Liberals such as McGuinty and MPP Jim Bradley. Gore's in Toronto to promote, pardon... traffic, his book... pardon, kindling... preaching more Gore enviro-fiction. The lefties will unquestioningly lap it up. (Tickets to Gore's Pre-Copenhagen-Propaganda-Fest at the CNE Allstream Centre were $500, the proceeds going to - wait for it - yes: David Suzuki's Greensheviks!) Gosh, you can pretty much bet there won't be a peep of inquisitiveness regarding Gore's years of enviro-bluster from the St.Catharines Standard's (here) laughable 'Green team'!!



See here ("Jim Bradley, Kyoto's pipsqueak", Dec.31, 2007) where I wrote:

"Jim Bradley once dismissively referred to ... “rogue scientists”! (Brock Press, Nov. 19, 2002, by Susan Kerwin) A smug Bradley referred to other politicians (who didn't sing from Bradley's hymn-book) derisively, for example calling Alberta’s Premier Ralph Klein a “Neanderthal”. (St. Catharines Standard, Oct.23, 2002)

But to this day, Jim Bradley, who has questionable (if any) scientific credentials himself, has not revealed what specific scientific evidence (if any) he himself relied upon to politically agitate for Kyoto’s adoption!

Why doesn’t Jim Bradley reveal what specific evidence, in existence prior to the end of 2002, convinced him to support such a flawed concept?" (See more here)


See here ("Liberal Jim Bradley and the "Mystery of the Secret Kyoto files"", Jun.19, 2007) where I wrote:

"In October 2002, St. Catharines Liberal environment critic, M.P.P. Jim Bradley, was booted out of the Legislature for heckling the Ernie Eves' Conservatives, alleging they were "hiding" hundreds of Kyoto documents. Bradley claimed these "secret" files would show that the impact upon Ontario of implementing Kyoto "is not going to be as dire as they have suggested." (Globe and Mail, Nov. 19, 2002) Bradley blustered: "We know that your government is not telling the whole story." (Brantford Expositor, Oct. 23, 2002) A St. Catharines Standard editorial (Nov. 20,2002) called upon Premier Eves "to open the doors and windows and let the sunshine in."

Is anyone today, in 2007, calling to "let the sunshine in" on the failed policies of Ontario's Premier Dalton McGuinty? Are his now-governing Liberals, who for four years fibbed like Pinocchio, "telling the whole story"?

What documents have the Grits hidden, concealing Kyoto's economic impact upon Ontarians? Could it be that, contrary to the histrionics of the Al Gore and David Suzuki traveling salvation shows, the apocalypse is not now? Could it be that not implementing Kyoto is not "going to be as dire as they have suggested"?

Bradley dismissed Kyoto-skeptic experts as "rogue scientists". (Brock Press, Nov. 19, 2002) What are Bradley's scientific credentials? Is this guy fit to pontificate on the science of climate change? In 2002, as Bradley shrieked about his alleged Kyoto "secret" documents, what actual science was he basing his beliefs on at the time - the Mann "hockey-stick" graph, since discredited? Should we believe a "pipsqueak" politician like Bradley, as Ralph Klein once described him (The Standard, Oct. 23, 2002); or, should we believe scientists around the world (lovingly known as 'deniers') who question the climate models, methodology and data interpretations used by fear-inducing, pro-Kyoto tax-grabbers? For example, renowned French scientist Dr. Claude All├Ęgre has stated, as have many others, that there is no basis for saying that the "science is settled." (National Post, Mar. 2, 2007) Patrick Moore, former Greenpeace president, said "Gore and Suzuki will have to eat major crow" over their insistence that man-made global warming is scientifically settled. (Roy Green show, CHML, Mar. 21, 2007)"




So: specifically which "rogue scientists" (see here, Brock Press, interview with Susan Kerwin, Brock University, St.Catharines, Ontario, Nov.19, 2002 edition) was Mr. Bradley referring to, back in 2002?!?

Why won't Jim Bradley, the Liberal MPP from St.Catharines, publicly reveal which information, from which scientists, he used to make his statement?
Why isn't any of Niagara's press (or Ontario's press, for that matter) bothering to ask!!??

Could it be that Liberal Jim Bradley himself was fronting biased POLITICAL positions of "rogue scientists" - the ones now featured in "Climategate" ??! (see here; also here, National Post, Nov.24, 2009)

As Joe Olson wrote here [American Thinker, Nov.25, 2009] :

"Nothing happens in a vacuum and these rogue 'scientists' did not hatch this plot of their own volition. These individuals have been carefully selected and groomed for decades to have preeminence over all other scientists in institutions created or hijacked for a demonic political motive. Human caused global warming has been a Progressive/Eugenic philosophy for over a century and if you are new to this 'debate' then you can not possibly put all the facts in context without a review of history... Now that enough dots have been exposed it is more believable to accept the premise that carbon control and tax has always been about the destruction of western economies and freedom. The resulting social chaos would justify the 'work force reductions' that totalitarian regimes have always required and delivered. There will be no doubt of motives as FIOA request fill in the rest of the picture. Humanity owes a deep debt of gratitude to the hacker/whistleblower in this event. The guilty deserve the wrath of all. "

So, then: Let's look at Liberal MPP Jim Bradley and his beliefs - as Ontario's Environment Minister - on population control: (see here)
Let's ask why, seven years later, Ontario Liberal MPP Jim Bradley still has not revealed which scientists he was referring to in 2002 who were "rogue"; and which specific 'scientists' Bradley was relying on at the time to base his Kyoto-bluster in the Ontario Legislature? Was it the phoney Mann-made-hockey-stick graph which convinced Jim Bradley that Bradley's innate statist political leanings were justified by "science" (later shown to be misleading)??
What's melting is Jim Bradley's Liberal credibility: AGW science certainly isn't settled, it's alleged. Bradley has not proven otherwise. What's settled is Jim Bradley's cavalier, self-serving, GreenFear-mongering politization of a scientific question.
What's settled is Jim Bradley's kyodiot secretiveness.
Whether it is in regards to the HST, to Caledonia, to Ontario's health care monopoly, or the economy, or environmental science, who are the real "rogues" still trafficking fiction in Ontario?
*

No comments: