Credential abuse

Vincent J. Curtis

31 Oct 22

RE: ‘Line of Defense’ Climate Change having broad effects on health-care systems: Lancet. A CP story by Bob Weber.  The Hamilton Spectator 31 Oct 22.

RE: Canada’s healthcare system isn’t ready for new reality: doctors.  A CP sotry by Brenna Owen

The public is again being abused by the claims of false credentialism.  This time it’s medical doctors waving their irrelevant degrees around while yelling “Climate Change!”

The president of the CMA, Dr. Alika Lafontaine, claims that wildfire smoke caused his OR to be shut down, proving that climate is changing.  Then, a spokesperson for the Quebec Chapter of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Claudel Petrin-Desrosiers, claims that Canada’s health care system isn’t prepared for the effects of climate change.

Between 1920 and 1999 the earth’s climates changed a lot.  Temperatures rose from 1920 to 1940, declined from 1940 to 1979, and then rose until 1998 when the global warming pause began.  There was the Spanish Flu pandemic, and TB and polio were serious problems between 1920 and 1960.  The Canadian healthcare system grew dramatically in that period because of the massive wealth that became available through industrialization.

Nobody in 1920 could have forecasted what 1999 would have been like, and certainly no one would put the credibility of their degrees on the line to make such a forecast.

The fact is political activists are prepared to wave their degrees around to advance causes their degrees have no relevance to.  BC has had forest fires going back ten thousand years, and if an HVAC system can’t cope, that’s an engineering problem, not a climate one.

The climate change debate was corrupted from the beginning by politics.  The alleged authority of a politicized doctor doesn’t apply to climate.

-30-

We were badly led

Vincent J. Curtis

29 Oct 22

RE: Ex-Ontario science table advisor calls for mask mandates.  A CP story by Allison Jones.  The Hamilton Spectator 29 Oct 22

If you need a lesson on how badly misled we were and how badly mismanaged the Health Care system was, look no further than the call by Dr.Fahad Razek, the ex-head of the now defunct Ontario “science table” for a return of mask mandates.

There was never much science behind the imposition of the mask mandate or social distancing.  It seemed commonsensical; that was all.  But mask mandates failed to prevent or did anything to mitigate waves 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6.  In addition, Dr. Razak failed to explain how a mask that did not seal closely to the face was supposed to seal viruses out, or in; and never mind whether the filtration material could remove a particle as small as a virus.  In the end, the virus proved too contagious to be contained by any measures or combination of measures on a wide scale.

The healthcare system was converted into a massive COVID treatment arrangement that idled practically every other public health activity: cancer screenings, elective surgeries, and much else.  One group of workers were burned out, and now those who were idled are overwhelmed by the backlog.  Walking and chewing gum at the same time proved beyond the talents of the science table.

Looking back, we see the credentialed class were faking it all along.  They were reduced to trial and error.  But the call for a return to mask mandates is a shameless demonstration of chutzpah, that they were right in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

They learned nothing from the pandemic experience.  But I think the rest of us have.

-30-

Spec gets cancelled

Vincent J. Curtis

28 Oct 22

RE: Several councillors accuse Spectator of contributing to anti-Black racism.  The Hamilton Spectator 28 Oct 22

One of the characteristics of Jacobin-like movements is the tendency to eat their own.  Woke-progressivism developed the technique of cancellation to silence its critics, and now that technique is being attempted on that paragon of woke-progressivism, the Spectator.  For the crime of straight reporting of facts released by the police, a total of 14 people, five future members of city council, five future members of the School Board, and four washouts declared to the Spectator that they won’t speak to the paper again.

We’ll see how long that lasts.  Politicians and media need each other like jam and bread.  It won’t be long before an “anonymous source” leaks derogatory information.  When the Spectator starts running profiles and stories that directly or indirectly criticize the moralistic mediocrities, you can bet they’ll start squawking – to the Spectator.

But let’s enjoy this moment while it lasts.  We won’t have to read about progressive angst for a while.  A short while.

-30-

COP27 Chirping

Vincent J. Curtis

27 Oct 22

The twitterverse is alive with warnings about climate collapse if we don’t stop global temperatures rising by 2℃ by the year 2100.  We have to put on sackcloth and ashes right now to avoid divine punishment for our sins of success, they warn.

The Secretary-General of the UN, who is no scientist, is offered as an expert on the matter.  No one of a scientific bend can take this nonsense seriously, which is why lack of seriousness is made up for by loudness of message.  “DO THIS OR ELSE!!” they warn.

Exactly what happens at 14℃ that doesn’t happen at 12℃ (a difference of 2℃) that would cause the global climate to “collapse” is never stated.  Nitrogen boils at -196℃ and oxygen at -183℃, which is why the earth has an atmosphere.  Ice melts at 0℃ and water boils at 100℃, which is why the earth has liquid oceans and polar ice caps.  But what happens at 14℃ that could cause climate collapse?  Nobody ever says.

Wide areas of the earth experience 2℃ temperature changes on a daily basis, and certainly on an annual basis, but nowhere is there anything like a climate collapse.  In many portions of the earth temperatures rise from single digits to well over 20℃, and yet nothing resembling climate collapse occurs.

Likewise, nobody says what the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will be in 2100 that will cause a 2℃ or more rise in temperature.  Estimates range from 480 to over 1000 ppm, but until there’s a firm grasp on how much CO2 there will be, no one can say that the temperature rise will be above 2℃.

There’s a lot of elaborate and sophisticated hand waving about climate change “science.”  But when you get down to the nubs and ask basic questions, there’s nothing there.

-30-

The malaise returns to Hamilton

Vincent J. Curtis

25 Oct 22

The election results in Hamilton are pointing to a return to malaise.  With Andrea Horwath elected as Mayor, it is unlikely that Premier Doug Ford will bless Hamilton with the “Strong Mayor” system.  It also raises in my mind the question of whether the funding for the LRT will arrive in a timely fashion from the province.  You can also expect heavy handed treatment from the province on zoning matters, particularly on the urban boundary question.  And the city gets four years of this, or as long as both Andrea and Dougie are in power.

You can also expect more woke drama on city council, meaning the important stuff gets ignored.  Cameron Kroetsch was able to mobilize his support in the gay community to defeat Jason Farr, whose failure on the homeless file irritated many in his Ward.  That crisis isn’t going to get resolved any better by Kroetch, but between him and Andrea woke drama will never be far from the main topic of discussion.  Nrinder Nann can be expected to continue with her dour progressivism.

The city dodged a bullet when Ward 14 did not elect Kojo Damptey.  His membership on council would only have added yet another dimension to the woke drama, and all that distraction would take attention away from the important issues.  Wokers can’t help themselves; they have to air their personal demons at every opportunity.

The city can expect a slow decline in investment and quality of life, but lots of psycho-drama, over the next four years as the woke agenda colours every issue before council.

-30-

CO2 at the end of the century

Vincent J. Curtis

25 Oct 22

Newspapers often runs op-eds by climate “activists”, people who don’t understand the science, but know the hype, how to scare the bejesus out of people, and tell them what to do.  What you never hear are the forecasts of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere that supposedly leads to climate collapse, or worse.

The most extreme model is the one policy and all the fear mongering is based on.  It is known as RCP8.5 (Representative Concentration Pathway), and it forecasts over 1000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere in the year 2100, with temperature rise due to “forcing” between 3.2℃ and 5.4℃.  No scientist takes this model seriously because of the extremely high forecast of CO2.

Between 1980 and 2022, a period of 42 years, CO2 has increased by 70 ppm, from 350 to 420 ppm.  Doubling that to 84 years adds 140 ppm more CO2, bringing the total to 560 ppm in the year 2106.  This is far more reasonable, and corresponds to the RCP6 model.  The RCP6 model forecasts 580 to 720 ppm CO2, with “forcing” between 2.0℃ and 3.7℃.

This means that if we do nothing, the goal of the Paris Accord of holding temperature rise at or below 2.0℃ will be met.  We don’t have to eliminate fossil fuels or go electric or rely on the unreliables: wind and solar.

Canada in particular doesn’t need to go climate crazy.  Canada contributes 0.037 ppm per year to the increase.  Over 80 years, Canada will contribute a grand total of 3.0 ppm to the global increase.  That doesn’t justify spending gobs of money on “climate change” or turning our lives upside down out of fear of what might happen in the year 2100.

Worry about the here and now.  The climate future looks fine.

-30-

Roy Spencer (2018) and Judith Curry (2014) both forecast 540 ppm as the stable, long term CO2 concentration.  Spencer’s model forecasts a slow rise to stability by 2250, yes 228 years from now.

 

Paris Accord rests on quicksand

Vincent J. Curtis

24 Oct 22

Most people think that the Paris Climate Accord is firmly based on science.  They would wrong.  It is based on elaborate hand-waving that looks like science, but hides the scientific chicanery going on.  Let me explain.

We are told that we have to keep the global average temperature increase below 1.5℃.  However, it is impossible to find a definite number for that global average temperature; it is referred to as the “pre-industrial” temperature and has no assigned number.  In fact, what constitutes “pre-industrial” is left up for grabs.  The latest period for which atmospheric CO2 level was 280 ppm was prior to the year 1800, and it’s impossible to get a measured global average temperature of any kind for that era.

It gets worse.  Nobody knows what the CO2 concentration will be in the year 2100.  I’ll test a couple scenarios to illustrate the nonsense.  The RCP8.5 model (Representative Concentration Pathway) forecasts 1000 ppm CO2 in 2100, producing a temperature rise of 4.3℃ and a “radiative forcing” (i.e. the greenhouse effect of that CO2) of 8.5 W/m².  But for 8.5 W/m² of additional forcing to increase temperature by 4.3℃, it requires the “global average temperature” to be 204K, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law.  That’s -69℃!

Another scenario is the RCP2.6 model, based on 480 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere.  It forecasts a rise of 1.8℃ with radiative forcing of 2.6 W/m².  For that much radiative forcing to produce a temperature rise of 1.8℃, it requires the global average temperature, by the Stefan-Boltzmann law, to be 180K roughly, a cold day in Antarctica.  These two models don’t even use the same ridiculously cold temperature as their base “global average temperature!”

If you take the global average temperature to be a reasonable 16℃, then radiative forcing of 8.5 W/m² produces a temperature rise of 1.5℃ by Stefan-Boltzmann - and that’s for 1000 ppm CO2.  The RPC2.6 model using a base temperature of 16℃ results in a temperature rise of less than half a degree Celsius.

Even the worse-case model, of unrestricted CO2 increase forecasting 1000 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere - RPC8.5 - only forecasts a rise of 1.5℃ by 2100 when you use a reasonable base temperature.

This in turn raises another question unanswered by the “climate science” and that is, what is magical about 17.5℃, or 20℃ or 22℃?  What happens at that temperature to cause the earth’s climate to collapse, or otherwise go crazy?  The climate scientists need to answer this question, but don’t expect an answer any time soon.

The science behind the Paris Climate Accord amounts to elaborate, inconsistent hand-waving that doesn’t seem to understand the significance of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

-30-

Let me again tip my hat to Howard Hayden, Ph.D. whose presentation at the ICCC conference on 28 Oct 21 made me aware of these issues involving the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

 

 

Paris Accord an empty gesture

Vincent J. Curtis

23 Oct 22

There are plenty of alleged climate experts out there who claim the Paris Climate Accord is essential to saving the world from disaster in the year 2100.  The problem is that the Paris Accord is built on sand.

One of the claims is that the global average temperature has to be kept from rising by 1.5℃, or 2℃, and that disaster looms if temperatures rise by 3℃ or more.  What is never stated in the Accord, in various IPCC Reports, and other highly official documents is rising above what?  Nowhere is the base temperature actually stated.  Nowhere in the official literature is the global average temperature given, be it 16℃, or 15℃, or whatever.  It simply isn’t stated.  Part of the reason is that “Global Average Temperature” is not defined in the Paris Accord, or in the official literature!

Another fallacy on which the Paris Accord is based is the expression “pre-industrial levels.”  When is the “pre-industrial” period, exactly?  Well, that’s another thing left to be resolved at some future date.  The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) takes the period 1880 to 1937 as the baseline for the “pre-industrial” period, but the literature on the subject says that 1720 to 1800 is the most suitable choice.  The Paris Accord leaves pre-industrial period undefined.

Then, there’s CO2.  There’s plenty of forecasts of emission quantities going out to 2100, but no one has a firm range of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in 2100.  The only thing firm about CO2 is that the pre-industrial level is 280 ppm, which corresponds to the 1720 to 1800 period.

Hence the Paris Accord asks the world to keep temperature rise 1.5℃ below we know not what.  It also offers no firm numbers on atmospheric CO2 level we need to keep below to keep temperatures from rising above some critical level.  It simply maintains that more is bad.

When the climate crazies say they “follow the science” they don’t know what they’re talking about because there is no science in this.  Nothing that can be checked empirically, that is.

The problem with all of these is lack of firm data that would lift these claims above the purely arbitrary.  There is no global temperature measurements in 1720, and the business didn’t get started until 1860.  The US is the only place with good temperature data over a large area before 1920.  There were no weather stations in South America, Africa, most of Asia, the Arctic, Antarctic, the oceans, and most of Australia before 1920, so some average is impossible based on measurements.

In addition, there is an arbitrariness to assigned some period as the baseline.  Temperatures in the U.S. rose from 1880 to 1939, fell from 1940 to 1979, and then started rising again from 1980 to 1998.  There was the pause in global warming from 1998 to 2015, and we could be in another pause period.  To say 1.5℃ above something means you have to say what that something is first, and then explain why 1.5℃ is a critical thing.  Any pre-industrial period is going to have the same ups and downs as the 20^th century experience if it’s big enough.

The science behind global warming falls apart as soon as you ask questions that would enable empirical checking.

-30-

With at tip of the hat to Howard Hayden, Ph.D. whose presentation at the ICCC conference on 28 Oct 21 brought to my attention the lack of definiteness in the global warming argument.  It took me three runs of the video to grasp what he was saying, but once I understood where his computations were coming from, it hit me the lack of accountability on the global warming side.

Another point Dr. Hayden made was the embarrassing claims made in peer reviewed literature by alleged scientists.  One I ran across, in preparation for this, was the claim that CO2, followed by CH4 and N2O were the most important greenhouse gases.  In fact, water vapour, H2O, is by far the most important GHG, first because it is present in vast quantities as compared to CO2, and because it absorbs all over the IR spectrum, not just in a few discrete areas like CO2, CH4, and N2O.  That a climate "scientist" could make such an egregious error I find strangely unsurprising.

 

Liz Truss but an example

Vincent J. Curtis

21 Oct 22

Progressives see the rising tide of “populism” in the western world as a threat to their power and dominance.  They condemn it as fascism.  But what would explain this spontaneous rise of fascism around the world?  Mussolini had the political confusion and violence of Italy to propel him to power, and Hitler had the economic chaos of Weimar Germany and the fear of communism that gave him a base of popularity.  So what explains this rise of what progressives condemn as fascism?

The first undeniable victory of modern “populism” was Brexit.  Nobody expected the U.K. to vote for something all the elites condemned.  Then Donald Trump was elected president on the cries of “Make America Great Again,” “America First,” and “Drain the Swamp!”  Trump was the ultimate outsider, having never run for or held public office and was independent wealthy, not dependent on anyone to finance his bid for the Republican nomination.  More recently, right wing (far-right!) parties in Sweden and Italy rose to power over the immigration issues in their countries.  Poland the Hungary have long been stalwarts of the allegedly fascist camp because they refused from the start to take in waves of immigrants that Merkel’s Germany invited into Europe.

The political battle is better seen as between globalist and a natural conservative instinct in a people.  The globalists are progressive, with all the outlook and high self-regard of that movement, together with the ruthless tactics of the extreme and far left.

Brexit was resisted by the globalists of the Cameron Conservatives, and Elizabeth May, another remainder, lacked the intestinal fortitude to carry out the will of the British people, a will she disagreed with.  A constitutional crisis was brewing in Britain which had voted for Brexit but the government wasn’t delivering on, until Boris Johnson became Conservative leader.  He promised to deliver on Brexit, and was awarded with an 80 seat majority in the House of Commons.  He more or less delivered, but his success was hamstrung with the Northern Ireland Protocol, continuing to admit the jurisdiction of the ECHR that stopped his solution to the immigration crisis, and lastly by the continuing treasonous sabotage by the NLBI and Royal Navy that continue to ferry illegal immigrants from France at the rate of 1000 per day.

Johnson was brought down by the Remain element in British politics, which included the London Met.  His successor, Liz Truss, was another weakling who promised what conservatives wanted but immediately deviated from her promises the moment she was appointed Prime Minister.  She was forced to remove two strong Brexiteers and conservatives from her government and replace them with Globalists and Remainers, in particular the notorious Jeremy Hunt.  Machinations of globalist Remainers have so far stifled the completion of Brexit, and the people are noticing that it doesn’t matter whom they vote for, they get the same policies they rejected.  This is the real “threat to democracy”: getting the same policy regardless of whom you vote for.

In the United States, Donald Trump was attacked by the Deep State, in particular the FBI, even before he was elected President.  Even now he is harassed, being a threat to run again.  The political outlook of the FBI is Democrat, which at this moment means woke progressive, without fear of using the criminal enforcement powers of the state to harass and even harm the political enemies of the regime.  Trump made a big difference to the benefit of American during his term, but it didn’t matter.  It wasn’t the Democrats doing it, and therefore it had to be wrong.

“America First” is nothing but a rejection of the globalist vision, which sees the west as unlimited in power and wealth and guilty of subjugation and impoverishing everyone else.  By the lights of revenge and “resentment” the west deserves to be brought low, humbled, and humiliated for its immoderate success and guilt.  The global warming movement began as a means of depriving the west of cheap, reliable energy, a key underpinning of its economic success, and it has since exploded into a global religion.

But this winter, Europe is going to freeze because supplies of natural gas from Russia are cut off and of the “net-zero” craziness that prevented development of its domestic supplies of natural gas.  Europe is have to restart coal-fired electoral power plants and extend the lives of nuclear power plants to prevent disaster this winter.  If the globalists had their way, people would freeze to death in Europe because they couldn’t pay the heating bills.  The globalists would blame climate change.

That fearful cry from globalists of the rise of fascism and the condemnation of propulsion is nothing but a reaction to democracy asserting itself.  People are becoming wise to the trickery of getting the same essential policies that they reject regardless of whom they vote for.  That’s why they’re turning to unconventional political figures who haven’t depended on the machine for their rise to prominence, but rather to being outspoken in challenging the globalist conventions.

Unless, the U.K. Conservative party selects a leader with a jihadi determination and intensity to complete Brexit and deal with the immigration crisis, the party itself risks destruction at the next general election.

In my view, the right person to lead the Conservatives now is Kemi “Boudicca” Badenoch, with Suella Braverman second.  Boris Johnson might make an extraordinary political resurrection, but with his flaws he will soon be seen as yesterday’s man.  He has learned nothing from his fall.  Penny Mordaunt is another Liz Truss, another prospective middle of the road big disappointment to Conservatives, a globalist and a Remainer.

As woke progressivism under the guidance and inspiration of the World Economic Forum brings greater economic and cultural disasters upon the western world more and more “fascist”, “far-right,” “populist” candidates will rise and, if they can stand the onslaught of a fake media who are globalist, progressive, and Democrat to the core, will get elected and, hopefully, make a dent in the craziness in the face of deep state resistance.

The real threat to democracy is getting the same policies you voted against regardless of whom you voted for.

-30-

 

Horwath insults Hamiltonians

Vincent J. Curtis

20 Oct 22

RE: Defaced Horwath sign sparks hate-crime probe. By Teviah Moro.  The Hamilton Spectator 20 Oct 22

“We cannot tolerate this trend.  Community leaders in Hamilton have to call out hate crime when they see it,” exclaims Andrea Horwath.  What trend?  No, really, what trend?  Horwath had one election sign in a remote area defaced in a manner characteristic of a progressive hoax, and Horwath is out there calling for pity and blaming, in an intolerant tone, a trend of hatred in Hamilton.  Well, who would be the carrier of hate?  Why, a growing segment of Hamilton’s population, of course.

It’s very clever.  Andrea claims to be the victim of a hate crime, and the electorate can show that they’re not part of this trend of hatred – by voting for Andrea!

I’m not saying that Andrea ordered her sign to be defaced.  The trick works best when she doesn’t know, but forces friendly to her created this useful situation that she could decry.  The nature of the defacement plays perfectly into the progressive mind-set, which is another clue that it’s self-inflicted.  A right-winger would have drawn a hammer and sickle on her sign, not a swastika!

Hamiltonians are being brow-beaten into voting progressive with insinuations they have to prove they’re not racist, sexist, misogynist, etc.  One hopes the electorate realizes they’re being insulted and being had.

-30-

 

Trudeau shirked duty, not Ford

Vincent J. Curtis

19 Oct 22

RE: Ottawa Mayor, PM accuse Ford of inaction, inquiry told.  CP story by David Fraser.

“Prime Minister Justine Trudeau and Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson both accused Ontario Premier Doug Ford of shirking his duty to help disperse the ‘Freedom Convoy’…”  A better case can be made that Trudeau shirked his duty, which was to defuse a situation caused by his choice of inane policy.  But tyrants fear looking weak, and so Trudeau chose confrontation over compromise.

It would have cost Trudeau nothing to have met with a delegation of the Convoy to discuss a redress of their grievance, which was the mandatory vaccination of truckers.  At the back end of the last COVID wave, Trudeau could well have said that some other way would be found that meets the government’s goals and removes the truckers’ grievance.

But he didn’t, and so force would be necessary to disperse the Truckers, who weren’t going away despite the pleas of politicians without answers.

Ford did use the OPP to break up the blockade at the Ambassador Bridge on February 13, before the Emergencies Act was declared, and it required a lot of OPP presence to pull it off.  Ottawa had to wait its turn, for despite the city’s sense of its own importance, the blockade at Windsor was costing a $1 Billion in trade every day.

The harassed Mayor, a liberal stalwart, would blame Ford instead of Trudeau for his misery.  But politicians are supposed to deal with people they don’t like.  It was Trudeau’s job to defuse the situation that he created.

-30-

Unconvincing climate story

Vincent J. Curtis

17 Oct 22

RE: Extreme weather a pressing issue for Ontario’s vineyards.  CP story by Holly McKenzie-Sutter.  The Hamilton Spectator 17 Oct 22.

The obsession with climate change is even more persistent – and more noxious – than the COVID pandemic.  The page 1 story on how one Niagara grape grower was allegedly affected by “climate change” to a trained eye and mind actually shows the opposite of what the story slant was intended to show.

The opening line runs, “One extremely cold day last winter was all it took to cause widespread damage to Bill Redelmeier’s wine crops.”  Let’s start here.  CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes global warming, and an extremely cold day can’t be assigned to global warming, and so it is assigned to mysterious climate change instead.  The extreme cold one day last January caused vascular injury to the plants, and the results were seen in characteristics of this season’s crop.  The fact that this kind of injury could be recognized shows that this damage has happened before, and in fact Mr. Redelmeier had precautions in place to prevent such occurrences.  These precautions proved unavailing.

The effects of cold on Niagara vines are known, and a recurring issue, which is why precautions are taken to prevent freezing.  This day in January proved too cold for the precautions, and some, but not all, of the crop was affected.  One day does not a climate make, especially when the alleged driver of change is supposed to make things warmer, not colder.

Try again!

-30-

The reason we hear of climate change instead of global warming is that between 1998 and 2015, global temperatures stopped rising – the so-called “global warming pause.”  The term climate change was invented and substituted for global warming because rising CO2 levels weren’t producing the rising temperatures like the theory forecasted.  Now, unusual cold as well as unusual warmth are both attributed to rising CO2 levels, and even not rising at all, but common but unusual weather events are attributed to rising CO2 levels.  Now trapped energy is still energy, and it has to manifest itself in some way, and that way is in higher temperatures.  The climate crazies desperately try to hide the lack of energy in the atmosphere somewhere, somehow.  By waving credentials around, shouting loudly, and silencing those who point out the weaknesses in their arguments, the climate cabal have convinced a lot of people that doom is nigh, unless we effectively destroy western civilization immediately.

Science philosopher Karl Popper had a test for the validity of a scientific claim, and that is the falsifiability test.  Can a proposition be falsified, and if so, how?  A proposition that can’t be falsified in not scientific.  The switch from global warming to climate change was made because the global warming pause was falsifying the CO2 causes global warming proposition.  Climate change is not falsifiable.  And, the climate is always changing.

Kojo Damptey Grievance monger

Vincent J. Curtis

16 Oct 22

RE: Hatred on the rise.  The Hmailton Spectator 15 Oct 22

No doubt about it, Kojo Damptey, is a victim.  He’s been playing the race hustling game since he graduated with a B.Eng from McMaster University in 2007.  Besides race, another big cause with him is decolonization.  He’s running for yet another job on the public teat, and lo and behold if someone didn’t allegedly commit an act of “hatred” against him.  Someone allegedly put a sticker on one of his election signs that said “White people first.”  Long experience with this sort of thing tells me that this is a hoax, that someone within Damptey’s own campaign, or a sympathizer, did this.  It was only done once, and the sticker wasn’t big enough to be read easily.  But the news is out.  Defacing of Damptey’s election sign with a racist slogan makes him a victim of Hamilton’s racism for which Ward 14 can atone by electing him. And he’s in a tough election.  How convenient.

Damptey immigrated to Canada from Ghana about twenty years ago.  While colonialization may have a bad reputation in Ghana, Damptey is the worst kind of colonizer in Canada, he’s an immigrant.  He immigrated to, and therefore “colonized,” Canada by choice as a young adult.  The irony escapes him, and most others.

He’s also on record as being concerned everyday about his being a Black man in Canada, in which he’s lived for twenty years without thought of return to Ghana and has three university degrees.  His two Master’s degrees pertain to grievance studies and race hustling, so Damptey is comfortable enough about being Black in Canada to make a career of complaining about racism in it.

Damptey has lived a privileged life in Canada, certainly one much better than he’d have had had he spent his adulthood in Ghana.  So, how does he repay Canada for taking him in, educating him, and then providing him with a living?  He repays Canada with ingratitude and fault-picking of the most hypocritical kind.  And then he seeks public office and asks for the votes of people he holds responsible for all the evils in the world.

This race incident won’t be investigated enough to prove that the defacing of his election sign was a hoax, but that’s what experience is screaming.  Hopefully, the electorate of Ward 14 will see through this man, a complainer of privilege since Canada welcomed him.

-30-

 

 

Editorial memory hole

Vincent J. Curtis

14 Oct 22

RE: The high cost of pandering to extremism. Spectator editorial 14 Oct 22.

It would be nauseating were it not so laughable for the Spectator to editorialize about pandering to extremism, especially on the matter of vaccinations.  The Spectator was at the forefront of demonizing those who refused vaccination.  It was “a pandemic of the unvaccinated!” cried the Spectator.  Wear a mask!  Masks prevent the spread!

Of course none of this was true.  When the data started to show that healthy people under the age of sixty were at greater risk from the vaccine than from COVID, the Spectator suppressed the information.  9Misinformation!) When it became clear that the vaccines didn’t stop infection or prevent spread, the Spectator suppressed the information.  (Mustn’t contradict the experts in charge!) It unquestionably supported the “booster” when it was obvious that, at best, a booster lasted only two to three months and then left the person more vulnerable to infection than an unvaccinated person.  The Spectator never published the fact that the media age of death from COVID was greater than the average life expectancy. The Spectator was all in on demonizing the people who turned out to be right.

Same with masks.  How a mask that did not seal closely to the face was supposed to seal out viruses was never explained, but the Spectator went all in on mask mandates – mandating the useless because it made COVID Karens feel righteous.

When it came to propagating hatred against a minority opinion the Spectator was out front.  And this was all pointed out in real time; but the editors paid no attention.  Progressivism is always right, even when it’s not.  That’s why there’s a memory hole.

-30-

Persistence of the Ozone Hole

Vincent J. Curtis

14 Oct 22

RE: Ozone hole grows this year but still shrinking in general. AP story by  Seth Borenstein.  The Hamilton Spectator 14 Oct 22.

The first triumph of the global environmental movement was the Montreal Protocol, which banned CFCs because they allegedly depleted atmospheric ozone.  Ozone is created by the action of ultraviolet light from the sun on oxygen in the upper atmosphere.  The consumption of UV radiation in the production of ozone means less UV light reached the ground.  This is good, so allegedly an ozone hole must be bad.

The funny thing about the ozone hole over Antarctica is that it occurs only in the southern winter, when the sun isn’t shining on the continent or the atmosphere above it.  Differences in wind circulation patterns over the North and South Poles could explain why the Arctic Ocean does not experience an ozone hole during the northern winter, while Antarctica does.

But these observations were dismissed without explanation, and the environmental crowd simply insisted that CFCs had to be banned because they caused the ozone hole over Antarctica,

All but the fanatics admitted that the science linking CFCs to ozone depletion was weak, and so the “pre-cautionary principle” was invoked to justify banning CFCs.  Well, nearly forty years on we see the ozone hole is still there long after CFCs were banned.  This means that “CFCs cause ozone depletion” is proven false, and the precaution unnecessary.

After their triumph banning CFCs, the environmentalists turned their attention to carbon.

-30-

 

Far Right! Be frightened!

Vincent J. Curtis

11 Oct 22

RE: Poilievre a rising star for the far-right. Op-ed by Bob Hepburn.  The Hamilton Spectator 11 Oct 22.

Among its stable of exhausted typists and assorted barn flies, Torstar’s dumbest has to be Bob Hepburn.  (Admittedly, the competition is fierce!)  Torstar has been an organ of the Liberal Party since its inception, and right now the Liberal Trudeau government is in trouble.  So, like a Blue Jays manager, Torstar management goes to its bullpen and calls out this arm-weary wheeze.

Alex Jones! Far-right! Conspiracy fuelled far-right bigots and zealots!  The troubling group of people who support him!  One fat stinker ball pitch after another.  Guilt by association.  Cynically playing to the low information voter.  Poilievre’s not dancing to our tune and denouncing the people we want him to denounce!

But what worries Hepburn is that Poilievre is also a favorite of the blue-haired set.  The people who look at Poilievre and think he’s too geeky to be evil; they like his feistiness, his obvious competence, and they like what he says about too much tax and too little freedom in Canada.  A lot of people do, like the 350,000 “troubling people who support him” and who signed up to vote for him to be party leader.

The smearing of one’s opponent as “far-right” or “fascist” began with Stalin, which shows you where Hepburn lies on the political spectrum to regard Poilievre as “far-right!”

-30-

The significance of Danielle Smith

Vincent J. Curtis

7 Oct 22

On Thursday, the United Conservative Party of Alberta chose Danielle Smith over Travis Toews as the party’s next leader, and prospectively the next provincial premier.  In doing so, the party chose confrontation over co-existence, and stridency over firmness.  Central Canada can expect an Alberta government that as much gets into the face of the Ottawa-Trudeau government as Trudeau’s government gets into the face of Albertans.

Smith was once the leader of the Wildrose Party, an Alberta separatist party along the lines of the Parti Quebecois.  The Wildrose amalgamated with the Alberta PC party to form the UCP after the Alberta PCs lost to the NDP in the 2015 provincial election

Smith has a hard-core minority support within the UCP.  She gained 41 percent of the vote on the first ballot of the leadership race, and did not go over 50 percent until the sixth and last ballot, a head to head matchup against Toews, a social conservative in the Kenney mould.  Direct confrontation with Ottawa is a strong minority opinion in the province, and much turns on how far the Trudeau government pursues it policies that are hostile to Alberta.

Alberta is pretty conservative.  Think of Toronto, 1962.  And libertarian.  Christianity is highly respected out here, and woke progressivism and leftist politics abrasively rubs people the wrong way.  Kenney got into trouble when police were arresting protestant pastors and closing churches upon the order of health officials, of all people, and charging rodeo organizers for putting together outdoor rodeos on a completely voluntary basis killed.  His failure to restrain out-of-control policing during the COVID epidemic cost Kenney any love there was for the man.  Kenney tied his star to Alberta Chief Medical Officer of Health Deena Henshaw instead of restraining her excesses.

There is hardly a Liberal elected west of the Ontario-Manitoba border.  The Trudeau government responds in kind, and all three of Alberta’s major industries are under attack by the Trudeau government.  Oil & gas, agriculture, and cattle ranching are all in Trudeau’s sights for their alleged contributions to climate change (A Central Canadian and big city hobby horse out here.)  In particular, the Trudeau government has done nothing to expand exports of Alberta resources by the construction of pipelines over the Rocky Mountains, or push Keystone XL when Trump was president.  Alberta is valued only for its transfer payments.

Albertans are pretty calm about gun ownership, and all the types of guns most useful for dealing with prairie dog infestation and small predators have been prohibited by Ottawa, and will soon be confiscated by force if necessary.  The Ministers of Justice of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, have told Ottawa that the RCMP, which they hire for provincial police services, cannot be diverted to the confiscation of firearms, while on the province’s dime not less.  Guns may scare big city Ontarians, but seizing the private property of people because Ottawa thinks it immoral is a serious point of confrontation between Alberta values and Ottawa whimsy.  Besides, in rural Alberta police response can be 45 minutes at best. 

Smith’s brand of confrontational politics wouldn’t work but for the thoughtless antagonism Ottawa engages in.  Alberta was nearly three weeks behind Ontario in receipt of the first supplies of COVID vaccine.  Ottawa’s moralistic values are not Alberta values, and Trudeau can’t leave well enough alone.

Danielle Smith can be expected to stridently confront the Trudeau government early and often.  Smith’s rise is the product of decades of Ottawa pushing its values on Alberta with the power it has as a Federal government.  Smith’s Alberta Sovereignty Act is going to challenge that.  Most Albertans prefer peaceful coexistence with Ottawa, but there are lots of young people out here with the stomach for confrontation, and the Trudeau government pushed enough people into the “we have fight” camp that Smith’s strong minority became a majority on Thursday night.

-30-

Attack class submarines

Vincent J. Curtis

16 Aug 22

On 16 September, 2021, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced a trilateral security pact with the UK and the US, called AUKUS, (or NOTCANNZ in some circles) The UK and US would help Australia acquire nuclear powered submarines.  An hour before the announcement, the Aussies informed the French government that it was cancelling the contract to acquire the French designed Shortfin-Barracuda class submarine, a conventional diesel-electric, which the Aussies were going to dub the Attack class.  The French explosion and cries of maudit-anglais, were heard around the world.  (Roughly translated, the French complained of an Anglo-Saxon condominium.)

On 11 June 2022, Australia’s new Labour government made financial settlement with the French to the tune of US$584 million, which is a lot to pay for blueprints you’re not going to use.

Australia’s strategic requirements ask of her submarines an unusually long operational range, a manifestation of the ‘tyranny of distance’ in the Pacific theatre.  Australia’s current Collins class submarines, conventional diesel-electrics, are on the big side.

A Collins class sub displaces 3100 tons (surface), is 77.4 m in length, 7.8 m beam, 11,500 nmi range, 50 days endurance, and a complement of 58.

The Attack class subs would have displaced 4500 tons (surface) be of 97 m length, 8.8 m beam, 18,000 nmi in range, 80 days endurance, and a complement of 80.  The rising threat of China, and a desire to operate closely with the United States in respect of China, accounts for the greater capability of the newer class.  By granting Australia access to U.S. nuclear technology, the U.S. gives the RAN much greater operational capability in terms of range and endurance.

Australia replaced its Oberon class subs with the Collins class.  Canada replaced hers with the Lemon class of subs. (HMCS Lemon, Cumquat, Pomegranate, and Pumpkin.  What’s that?  The Victoria, Chicoutimi, Windsor, and Corner Brook?  Hokay.)

The Upholder/Victoria/Lemon class displace 2455 tons (surface), are 70.3 m in length, 7.2 m beam, 8,000 nmi range, an endurance of 30 days, and a complement of 53.  Though acquired by Canada in 1998, the class did not become fully operational until 2016.  Under the Trudeau government’s defence white paper, Weak, Anxious, Distracted these subs are to undergo life-extending refits for another life-cycle of eight years.  This will take the service of the class into the early 2030s.  These babies are already pushing forty years old, and by the middle 2030s will be at the half-century mark in age.  They’ll have definitely hit CRA.  Even if the steel can hold up to the pressures of 200 m depth, the electronics in them will be as obsolete as vacuum tubes.

Replacing the Lemons (er Victorias – can’t help myself!) with Attack class subs seems to present itself.  Attacks may offer more capability than Canada needs – if you’re focussed on the North Atlantic.  But after the Ukraine, the US and UK can likely handle the Russian Atlantic threat without Canadian help.  In the Pacific, however, where China continues to sabre-rattle vigorously over Taiwan, and extends her reach farther south in the Pacific and into the Indian Ocean, the RCN might find usefulness in the North Pacific, home not only to the Chinese fleet, but to the port of Vladivostok.

Alternatively, Canada could opt for the nuclear-powered version of the French sub, giving her fleet under-ice capability.  Bu the Trudeau government doesn’t want that.  Perhaps fearing the adverse perception of ‘nuclear’ as beset the Mulroney government’s acquisition plans, or perhaps it doesn’t want to know, and therefore have to confront, Russian and American presumptions upon Canada’s claimed territorial waters in the High Arctic.  Ignorance being bliss.

The Attack class won’t come cheap.  The Aussies were budgeting A$90 billion to acquire a dozen.  That translates into C$28 billion for four.  Canada is already committing C$77 billion for 15 frigates.  Will the RCN get another C$30 billion for 4 new subs or will that capability lapse?  Decisions need to be made before 2025 to avoid lapse.

-30-

Nanfan Nonsense

Vincent J. Curtis

5 Oct 22

RE: Treaty rights being ignored in Chedoke Creek cleanup. Op-ed by Aaron Deltor.  The Hamilton Spectator 5 Oct 22.

A small group of Six Nations, who fancy themselves the ‘Haudenosaunee Chiefs Confederacy Council’ and who are pretending to speak on behalf of “the Haudenosaunee.” are as absurd as a group of hereditary British peers claiming to speak on behalf of England.

We’re supposed to be impressed, but the plethora of groups claiming to speak on behalf of the entire band got to the point where elected band councils were imposed so that a single voice, with legitimacy conferred by democracy, could speak and act for the entire band.

The rights claimed under the Nanfan “Treaty” by the spokesman for the HCCC are nonsense.  Nanfan was a straightforward “voluntary surrender and quit claim” of title to land the Iroquois did not actually possess, in exchange for British military protection against Indian bands allied with the French.  Surrendered territory included the “land between the lakes” which was actually possessed by the Mississaugas of the Credit and subject to the Dish with One Spoon Wampum treaty.  In 1701, the Haudenosaunee surrendered all their rights under Nanfan, and gained none, hoping to use the British against their Indian enemies. (Oh, look!  Those Indians allied with the French are encroaching on our land, the land we surrendered to you!)

The spokesman for the HCCC talks through his hat in claiming rights under Nanfan, and besides, the group he allegedly speaks on behalf of has no legal legitimacy.

-30-

See my Sept 29 posting “Mohawks, circa 1701.”

Assuming your conclusions

Vincent J. Curtis

5 Oct 22

RE: Big Oil’s damning role in climate disaster.  Opinion by Torstar Columnist Linda McQuaig.  The Hamilton Spectator 5 Oct 22

It used to be considered an academic scandal to assume one’s conclusions.  Now, that’s become standard procedure in the Humanities, thoroughly polluted and made rotten by Marxist nihilism.  Assumer her conclusions is the procedure employed by Torstar typist Linda McQuaig.  She assumes that oil company executives are responsible for climate change, that it’s already here, and that it’s bad.

You’d expect a Marxist to accuse “Big Oil” for CO2 emissions, but not Communist China or emerging India which are building coal-fired power plants, and are responsible for 40 percent of world CO2 emissions, and growing.

Never mind that climate change is supposed to happen by 2050 or 2100, Hurricane Ian is proof that it’s here now.  Why, a famous media go-to person for endorsing climate change was coaxed into saying as much!  Never mind that CNN host Don Lemon got his head handed on to him TV by the NOAA Hurricane Center expert when Lemon tried coaxing him into saying that Hurricane Ian’s “intensity” was caused by climate change.  No, you can’t say that Don about any one weather evert, as McQuaig does.

The most deadly hurricane in Canadian history occurred in September, 1775, when over 4,000 people were killed in Newfoundland.  Over the last hundred years the number of people killed by natural disasters world-wide has fallen by 90 percent.  None of the “facts” alleged by McQuaig are, in fact, “facts.”

For all the hype, no one has shown that changing climate, which, historically, is always changing, is caused by man exclusively.  That’s always assumed, as is that change is bad.  Not so; the medieval warm period were great times for human prosperity.

When you assume your conclusions, your academic product is worthless.  Making the right progressive noises might get you a pass in high-school English, but in the grown-up world, work like McQuaig offers is a waste of space.

-30-

Abolishing the Monarchy: Some Stupid Ideas Never Die

Vincent J. Curtis

3 Oct 22

RE: It’s time for a Canadian to serve as head of state.  Op-ed by Craig Wallace.  The Hamilton Spectator 3 Oct 22.

Some stupid ideas never die, and the idea of replacing our monarchy with a politically neutered president elected at large is one of them.  The author alleges that a Canadian isn’t our head of state, and he may have a point.  Mary Simon, our Governor-General, who, by the Letters Patent of 1947, is vested with all the powers of our Head of State, is an Innu woman, an aboriginal, who has Canadian citizenship.  Is she Canadian enough? I’m not so sure.

Beginning with Vincent Massey in 1952, we’ve had a succession of Canadian Governors-General, from war hero George Vanier to CBC personalities like Jeanne Sauve and Adrienne Clarkson.  Clarkson is an immigrant from Hong Kong and is especially proud of her Chinese roots, making her bona fides as truly “Canadian” fall into doubt by the reckoning of the author.  Not Canadian enough.

The logical problem faced by the King is that he is in no sense a subject of himself nor a ‘citizen’ of his realm.  And he is largely absentee.  We solve that in Canada by having him represented by someone who is more or less Canadian, and vest that person with all the powers of the Monarch.

Canada has the best form of government.  No politician can aspire to the greatness of a monarch, as happens embarrassingly in the U.S.  An elected president could not long remain politically neuter in a democracy.  In addition, there is all that ugly politics associated with the highest office in the land, which doesn’t happen with a Governor –General.

The solution to an alleged problem causes more problems than it solves.

-30-

 

Indigenous peoples did not found Canada

Vincent J. Curtis

3 Oct 22

RE: Mace should recognize indigenous peoples.  Op-ed by Waubageshig (Harvey McCue) and Pat Steenberg.  McCue is an Anishinaabe in Ottawa.  Steenberg has been a CBC radio producer, a House of Commons procedural clerk and leader of a national NGO, who is now retired and living in Ottawa.  The Hamilton Spectator 3 Oct 22.

Romantic illusions about indigenous peoples are reaching a fever pitch, and surely the illusion that indigenous peoples were, along with the British and French, founders of Canada represents a crescendo.  Nothing more absurd, nothing that more flies in the face of the facts could be said.  Read Canadian history post 1837, read about the Indian Act, read about the granting of Canadian citizenship to aboriginals in 1952 if you want to understand how false is the claim that indigenous were a founding people of Canada.  The idea of First Nation, the existence of reserves, and the treaties belie the idea that indigenous ever wanted to be a part of the political arrangement known as Canada.  Indigenous consider themselves outside it.

Indigenous were not represented at Charlottetown, or in London.  The Riel Rebellions were fought by Indigenous and Metis.  Not being British subjects, they didn’t have the right to vote, unless, under the Indian Act they gave up their status and entered mainstream Canadian society.  Indigenous per se weren’t granted the right to vote until the 1950s, and still largely do not participate in Federal elections.  They are barely a part of Canada today, never mind a founding people in the sense that the British and French were.

Putting some representation of indigenous peoples into the Parliamentary Mace is also fraught with problems.  In the first place, given the rages of today, why wouldn’t any representation of aboriginals be taken as a sign of racist appropriation?  There is also the problem that no symbol will do, because indigenous were never a single people.  Europeans and Africans never formed a single, coherent group, and neither did the indigenous of Canada, so what would symbolize indigenous if there is no point of unity among them?

We need to resist the urge to “do good” or “improve things” just because it makes us feel good.  We need to consider the wisdom of something.  Sobriety comes in the morning, so why add to the pain with remembrances of foolish acts distorted perceptions?

-30-